Private ‘litter police’ make city streets a minefield of fines for dropping rubbish
Councils are accused of ‘incentivising’ commercial enforcers to hand out tickets to ‘soft targets’
THE use of “litter police” is on the rise as councils “incentivise” private companies to hand out fines, making members of the public in some areas almost 20 times more likely to be given a ticket, an investigation by The Daily Telegraph found.
Public anger is growing over the use of the companies, some of which are allowed to keep fines in their entirety, with claims that some enforcers look for “easy targets” of people who accidentally litter or drop cigarette butts.
Around one in seven English councils responsible for issuing fixed penalty notices now hands over its powers to private enforcers, a number that has tripled in three years.
Most of the councils which revealed the financial details of their arrangements allowed the company to keep half of every fine, but in some cases this rose to 100 per cent.
Josie Appleton, head of the Manifesto Club, a civil liberties campaign group, said: “It is fundamentally against the principles of justice that you have an incentive to punish. As a result companies pick easy targets and fine people who haven’t done anything wrong or who have made a mistake rather than go for more serious offenders who are more difficult to catch. They are looking for a person who drops a cigarette butt or something.”
Complaints levelled at the largest enforcement company – Kingdom – include that officers hide in order to catch people offending and fine those who have littered accidentally in contravention of Government guidance.
During 2016, the 39 councils that used private firms as part of the fine process issued almost 150,000 fines – more than £11million worth and an average of more than 3,100 per area.
In contrast, the 259 councils that issued their own fixed penalty notices handed out just under 47,000 fines – an average of 181.
Many of those who had the power to issue fines did not issue any, while oth- ers were in the single figures. For example Solihull in the West Midlands, a town consistently voted one of the best places to live in the UK, issued only seven fines between 2014 and 2016.
Data gathered in Freedom of Information requests show that in 2014 there were 54,991 fixed penalty notices issued by councils throughout England and by 2016 there were almost 180,000.
But despite the increase in punishments, “eyesore” littering is increasing.
Although the fixed penalty notices largely for littering, spot fines are also issued for offences such as fly tipping, dog control offences, and breaches of public spaces protection orders. It is an offence not to pay the fine, and refusal can lead to a £2,500 fine and a criminal record.
The investigation comes just weeks after the Government announced that the maximum fine for littering would almost double from £80 to £150.
Critics of the system warned that there was no regulation or independent appeals process, if someone wished to challenge a fine independently they must do so at a magistrates’ court. Any initial appeal is either dealt with by the council or referred back to the company which issued it, unlike parking fines which use independent tribunals.
Prof Michael Ramsden, a human rights lawyer who has advised a number of people who have been fined, said: “The criminal ramifications are greater with fixed penalty notices because you can be prosecuted with a criminal record. We all find it quite repugnant when we see someone dropping a cigarette butt on the floor, but we have to apply common sense.”
In 2014 only around 16 councils had contracts, but now there are around 51 that hand over all or some of their powers of enforcement. The pay scales range from £38.93 per fine, which Broxbourne council, Herts, allows 3GS to keep, to Sutton, Kingston and Barnet which employs NSL on the basis that it keeps 100 per cent of the fine. Many councils refused to reveal their finan- cial arrangements, with the majority contacting the company which issued the fines to get their permission before responding.
As well as the complaints that the contract system is flawed, an undercover investigation by Panorama earlier this year filmed Kingdom trainers telling recruits that they will get a “competency allowance”, described as a “bonus”, if they issue more than four tickets a day.
Ms Appleton said: “It is the Wild West of punishment which has no place in a modern justice system. It should be made illegal that companies can work like this on a commission basis and there should at the least be an appeal system.”
Allison Ogden-newton, the chief executive of Keep Britain Tidy, said that though there was no official measure of litter, the public perception was that it had increased in recent years. There needed to be a drive to educate people that clearing up litter diverts £1billion a year from other services, she said, but added: “To change behaviour we need to have a threat of sanction but we also need to encourage people to change and that needs consent.”
Cllr Martin Tett, the Local Government Association’s environment spokesman, said that littering was a “serious offence” which cost cashstrapped councils millions a year.
“In some instances, bringing in private companies may be better value for the public, and avoid the cost of littering being passed on to responsible residents,” he said. “Whilst we recognise that responses have to be proportionate, measures must be robust enough to tackle abuse of the local environment, which is why the Government has recently announced greater powers for litter enforcement, and we look forward to seeing more details of these in due course.”
Paul Buttivant, managing director of 3GS, said the company’s focus was on tackling environmental issues and educating people to put themselves out of a job rather than revenue raising and his officers were fully trained and abided by all guidelines and legislation.
“There have been some criticism of the practices generally and part of our mantra is changing that perception,” he said.
Kingdom said that it did not recogwere nise claims of “sharp practices” from its officers and if any was found it would be a retraining or disciplinary matter. It said that it was “inaccurate” to say competency allowances were based on the number of fines handed out as they relied on a range of competency tests.
They only get paid if the notice is correctly issued and paid up and therefore there is no incentive to issue incorrect fines, the spokesman said, adding that they target “all litter” not easy targets.
A spokesman for NSL said: “NSL does not incentivise its staff to issue any set number of fines. NSL staff will only issue fines when they have witnessed or found evidence for an offence. Very few fines are challenged each month which demonstrates the fact that only fines which are justified have been issued.”
The charging structure is determined by the requirements of the council, the company added.
‘It should be made illegal that companies can work like this on a commission basis and there should at the least be an appeal system’