This week, the Crime and Policing Bill is passing through the ping pong stage in the Commons and Lords. This bill will increase the penalties for Public Spaces Protection Orders – which ban activities such as standing in groups, feeding birds, or loitering – from £100 to £500.
Most of these penalties are currently issued by private companies on commission – the company is paid a portion (normally 80-90%) of penalty income, and therefore has a direct incentive to issue as many penalties as possible.
The Liberal Democrat peer Tim Clement Jones introduced an amendment to prevent private companies from directly profiting from issuing penalties. This would not prevent enforcement, but it would ensure that enforcement is carried out impartially and fairly and not on an incentivised basis. However, although the amendment passed with Conservative support, the government is opposing the amendment.
This briefing includes the most recent enforcement data and finds that PSPO fines are now at a record level. The Lords amendment is urgently needed to protect the public from unscrupulous and incentivised enforcement. By opposing the amendment, the government is protecting a corrupt enforcement industry, which profits by issuing unfair penalties to some of the poorest communities, including homeless people.
How many PSPO penalties were issued in 2025?
We submitted an FOI to 318 local authorities with the power to issue FPNs for PSPO offences in 2025. 287 councils responded.
In 2025, 25,366 penalties were issued in total for breach of PSPOs. This is a 32.4% rise on the previous highest figures, when 19,162 penalties were issued in 2023.
There was great variation between the number of penalties issued in different authorities in 2025. 127 councils did not issue any FPNs for PSPO offences, while 158 councils issued at least one penalty.
The number of penalties issued by a council depended substantially on whether they employed a private company or not. 251 councils did not employ a private company to issue penalties, while 32 councils employed a private company (although one was unable to supply data).
The 31 councils employing a private company able to supply data issued 19,214 FPNs, including 10,517 in Hillingdon (which employed APCOA) and 3143 in Harrow (which employed Kingdom). The 251 councils not employing a private company together issued 6,152 FPNs.
This means that councils employing private companies issued 75.7% of all PSPO penalties, even though they made up only 11.2% of responding councils. People were on average 25 times more likely to be fined if their council employed a private company than if their council did not.
Of the top 10 issuing councils, all but two employed a private company.
| Council | FPNs (2025) | Private company? |
|---|---|---|
| Hillingdon London Borough Council | 10,517 | Yes |
| Harrow London Borough Council | 3,143 | Yes |
| Brent London Borough Council | 2,259 | No |
| Greenwich London Borough Council | 1,081 | Yes |
| Hounslow London Borough Council | 715 | Yes |
| Bedford Borough Council | 707 | Yes |
| North Lincolnshire Council | 560 | Yes |
| Westminster City Council | 420 | No |
| Birmingham City Council | 375 | Yes |
| North Somerset District Council | 343 | Yes |
This data shows that enforcement for ASB offences is not consistent across council areas. If a private company is employed – and putting up staff and support systems for free – the company is under pressure to issue a certain number of penalties. This financial pressure to issue penalties means that they will be more likely to penalise people for minor or non-offences.
We can see this effect in the London borough of Redbridge. In 2022, Redbridge issued 163 FPNs for PSPOs; in 2023 it employed a private company and issued 3550 penalties. When it stopped employing this company in 2024 and 2025 it did not issue any penalties.
What did private companies issue fines for?
Our data shows that people are largely not being penalised for serious anti-social behaviour, but rather for minor offences or anodyne actions.
For example, in 2025 Birmingham (which employs Kingdom and WISE) issued 18 penalties for ‘unauthorised noise’ (such as busking) as well as penalties for begging and loitering.
Boston (which employs Kingdom LA Support) issued 37 penalties to people for feeding the birds, while North Somerset (which employs Kingdom) issued 7 penalties to people for swimming.
Greenwich (which also employs Kingdom) issued 98 penalties for ‘abusive language’, 7 penalties to people for loitering near a cash machine, two for ‘obscene gestures’, three for amplification, and 316 for ‘driving or riding’.
Luton (which employs WISE) issued 18 penalties for begging and 245 for spitting, while Harrow (which employed Kingdom and APCOA) issued 1156 penalties for ‘highway obstruction’ (presumably people loitering or sitting on the ground), 6 penalties for bird feeding, and 102 penalties for drinking in the street.
In 2025, Doncaster (which employs WISE) issued 19 penalties for begging, 7 for loitering, and 5 to people for standing in groups. In 2024 it issued a penalty (presumably to a child) for playing street games, 6 penalties for children standing in groups, and 149 penalties to people for not carrying a dog poo bag (of which 12 were children).
In 2024-5 (financial year), Bedford (which employs District Enforcement) issued 619 penalties to people for cycling in the town centre and 4 to people for skateboarding.
In some cases, councils employing private companies were unable to supply information on the use of these powers. Hillingdon was unable to state what its penalties were issued for, while Dacorum was unable to state how many penalties had been issued by District Enforcement on its behalf (‘data in relation to these (penalties) is held by them’).
This shows that private companies are profiting by issuing penalties to people for minor actions, such as loitering, feeding birds or standing in groups, including targeting homeless people. This is an inevitable result of the incentive to punish that comes with ‘payment per fine’ contracts.
What penalties were issued by other councils?
Some councils not employing a private company also issued penalties for minor or non-offences, albeit at a much lower level. This included Leicester, which fined 8 people for putting up unauthorised campaigning stalls or flying flags or banners without its permission. Blackpool fined a pedlar for having an oversize trolley, while Southend fined 2 people for rough sleeping and 21 for ‘reckless behaviour’. Kensington fined 20 people for pigeon feeding, 25 for rough sleeping, 25 for busking, and 59 for begging.
Overall, 26 councils issued fines for nuisance or disorderly behaviour, 14 councils fined people for begging, 7 for loitering, 7 for cycling, 7 for failure to carry a dog bag, 5 for feeding birds/animals, 4 for busking and 4 for leafleting, and 3 for abusive language or swearing.
The most frequently issued fines were for dog offences, such as dog fouling or walking dogs without a lead (95 councils issued penalties for dog offences, although generally at low levels). This was followed by penalties for alcohol (issued in 63 councils).
Conclusion
This research shows that the current situation is not one of even-handed punishment of anti-social behaviour offences; rather, there are dramatic variations largely depending on whether a council employs a private company or not. The majority of privately issued PSPO penalties appear to be given for anodyne actions, which would not meet objective standards of behaviour requiring or deserving punishment.
We therefore recommend that the government think again and consider accepting the amendment that will protect the public from this risk of being unfairly fined by private companies seeking to make a profit from punishment. This is all the more imperative given the large hike in penalty levels to £500 pounds, an amount that would be unpayable for many people.
If the Crime and Policing Bill goes ahead as planned, it will mean £500 fines for actions such as loitering or feeding the birds, largely issued by private companies who keep 80-90% of fine income. The changes will fuel a cowboy enforcement economy, while undermining the proportionate and effective enforcement of behaviour offences. We urge MPs and peers to support the amendment that will protect proportionate enforcement and basic principles of justice.