UK Government Set to Crack Down on ‘For-Profit’ Litter Enforcement
The UK government is preparing to end a controversial practice where private firms profit from issuing fines for littering and public space violations, a system critics have labeled as incentivizing overzealous enforcement. New statutory guidance, long anticipated, will require local councils to terminate contracts that allow private enforcers to retain between 50% and 100% of the revenue generated from fixed penalty notices (FPNs).
The move addresses growing concerns about the fairness and proportionality of fines, which typically range from £100 to £200 for littering and breaches of public spaces protection orders (PSPOs), with potential court prosecution carrying fines up to £1,000 or more for serious offenses. PSPOs are utilized by local authorities to address specific antisocial behaviors, including dog fouling, public drinking, and spitting.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government intends to implement the guidance to ensure local authorities “consistently and appropriately exercise these powers.” According to a recent policy paper, the government “plans to bring forward statutory enforcement guidance on both littering and fly-tipping” and will “refresh and modernise the code of practice on litter and refuse in England to improve local authorities’ understanding of their duties.”
Josie Appleton, director of the civil liberties group the Manifesto Club, hailed the announcement as a significant step. “This will be a big step,” she stated. “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, questions remain regarding the practical impact of “statutory guidance.” While the current code of practice, updated in October 2023, already advises proportionate enforcement “in the public interest,” these rules are not legally binding in many areas. Appleton and other critics argue that a formal ban is the only effective way to halt what she describes as “institutionalised profit from public shame.”
The issue has had real-world consequences for citizens. Nayan Kisten recounted an experience last March in Tonbridge, Kent, where he was falsely accused of spitting by officers from the private enforcement firm Kingdom Services. Kisten alleges the officers demanded identification without providing a clear explanation or evidence. Despite his denial, he received a £125 fine, which he is currently refusing to pay.
“They were really dismissive of any discussion. They just wanted to process the fine as quickly as possible,” Kisten said. “Only once the fine was issued did they properly explain what was going on.” After six months of persistent communication, the council ultimately cancelled the fine, but Kisten fears many individuals pay fines out of intimidation, even when innocent. “It’s a scary, pressurising experience with the very real threat of a criminal record if you maintain your innocence.”
Critics have long maintained that outsourcing litter enforcement incentivizes a high volume of fines for minor infractions. While existing guidance discourages revenue as a primary motivator, performance-management contracts often explicitly link rewards to the number of penalties issued. “When private companies are paid per fine, it inevitably leads to absurd penalties and outrageous injustices,” Appleton explained. “But at last it seems that Defra and the Home Office are paying attention and are ready to do something about it.”
Concerns also extend to the lack of formal appeal rights. Currently, individuals contesting a fine must defend themselves in court, facing potential criminal convictions, fines of up to £2,500, and associated legal costs if unsuccessful.
Adding to the complexity, penalties are set to increase. From July, the maximum fine for littering will rise from £150 to £500 under new legislation. Liberal Democrat peer Tim Clement-Jones cautioned that increasing fines without addressing profit-linked enforcement could exacerbate 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,” Clement-Jones stated. He further criticized the lack of judicial oversight, arguing the current FPN system “undermines due process” by relying solely on the judgment of an official without requiring 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.”
The Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) has confirmed its intention to publish the statutory guidance on littering enforcement in the new year. The effectiveness of this guidance will hinge on its enforceability and the government’s commitment to ensuring a fair and proportionate approach to litter enforcement across England.
