Private litter wardens accused of ‘fining for profit’ as offences soar

LITTER fines issued by private companies have exceeded 200,000 a year for the first time, analysis shows.

People living in an areas where councils employ “private litter police” were 19 times more likely to be fined than if their councils used their own litter wardens, it has been found.

A study from the Manifesto Club, which campaigns against excessive regulation in public life, found that the number of fines issued by private contractors has increased sixfold since 2011-12, from 18,690 fines to more than 200,000. This works out at more than 4,000 a week.

The Manifesto Club submitted Freedom of Information requests to all 347 councils in England and Wales, receiving answers from 303.

It found that 73 local authorities employed private contractors; these councils issued 214,646 fines, an average of 2,940 per local authority each year.

In comparison, the other 230 councils who employed their own litter war- dens issued just 36,032 fines a year – or 157 per authority.

The report, which is published on Monday, said “people are nearly 19 times more likely to be fined if they live in an area that employs a private company, than if their local authority uses public officers”.

The Manifesto Club concluded that rather than litter offences increasing or being more effectively punished, “it reflects the fact that fining has become a business”. Fines range from £75 to £100 and private wardens can keep up to 100 per cent of income from each fine.

The Manifesto Club found that members of the public who inadvertently drop litter were being targeted by council-funded private litter police because they are “easy targets”.

Examples included fines for leaving a supermarket receipt in a trolley or putting a carton of juice on the ground while loading shopping into a car.

The Manifesto Club said: “Fining for profit is a direct violation of the modern principle that public officials should be impartial and represent the public interest. Once officers have a private incentive to punish, they inevitably disregard legal principles.”

Martin Tett, environment spokesman at the Local Government Association, said: “Each council has to decide the best way to tackle litter in their communities.

“Whilst we recognise that responses have to be proportionate, measures must be robust enough to tackle abuse of the local environment.”

A Government spokesman said: “While it is the responsibility of councils, we have been clear they must not abuse the power to impose penalties, and should take into account local circumstances, such as the ability to pay.”