Ministers to crack down on ‘for-profit’ litter enforcers in England

Ministers have signalled an imminent crackdown on so-called “for-profit” litter enforcement arrangements in England, where private firms are paid for each fixed penalty notice issued. Under long-awaited statutory guidance, councils would have to end contracts that allow private enforcers to receive between 50% to 100% of each fine they serve. Fixed penalty notices (FPN) for littering and breaching a public spaces protection order (PSPO) in the UK typically range from £100 to £200, or a potential prosecution in court with fines of up to £1,000 or more for serious offences. PSPOs are used by local authorities to tackle specific anti-social behaviours in designated areas, such as dog fouling, street drinking, spitting and certain vehicle-related nuisances. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has indicated that it will implement statutory guidance banning fining for profit to “help local authorities to consistently and appropriately exercise these powers”. “We plan to bring forward statutory enforcement guidance on both littering and fly-tipping,” the policy paper said. “We will refresh and modernise the code of practice on litter and refuse in England to improve local authorities’ understanding of their duties.” “This will be a big step,” said Josie Appleton, the director of the civil liberties group the Manifesto Club. “The fining-for-profit market accounts for the vast majority of both litter and PSPO penalties – at least 75% of PSPO penalties came from private companies – so the government will have to be firm if it wants to end the injustice.” However, debate remains over what “statutory guidance” will mean in practice. The current code of practice on litter and refuse, last updated in October 2023, already warns authorities to enforce proportionately and only when “in the public interest”. But those rules are still non-binding in many areas, and critics including Appleton said a formal ban was the only way to stop what she called “institutionalised profit from public shame”. Nayan Kisten said he was falsely accused of spitting by two private enforcement Kingdom Services officers in Tonbridge, Kent, last March. Kisten said the officers approached him and demanded his ID without clearly explaining what the issue was or providing evidence. Despite his denial and lack of objective evidence, Kisten was fined £125, which he is refusing to pay. “They were really dismissive of any discussion. They just wanted to process the fine as quickly as possible,” he said. “Only once the fine was issued did they properly explain what was going on. “It took me six months of repeated emails and stonewalling that the council finally confirmed the fine had been cancelled,” he said. “But I can see how people pay these fines out of fear, even when they’re innocent. It’s a scary, pressurising experience with the very real threat of a criminal record if you maintain your innocence.” Critics have long warned that outsourcing litter enforcement to private companies results in a high volume of fines for minor and borderline offences. Although government guidance advising that revenue should not be a motivating factor, critics point to some performance-management contracts that explicitly tie reward to the number of penalties issued. “When private companies are paid per fine, it inevitably leads to absurd penalties and outrageous injustices,” said Appleton. “But at last it seems that Defra and the Home Office are paying attention and are ready to do something about it.” Others have also urged the government to address the lack of formal appeal rights: currently, people who refuse to pay must defend themselves in court, with the risk of a criminal conviction, a £2,500 fine and costs if they lose. Meanwhile, the penalties themselves are due to rise: from July, the upper limit for litter FPNs will increase from £150 to £500, as part of new legislation. The Liberal Democrat peer Tim Clement-Jones has warned that raising fines so sharply, without properly curbing profit-linked enforcement, risks compounding existing inequities. “Private companies frequently issue grossly out-of-proportion penalties, the vast majority of which are issued for innocuous actions that fall far outside anyone’s definition of serious anti-social behaviour,” he said. He also criticised the lack of judicial scrutiny, arguing that the current FPN system “undermines due process. They are issued solely based on the decision of an official and do not involve the production of evidence in court”. “This lack of judicial scrutiny means that when innocent people are fined for innocuous actions they often feel completely helpless, lacking the means to appeal a decision made by incentive-driven officers,” he added. Defra has confirmed that it intends to publish the statutory guidance on littering enforcement in the new year.