(GUF) COUNCILS LOVE LITTER

Richmond upon Thames - A woman fined £150 for pouring leftover coffee down a drain. The fine was later cancelled when the council admitted her appeal would “likely have succeeded.” The Guardian - link

Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council - Accused of “unjustified” fly-tipping fines after outsourcing enforcement to a private firm. Residents were fined for trivial or accidental acts. The Guardian - link

Hertfordshire - A man fined £500 for fly-tipping when an envelope blew out of his bin. Reduced to £100 on appeal. The Guardian - link

Manchester City Council - A non-smoker fined £433 for dropping a cigarette butt he never dropped and wasn’t even there. Conviction later overturned. The Guardian - link

Aberdeen City Council - Hired a private firm whose wardens were accused of “ambushing” residents and issuing on-the-spot fines for things like dropped receipts or wind-blown litter. The Scottish Sun - link

Medway Council - Publicly criticised after multiple prosecutions for minor waste incidents, with fines of up to £1,000 and “cost-neutral” enforcement partnerships. BBC - link

Reading Borough Council - Rolled out seven-day environmental enforcement patrols run by a private contractor, funded through fines — up to £500 for litter, £1,000 for fly-tipping. Reading.gov.uk - link - Reading Borough Council incorrectly fines - link

Bedford Borough Council - Issued heavy penalties for small-scale waste incidents, including residents fined when items were stolen from their bins and dumped elsewhere. Bedford.gov.uk - link

In UK law and government guidance, local authorities are not permitted to use enforcement powers (like fines or penalty notices) as a means of generating income.

Statutory framework

The Environmental Protection Act 1990, Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 and Environmental Offences (Fixed Penalties) (England) Regulations 2017 give councils the power to issue fixed penalty notices (FPNs) for littering, fly-tipping and similar offences but those same frameworks along with statutory guidance from DEFRA are explicit that penalties are intended as deterrents, not as revenue sources.

DEFRA’s 'Fixed Penalty Notices: Guidance on the Use of Penalty Receipts (England)' states: 'The purpose of fixed penalty notices is to offer an offender the opportunity to discharge liability for an offence, not to raise revenue' and 'Local authorities must not set fixed penalties at levels that are designed to raise income or to fill funding gaps.' (DEFRA Guidance, 2018 update – sections 3.3 and 3.6).

If councils do receive money from fines, the law only allows that income to be used for litter and environmental enforcement functions, or supporting related services (street cleansing, waste management, environmental education, etc.). It cannot be diverted into general funds or used as a revenue target.

The problem is that many councils outsource enforcement to private contractors who take a commission or payment per fine issued which indirectly creates a financial incentive to issue more fines even though councils themselves aren’t supposed to do so for revenue. This practice has been heavily criticised by The Manifesto Club, The Local Government Ombudsman, and MPs during the 2022 Public Accounts Committee review of enforcement contracts.

Private enforcement contracts on fine-based funding models leads to overreach, error and erosion of trust. When environmental enforcement becomes a revenue stream, justice becomes collateral. litter - link - more like this (rubbish) - link