England to End Profit Motive in Litter Enforcement Contracts

Ministers in England are preparing to eliminate “for-profit” litter enforcement schemes, where private companies receive a percentage of fines issued for littering and other minor offences. Under new statutory guidance, local councils will be required to terminate contracts that allow private enforcement firms to earn between 50% and 100% of each fixed penalty notice (FPN) they issue.

Fines for littering and breaches of public spaces protection orders (PSPO) in the UK typically range from £100 to £200, with serious violations potentially leading to court prosecutions and penalties exceeding £1,000. PSPOs are enforced by local authorities to combat specific anti-social behaviours, including dog fouling, street drinking, and certain vehicle-related nuisances.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has announced plans to implement this guidance as part of efforts to ensure local authorities can effectively and fairly exercise their enforcement powers. The upcoming policy document states, “We plan to bring forward statutory enforcement guidance on both littering and fly-tipping.” The Ministry also aims to modernise the existing code of practice regarding litter and refuse to enhance councils’ understanding of their responsibilities.

Josie Appleton, director of the civil liberties group Manifesto Club, welcomed the move, noting that the fining-for-profit market constitutes a significant portion of litter and PSPO penalties. “At least 75% of PSPO penalties came from private companies,” she stated. “The government will have to be firm if it wants to end the injustice.”

Despite the announcement, questions remain regarding the practical implications of the new statutory guidance. The current code of practice, most recently updated in October 2023, already advises authorities to enforce penalties proportionately and only when in the public interest. Critics argue that these guidelines are non-binding in many instances, making a formal ban essential to halt what Appleton described as “institutionalised profit from public shame.”

The issue of wrongful fines was highlighted by the case of Nayan Kisten, who was fined £125 by private enforcement officers from Kingdom Services in Tonbridge, Kent, last March. Kisten was accused of spitting without any evidence provided by the officers, who demanded his identification without clearly explaining the situation. He described the experience as dismissive, stating, “Only once the fine was issued did they properly explain what was going on.” After six months of communication with the council, Kisten eventually had the fine cancelled but expressed concern about the pressure innocent individuals face to pay fines out of fear of criminal records.

Critics have long warned that outsourcing litter enforcement to private companies often results in excessive fines for minor infractions. While government guidance advises against profit motives, some contracts tie remuneration directly to the number of penalties issued. Appleton remarked, “When private companies are paid per fine, it inevitably leads to absurd penalties and outrageous injustices.”

Calls for reform extend beyond profit motives. There is growing concern regarding the lack of formal appeal rights for those who receive fines. Currently, individuals who refuse to pay must defend themselves in court, facing the possibility of a criminal conviction, fines up to £2,500, and legal costs if they lose their case.

The penalties for littering are set to increase from July 2024, with the upper limit for FPNs rising from £150 to £500 as part of new legislation. Tim Clement-Jones, a Liberal Democrat peer, warned that such a significant increase in fines, without effectively curbing profit-driven enforcement, risks exacerbating existing inequalities. “Private companies frequently issue grossly out-of-proportion penalties,” he stated, adding that many fines are issued for trivial actions that do not constitute serious anti-social behaviour.

Clement-Jones also criticized the current FPN system for lacking judicial oversight, claiming it undermines due process. “These fines are issued solely based on the decision of an official and do not involve the production of evidence in court,” he explained. This absence of scrutiny leaves innocent individuals feeling helpless against decisions made by officers driven by financial incentives.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has confirmed that it plans to release the statutory guidance on litter enforcement in early 2024. The anticipated changes aim to ensure that litter enforcement is fair and accountable, addressing long-standing concerns regarding the role of profit in public enforcement.