Community Protection Notices (CPNs) are on-the-spot legal orders that can be issued if a council or police officer judges a person’s conduct to have a ‘detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality’. The CPN must be preceded by a Community Protection Warning (CPW), which is issued on the same grounds. For more than a decade, the Campaign for Freedom in Everyday Life (formerly the Manifesto Club) has collected the only national data on local authorities’ use of these powers. This report contains the data for 2023 to 2025.
1. What are CPNs?
Community Protection Notices are powers contained in the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. Police and council officers can issue these notices without going through a court, if they believe that somebody’s behaviour is having a ‘detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality’. CPNs can also require an individual to do specified things, or to take steps to achieve specified results. It is a criminal offence to fail to comply, punishable by an on-the-spot fine (currently £100, although the Crime and Policing Act will raise this to £500 in on 26 October), or on prosecution a fine of up to £2,500 for individuals or £20,000 for businesses.
The ‘detrimental effect’ standard is an unprecedentedly low bar for issuing a criminal notice. ASBOs, the precursor to the CPN, required conduct causing ‘harassment, alarm or distress’, had to go through a court, and were in the majority of cases issued after conviction for a criminal offence. The CPN is in effect a blank cheque for officials to issue people with instructions for how they should behave. Because the benchmark of issue is so low, and the evidential and procedural requirements so minimal, the CPN functions as an all-purpose power that can be used for almost any incident or problem.
These notices are not issued through a court, with an obligation on the council to provide evidence, and offering the recipient a right to defence. Instead, the CPN is written and issued by a council official such as a neighbourhood officer, a housing or community safety officer, or an environmental enforcement officer. This means that certain council officials now have the power to act as legislator, judge and jury in relation to the conduct of private citizens.
In many councils, CPNs can be issued simply by the council officer filling in a form. Some councils provide officers with template notices that can be filled out on the spot: for example, with a box in which the officer writes the ‘prohibition, requirement or action’ required, and another box in which the officer states a ‘timescale for compliance’. Such fill-in-the-blank measures go against all notion of legal procedure: the legal injunction is issued on the whim of the council officer, depending on what they decide to write in the box on a particular day.
Research carried out by Sheffield Hallam University, in partnership with the Manifesto Club, found what the researchers described as a ‘postcode lottery’ in councils’ use of these powers. The Sheffield Hallam research found that the threshold for using CPNs varied greatly between different councils, and that councils largely lacked formal procedures to guide their use: only 7.9% of councils had a policy specifically dealing with CPNs and CPWs. 66% of councils reported some level of training, though this ranged from a BTEC Level 3 qualification to ‘on the job’ training or vaguely defined ‘internal and external training’, while 6.4% reported that no specific training is provided at all. A second study, based on in-depth interviews with recipients, found that CPN recipients were often unaware of the evidence of their perceived anti-social behaviour, that no evidence was provided when they were issued with their notice, and that two thirds of interviewees had difficulties communicating with the issuing authority to discuss the contents of the notice.
There is no requirement for the authority to investigate or gather evidence (or speak to the recipient) before issuing a CPN. This lack of testing of evidence creates an inherent propensity for CPNs to be issued on the basis of malicious accusations, or as part of personal vendettas. It is for this reason that so few CPNs are appealed. There were only 179 legal appeals of CPNs between November 2014 and October 2019, of which 40 were successful, out of more than 29,000 notices issued in that period. Appellants lack legal aid and often face expensive council lawyers, placing them at risk of high costs claims if they lose. We have been in touch with a CPN recipient in Derbyshire who is dyslexic, who had no legal assistance, while the council brought a lawyer up from London on which it spent in excess of £7,000 even before trial. This is not a fair legal contest.
In the past two years, we have found that councils have used CPNs and CPWs to restrict ‘noise from animatronic dinosaurs’ (Herefordshire), ‘noise from a water fall from a water fountain’ (Havant), ‘bunting attached to street furniture’ (Bromley), and the ‘conditions of the meet for local Hunt, routes to be taken, dates and times, preparations’ (South Staffordshire). North Devon issued a notice relating to a ‘Cat Siren’, a device to deter cats. Here are the full findings below.
2. How many CPNs were issued in 2023 to 2025?
We issued Freedom of Information requests to all local authorities in England and Wales with the power to issue Community Protection Notices. 292 councils were able to provide data on the number of notices issued. (Some councils, including Hillingdon and Kensington and Chelsea, refused or said the data could not easily be extracted, so the figures below, especially for CPWs, are an undercount.)
These responses found that:
- In the year between November 2023 and October 2024, councils issued 4,004 CPNs and 20,801 CPWs.
- In the year between November 2024 and October 2025, councils issued 4,868 CPNs and 20,108 CPWs.
The number of CPNs is lower than in previous years (6,133 in 2022-23), continuing a gradual fall in the number of CPNs since the peak of 8,760 in 2018-19. This is a welcome development. However, the number of Community Protection Warnings remains consistently high, at around 20,000 per year. The CPW is issued on the same grounds as the CPN, and can have a severe effect on the recipient, yet there is a tendency for authorities to issue warnings very lightly.
The Campaign for Freedom in Everyday Life has collected the only national data on the issuing of CPNs since 2014. This data shows that, in total, since CPN powers were introduced, councils have issued 62,816 CPNs. Over the six years for which we now have complete CPW data, from November 2019 to October 2025, councils issued more than 122,000 CPWs. Taking CPNs and CPWs together, councils have issued over 194,000 orders since 2014 (this includes a blank in CPW data between 2015 and 2019, which is likely to mean at least an extra 50,000 orders).
| Year (Nov to Oct) | Number of CPNs | Councils issuing CPNs | Number of CPWs |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2014-15 | 3,943 | 107 | 9,546 |
| 2015-16 | 4,376 | 125 | n/a |
| 2016-17 | 5,730 | 182 | n/a |
| 2017-18 | 6,234 | 192 | n/a |
| 2018-19 | 8,760 | 202 | n/a |
| 2019-20 | 7,437 | 239 | 24,733 |
| 2020-21 | 5,170 | 199 | 16,607 |
| 2021-22 | 6,161 | 213 | 19,414 |
| 2022-23 | 6,133 | 223 | 20,737 |
| 2023-24 | 4,004 | 209 | 20,801 |
| 2024-25 | 4,868 | 226 | 20,108 |
| TOTAL CPNs | 62,816 | 131,946 |
These figures show that the use of the CPN is remaining consistently high, at around ten times the level of non-conviction ASBOs. (An average of 1,776 ASBOs were issued per year between 1999 and 2013, but around 60% of these were issued after conviction for a criminal offence.)
There continues to be great variation between councils’ use of these powers. In 2024-25, Durham Council issued by far the highest number of orders (856 CPNs and 2,112 CPWs), for untidy yards and gardens, ASB, and noise. The next highest issuers were Medway (55 CPNs and 1,267 CPWs, largely for refuse and untidy land), Bradford (174 CPNs and 1,055 CPWs), Hackney (6 CPNs and 1,060 CPWs), and Rotherham (190 CPNs and 869 CPWs). Yet at the same time, in 2024-25, 57 councils issued no CPNs and 168 issued five or fewer. The use of CPNs appears to primarily reflect enforcement cultures within different councils, and decisions made by officials or staff, rather than indicating higher levels of problem behaviour in a particular area.
This is illustrated by Gateshead: in 2023-24, Gateshead issued 1,605 Community Protection Warnings, but in 2024-25, it issued only 158. It is implausible that anti-social behaviour in Gateshead fell by 90% in 12 months. Instead, it reflects a change within council policy or leadership, and the way in which officials in that area responded to incidents. Whether a person’s behaviour attracts a criminal notice depends not largely on what they have done, but on where they live and the culture within their local council’s enforcement department.
3. What were CPNs issued for?
We asked councils to state the subjects for which CPNs and CPWs were issued. A large number of councils were not able to provide any information about the subjects of their notices. Of those who could provide some information, a few gave substantial detail, including in some cases the CPN texts. However, many councils provided generic categories, such as ‘waste’ or ‘asb’, which could refer to a wide variety of incidents, and were the least useful in describing the events concerned.
There was substantial variation between councils in the issues targeted. Some councils seem to target particular behaviours, generally minor misdemeanours, resulting in large numbers of notices for a single offence. Newham Council, for example, issued 566 CPWs for untidy land in a single year, while Medway issued more than 1,200 CPWs for refuse and untidy land. The table below summarises what councils told us about the subjects for which they issued CPNs and CPWs.
| Number of councils issuing order | Subject of CPN or CPW |
|---|---|
| 112 | ‘ASB’ (generic) |
| 122 | Waste, accumulation |
| 68 | Noise |
| 42 | Barking dogs |
| 34 | Messy or overgrown gardens |
| 34 | Drugs or cannabis |
| 24 | Begging |
| 22 | Bonfires or burning |
| 21 | Bird or animal feeding |
| 20 | Music or amplified sound |
| 18 | Swearing or verbal abuse |
| 17 | Alcohol or street drinking |
| 15 | Bin issues |
| 15 | Neighbour disputes |
| 11 | Parking |
| 10 | Rough sleeping |
| 10 | Shouting |
| 10 | Repairing vehicles on the highway or council land |
| 8 | Japanese knotweed |
| 7 | Dispersal, exclusion or ‘stay out of area’ |
| 5 | Loitering |
| 4 | Peacocks or cockerels |
| 4 | Caravans |
Because the CPN is such a broad power, it is used for a wide range of situations. At one end, councils issue notices for anodyne activities such as feeding birds, putting bins out early, or an untidy garden. At the other, there are notices issued for serious matters such as drug use, domestic abuse and the sexual exploitation of children, incidents that ought to be dealt with through the criminal law, with proper investigation and evidence, and the ensuing penalties, rather than with an on-the-spot order.
Bird feeding
Around 21 councils used CPNs or CPWs to restrict bird or animal feeding, and the restrictions frequently extended to people’s own gardens. North Somerset issued a notice to someone for ‘placing excessive feed in their garden or on the beach which is encouraging excessive birds to the area’. East Suffolk restricted an ‘excessive number of bird feeders creating nuisance’ and ‘nuisance from feeding of seagulls’. Ceredigion targeted the ‘feeding of non captive birds’, while Newcastle upon Tyne targeted ‘problematic bird feeding’, and Hartlepool issued an order for ‘depositing feed’.
Barking dogs
Around 42 councils restricted barking dogs or dog noise. Herefordshire Council issued a notice for:
Failing to keep control of your dog by allowing it to act in an aggressive or intimidating manner in that your dog is allowed to run at the gate to your property barking aggressively when any person approaches the front gate to your premise.
Others issuing barking dog orders included Sunderland, Thanet (‘dog barking and howling’), Crawley, Fylde, Chichester, Sevenoaks, Torbay, Lambeth, Newport (‘domestic animal noise, barking dog’) and King’s Lynn and West Norfolk.
Messy and overgrown gardens
The single largest use of the CPN power continues to be against untidy and overgrown gardens and land, with around 34 councils recording notices under this heading, and some councils issuing them in very large numbers. These are potentially among the most intrusive of all CPNs, since they concern the appearance of a person’s own property, and they may specify exactly what a person must do to their own land, including the height to which vegetation must be cut. When we asked a followup FOI request to get the texts of CPNs and CPWs, Monmouthshire told us that it had issued several notices with the following text:
Address maintenance concerns with overgrown vegetation in the garden areas…Ensure the vegetation is cut back and regularly maintained to a standard such as not to be detrimental to the amenity of those in the locality.
Considering that this is a legal requirement, and concerns a rear garden – therefore a private space not generally visible from the street – this is an open-ended and potentially coercive restriction. It is also unclear, since there is no recognised standard for how a garden should be maintained so as not to be ‘detrimental to the amenity of those in the locality’: different people have different views and taste on the subject of garden maintenance.
Warwick District Council ordered someone to ‘Remove all overgrown vegetation in the back and side gardens’, as well as to ‘Engage with support services local authority, social worker, Change Grow Live and any other agency that should become involved’. Here, a complaint about the condition of a person’s garden was paired with a requirement that they engage with ‘any other agency’ the council decides they should be ‘involved’ with.
Repairing vehicles in the street
Around 10 councils issued notices restricting the repair or maintenance of vehicles on the highway or on council land. Neath Port Talbot provided the full text, which illustrates how sweeping a notice can be. The recipient was ordered to stop:
Working on any mechanically propelled vehicle, or any electrical or mechanical machine (the ‘Motor Vehicle’) including works for the: maintenance, servicing, or improvement of a Motor Vehicle or of any part of or accessory to a Motor Vehicle; installation, replacement or renewal of any such part or accessory… Repairing or dismantling any Motor Vehicle or appliance in a public place, anywhere which form part of the public highway… Having in your care or control, more than one Motor Vehicle not lawfully registered to you… Do not buy and/or sell scrap metal… Do not store waste and/or scrap metal… Allow, incite or encourage others to commit any act prohibited by this Warning Letter.
It is telling that this notice binds not only the recipient but ‘others’; and the first clause appears to restrict someone not only from running a car mending business but from any car mending, including his own car in his own drive. South Oxfordshire issued a fixed penalty for someone who had breached an order by ‘carrying out works on vehicles and storing a large commercial trailer on a public highway’, while Tower Hamlets, Hackney, Croydon, Epping Forest, Oxford and Peterborough recorded similar restrictions.
Begging and rough sleeping
There is a continued targeting of homeless people. Around 24 councils used CPNs or CPWs to restrict begging, and Middlesbrough alone recorded 115 CPWs for begging. Other councils issuing begging notices included Canterbury, Charnwood, Chorley, Chesterfield, Southend, Southwark, Solihull, and Redcar and Cleveland. The use of orders against this group runs counter to the statutory guidance, as well as being morally questionable and practically ineffective.
Stratford-on-Avon District Council provided the full text of a warning and a subsequent notice issued to a homeless man, which prohibited him from:
Not place yourself in such a way as to encourage people to give you money or any other donation/gift/food. This includes but is not restricted to sitting or standing in any Stratford-on-Avon District car parks, shop doorways and on the pavement.
This does not only prohibit asking for money; it prohibits positioning yourself in a way that might encourage someone to offer it, including simply sitting or ‘standing’ on the pavement, and includes accepting food. A homeless person standing in the street who is handed a sandwich has under this order committed a crime. The order also includes the possibility that an even broader range of behaviours not mentioned in the order would also be sanctioned.
The same warning imposed positive requirements, including that he engage with support services and ‘sleep in accomodation provided by Stratford on Avon District Council’. The effect is that missing an appointment, or spending a night at a friend’s house rather than in the accommodation specified, violates the order.
When the Community Protection Notice was issued, the incidents recorded against him were largely accounts of his being homeless. Of the five incidents listed, three were sightings of him ‘entering the lift of Bridgeway car park’, one was that he was ‘observed in position of begging outside Sainsburys Local’.
Around 10 councils used notices to restrict rough sleeping. North Devon ordered a person ‘not to sleep in any doorway in Barnstaple where the premises will be opening to the public or cause an obstruction to any fire exits’. Southend recorded that it has issued orders targeting ‘rough sleeping’ and ‘erecting tents’, while Hounslow ordered a person ‘not to use the area as a place for rough sleeping’. Using a criminal power to prohibit the act of sleeping, against people who have nowhere else to go, is a clear example of the CPN being inappropriately used against vulnerable individuals.
In addition, five councils used notices to restrict ‘loitering’, which it is likely were also targeting homeless people.
Shouting and swearing
Around 18 councils issued notices restricting swearing, verbal abuse or abusive language. Stroud restricted ‘offensive or threatening language’ and ‘directed shouting’. North Norfolk targeted shouting, swearing and arguing with staff or members of the public. Others issuing CPNs in this area included Blaby (‘swearing’), Bolsover (‘shouting or swearing’), Oadby and Wigston (‘shouting and swearing’), Sandwell, Blackpool, Teignbridge, and Bassetlaw.
Around 10 councils issued notices for shouting or screaming, and several of these appear to restrict noise made inside a person’s own home. Newcastle upon Tyne restricted noise (shouting/screaming), Winchester targeted ‘shouting and banging’, Gedling recorded ‘ASB shouting’, and Conwy targeted ‘shouting and swearing’.
Restrictions on speech in the home
Where we obtained more detail about the CPN text, some of the most concerning notices restricted what people may say, display or listen to in their own homes. South Staffordshire issued a notice specifying:
You must not shout, swear, or use foul and abusive language that is audible to residents of..or create any excessive noise that is likely to cause neighbouring persons harassment, alarm or distress. Do not stare into any neighbouring properties and make any rude gestures.
This makes it a crime for someone to be overheard swearing by a neighbour: a muttered curse in the garden would, strictly speaking, be an offence. It also makes it an offence to ‘stare’ into neighbouring properties, a difficult restriction to avoid falling foul of unless you keep your eyes permanently fixed on your own house and garden.
Oxford issued a CPW restricting ‘offensive materials in communal areas’. Amber Valley provided the full text of a warning targeting ‘offensive signs’, and it shows how restrictions can often stretch way beyond the original complaint. The conduct complained of was the following:
the placing of signs in the window of your home that points to a neighbouring house with the word grass and a note to the side of this that makes reference to neighbours and uses language that those living in the locality find offensive.
But the requirement imposed was not confined to that sign, or to that kind of sign, or even to that person. The recipient was told:
You, anyone living with you or persons you invite in to your home must not display any sign in the windows or anywhere else in or (sic) your home that may have a detrimental effect on those living in the locality.
This is a prohibition on displaying any sign, anywhere in a private home, which an officer might judge to have a ‘detrimental effect’ on others. Nobody subject to such a notice can know in advance what they are permitted to display in their own window, or other parts of their home; the council official is ultimately in the position to decide which signs have a ‘detrimental effect’ and should be legally restricted.
North Devon provided the full text of a CPN issued in June 2025, which required the recipient not to allow any visitors or occupants of the property
to act in an intimidating manner towards any resident or visitors to [address] this includes staring, pointing or making gestures which will have a negative impact on others.
The same notice required them:
Not to allow any visitors or occupants of [address] to play music with offensive lyrics
Here a council officer has made it a criminal matter to stare, point, and to listen to particular music inside your own home. There is no definition of what makes lyrics ‘offensive’, or the distinction between a stare and an ordinary glance; again, this would be for a council officer to decide. The notice runs for 12 months, and it binds not only the recipient but any visitor, so that the recipient is made criminally answerable for the facial expressions and gestures of their guests. The recorded breaches were loud music at 8.10pm and 8.52pm, and, on one occasion, ‘a very loud lawnmower being used…in the rear garden which was being revved excessively’.
These are notices that regulate expression and social life within the private sphere, on the word of an official, criminalising individuals for actions that would otherwise be perfectly legal.
Petty and absurd uses
Finally, a significant number of notices target the trivial or bizarre. Havant issued a notice for ‘noise from a water fall from a water fountain’. When we asked for the full text of the order, we found that the order identified the water fountain as unreasonable conduct:
the noise of water falling from a water fountain situated in the back garden of your premises [ADDRESS] is giving rise to a noise nuisance at nearby residential dwellings
The order specified that the person must
ensure that water falling from the water fountain does not give rise to a noise nuisance between 2300 and 0700 hours Monday to Sunday at nearby residential dwellings.
Here, a person’s choice of garden ornament is becoming the subject of legal orders, with threats of prosecution and penalties of up to £2,500. The order also notes that if they did not resolve the matter, a court may issue a warrant for the police to enter the premises and seize ‘the item’ connected to the CPN (in this case the water fountain), after which it could be ‘destroyed or disposed of’.
Herefordshire issued a CPW for ‘noise from animatronic dinosaurs’. When we followed it up, it turned out that this concerned noise issued by the animatronic dinosaur park within Ralph Court Gardens. The order stated:
This is causing a detrimental effect of a persistent nature on the quality of life of those within the locality. In particular, the Brachiosaur, Pterosaur and Pterosaur with nest have clearly distinguishable acoustic features i.e. screeches and hornlike sounds, out of context within the local environment.
It may be that the noise from the dinosaur park was too loud, and it appears that there were issues with the placement of volume controls that allowed the volume to be adjusted by members of the public – but it is hard to see why the matter was the subject of a legal order rather than a phone call. It is possible that sometimes CPWs are issued because they are easier: they do not require direct contact or a conversation or negotiation. This means that the nature of Brachiosaur screeches becomes a subject for the criminal law. It is also notable that the order did not only require them to turn the volume down, but also to ‘produce a Noise Management Plan (NMP) for the dinosaur garden’, which involved constant monitoring and reporting to the council on the levels of noise. The CPW even specified the headings that the noise management plan should have. It also required the dinosaur park to engage with council and police on the issue and pass on all complaints they received to the council. The order therefore doesn’t only require that they do not cause a public nuisance, but that they enter into a close relation of ongoing monitoring by the council.
South Staffordshire attached conditions to ‘the meet for local Hunt, routes to be taken, dates and times, preparations’. When we asked for the text of the order, this included the requirement:
Online report to be submitted to Staffordshire Police 72 hours prior to formal hunt meetings…providing a calendar of all events (including formal hunt meetings, cubbing events, hound training events, social events, etc.) for the forthcoming hunt season with:
- times, dates, locations,
- overview of activity,
- contact details, name and contact details of the Master of the Hounds
- landowners’ details who have provided permission for the hunt to cross their property,
- the amount of persons expected to be in attendance.
- any other relevant information relating to the meeting including a detailed map of the trail.
This means that the hunt has the unusual obligation to inform the police before their meets, and even of their ‘social events’. If there is any accidental killing of any non-specified ‘wild mammal’, the hunt must be halted and police called to attend the scene and examine the dead animal. The warning states:
Should there be an accidental kill of wild mammals, the hunt must be terminated on that day and the Police called immediately, ensuring that hounds are collected and removed away from the location and leaving the animal in situ to be assessed by relevant trained officers.
As in previous years, councils continue to issue notices targeting countryside animals. Chorley issued notices for ‘allowing peacocks to roam’ and for ‘roaming peacocks’. Rugby issued two CPWs for ‘cockerel noise’, Somerset issued a CPW for ‘noise from cockerels and fowl’, and East Suffolk recorded that an order had been issued for ‘noise complaint, cockerel’. Blaenau Gwent issued a notice for the ‘illegal roaming or fly grazing of horses’, and Ceredigion said that a notice had targeted ‘straying livestock’.
Meanwhile, North Devon issued a notice relating to a ‘Cat Siren’, and Bromley issued a CPW ordering someone to remove ‘bunting attached to street furniture’. Somerset issued a CPW for ‘stacked wood in front garden’, and two CPWs for the ‘placement of beehives/control of bees’.
Finally, Norwich issued several notices for ‘breaching busking guidelines’. The guidelines include advice such as a maximum of two hours at one pitch, asking performers to leave 50 metres between themselves and others, and suggesting that if a set ‘is short or repetitive’ the performer should ‘consider moving to a new location to avoid repeating material in the same spot’. These guidelines are framed as courtesies and advice: the issuing of orders to enforce compliance turns its advisory code into the criminal law, meaning that a static repetitive set could earn a busker a large fine and criminal record.
Trivialising criminality
While trivial behaviour is criminalised, criminal behaviour is trivialised: some councils are using the CPN to deal with conduct that appears to be seriously criminal. In 2023-4, Teignbridge issued three CPNs for physical violence, seven for stalking behaviours, and three that were weapons related. In the following year it issued Community Protection Warnings for serious violence, sexual violence, and two for domestic abuse. Redcar and Cleveland’s categories for CPNs include the ‘use of weapons’, cuckooing, and the importation of drugs from Thailand.
These are all serious crimes, with their own offences, investigative procedures and penalties. They should not be dealt with through an on-the-spot order, but through the proper application and penalty due according to the relevant criminal law (which also includes proper rights for the defence, as is proper for crimes that carry significant penalties).
4. Penalised for CPNs
In 2022-23, we found that 98 councils issued 1,541 on-the-spot fines for CPN breach, meaning that around a quarter of CPNs were penalised with a fine. Durham Council issued the highest number, with 468 fines for ‘untidy yards and gardens’, out of 914 CPNs, meaning that over half of the people who received a CPN for an untidy garden were later punished for breach.
This year, we found that in 2024-25, councils issued around 1,183 fixed penalty notices out of 4,868 CPNs; again, meaning that around a quarter of all CPNs were punished with an on-the-spot fine. These orders (which can be written out on the spot by a single council officer) are therefore subject to high rates of enforcement. (The high level of enforcement also calls into question their effectiveness at dealing with the situation concerned.)
The three highest issuers of CPN FPNs were Waltham Forest (349), Stoke-on-Trent (79) and Nottingham (62). Most councils did not record the subject of their fixed penalty notices. Of those that did, the majority related to waste and environmental matters, with a smaller number for dog control and noise.
Surrey Heath issued fines for ‘continuing to drink when asked to refrain’, and West Northamptonshire issued a fine for ‘presenting waste on wrong day for collection’.
We obtained the text of an FPN issued by South Staffordshire, for the swearing notice quoted above. The FPN says that the person was fined because
You breached a Community Protection Notice served to you…by using foul and abusive language that is audible to residents of X and the community. This behaviour is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.
5. Conclusion
The CPN is a catch-all power with very few checks. The low benchmark of issue allows a wide latitude for officials to use the power as they please, leading to erratic and voluntaristic application and extreme variation between different council areas.
Ultimately, the CPN in its current form includes the possibility of criminalisation on the basis of taste. It is possible to receive a legal order because someone (or perhaps even just a council official) doesn’t like something that you are doing; that they don’t like the wood stacked in your front garden, or the wild appearance of your garden, or the music that you are playing, or the noise of your water fountain. We know people who have received CPNs on the basis of flashing fairy lights and mechanical croaking frogs in their garden, as well as for the manner in which they were closing their front doors. The phrase ‘detrimental effect on the quality of life’ is extremely subjective – it had never before been used in law – and if it is interpreted and punished on the hoof by single council officers, then it can mean little more than ‘you are doing something that somebody doesn’t like’.
There are some protections in the statutory guidance, but they are often ignored. There is no means of ensuring that they are enforced beyond an appeal to the Magistrates’ Court, which is intimidating and out of reach for most recipients, as well as including the possibility of significant legal costs (into several thousands of pounds) if the case is lost.
The judgement in Stannard v CPS established that recipients have a right to make written representations, and that authorities should operate a system for receiving and adjudicating requests to vary or discharge a notice, with information about how to do so provided on the notice itself. In practice, people are generally not notified of this right, and most councils do not have impartial systems in place for considering written appeals. When we last asked, the vast majority of councils said they had no procedure for considering written requests to amend or withdraw a CPN.
We have developed guidance for local authorities on the issuing of CPNs, and are currently developing a guide for CPN recipients. Our guidance for councils recommends that:
- the ‘detrimental effect’ of a person’s conduct should be significant, and not something that is merely annoying or disliked;
- ‘on-the-spot’ CPNs should not be issued, since these are open to impulsive and inappropriate use;
- senior officers, not individual front-line officers, should be responsible for ensuring the power is used in a targeted and proportionate manner;
- CPNs should not prohibit activities that are already criminal offences, nor be used in preference to more targeted legal powers simply because they have a lower standard of evidence;
- where a notice would impose significant restrictions on a person’s liberty, such as barring them from public spaces, the Injunction should be used instead, so that there is a proper legal test and court scrutiny;
- authorities should operate an independent system for considering written requests to vary or withdraw a CPN or CPW, as required by Stannard v CPS.
We are also calling for the removal of recipients’ liability for local authority and police costs in CPN appeals, and ideally for the provision of legal aid for CPN appeals. At present, the prospect of being landed with £3,000 or more in council costs is a major dissuasion for people considering an appeal, and it deters many people with strong cases from ever testing them. The fact that recipients face council barristers on their own, without representation and without legal aid, means that this is not a fair legal contest.
It remains our view that CPNs should be scrapped. We are not convinced that there is any need for this power, in addition to the civil injunction and statutory nuisance powers that already exist. The vast majority of CPNs are unnecessary, or would be better pursued through other legal avenues. If the power remains, it must be subject to the due process and standards of proportionality that would be expected from any other coercive power in the criminal law.
- Report by Josie Appleton, director of the Campaign for Freedom in Everyday Life.