Ministers have hinted at an imminent crackdown on the so-called “for-profit” litter enforcement system in England, where private companies are paid for every fixed penalty notice issued.
Under long-awaited statutory guidance, councils must end contracts that allow private enforcers to receive between 50% and 100% of every fine they pay.
In the UK, fixed penalty notices (FPNs) for littering and breaching a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) usually range from £100 to £200, or serious offenses can be prosecuted in court with a fine of £1,000 or more.
PSPOs are used by local authorities to tackle specific anti-social behaviors in specified areas, such as dog fouling, street drinking, spitting and some vehicle-related nuisances.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has indicated that it will implement statutory guidance banning the imposition of fines for benefits “to help local authorities use these powers consistently and appropriately”.
“We are planning to bring forward statutory enforcement guidance on littering and fliers,” the policy paper said. “We will be refreshing and modernizing the code of practice on litter and waste in England to improve local authorities’ understanding of their duties.”
“This would be a huge step forward,” said Josie Appleton, director of the civil liberties group Manifesto Club. “For-profit fines account for the bulk of both litter and PSPO penalties in the market – at least 75% of PSPO fines have come from private companies – so the government will have to be firm if it wants to end the injustice.”
However, there is ongoing debate as to what “statutory guidance” would mean in practice. The current code of practice on litter and litter, last updated in October 2023, already warns authorities to enforce enforcement proportionately and only “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 prevent what she called “institutional profit from public shame.”
Nyan Kisten said he was falsely accused of spitting by two private enforcement Kingdom Service officers in Tonbridge, Kent, last March.
Kisten said officers approached him and asked for his ID without clearly explaining what the issue was or providing evidence.
Despite his denials and lack of objective evidence, Kisten was fined £125, which he refuses to pay.
“They were really dismissive of any discussion. They just wanted to process the fines as quickly as possible,” he said. “Only once the fines were issued did they properly explain what was happening.
“It took me six months of repeated emails and procrastination for the council to finally confirm that the fine had been cancelled,” he said.
“But I can see how people pay these fines out of fear even if they are innocent. It is a scary, stressful experience and there is a real threat of a criminal record if you maintain your innocence.”
Critics have long warned that outsourcing litter enforcement to private companies leads to larger fines for minor and borderline offenses.
Although government guidance advises that revenue should not be a motivating factor, critics point to some performance-management contracts that explicitly link reward to the number of penalties issued.
Appleton said, “When private companies are paid per fine, it inevitably leads to absurd penalties and outrageous injustice.” “But finally it seems that Defra and the Home Office are paying attention and are prepared to do something about it.”
Others have also urged the government to remove the lack of formal appeal rights: currently, those who refuse to pay have to defend themselves in court, with the risk of criminal conviction, a £2,500 fine and costs if they lose.
Meanwhile, fines are also set to increase: from July, the cap for littering FPNs will rise from £150 to £500 as part of new legislation.
Liberal Democrat peer Tim Clement-Jones warned that increasing fines so rapidly without appropriately curbing benefits-linked enforcement risks exacerbating existing inequalities.
“Private companies often issue disproportionate penalties, most of which are issued for innocent actions that fall far outside anyone’s definition of serious anti-social behaviour,” he said.
He also criticized the lack of judicial scrutiny, arguing that the current FPN system “undermines due process. They are issued based solely on an officer’s decision and do not involve the production of evidence in court”.
He said, “The lack of judicial scrutiny means that when innocent people are fined for innocent actions they often feel completely helpless, lacking the means to appeal against decisions made by incentive-driven authorities.”
Defra has confirmed it intends to publish statutory guidance on waste enforcement in the new year.
<a href