Public spaces are increasingly policed by unaccountable officials bearing open-ended powers. On-the-spot fines mean that police and other officials can punish people for a series of offences ‘on-the-spot’, without legal checks and balances. Criminal offences that would have been tried in court are now often dealt with like a parking ticket.
The result has been arbitrary punishments for perfectly innocent activities. A woman was fined for feeding the ducks, as was a man who dropped a £10 note. One Women’s Institute group received threats of fines for putting up a poster and handing out leaflets, while others have been fined for putting up lost cat posters.
See our report: Pavement Injustice: the Rise of On-the-spot fines
The hike in busybody fines From 26 October, councils will be able to issue £500 penalties for ‘busybody’ offences such as swearing, feeding the birds, busking, begging, street preaching, or failing to show a dog poo bag. The current maximum penalty for…
Earlier this year (and after more than a decade of our campaigning), Defra banned fining for profit in litter enforcement. Now, the Home Office has done the same for ‘busybody’ fines, which are currently being handed out at a rate of 25,000 a year (75% of which are issued by private enforcement). This was as a result of three House of Lords victories led by the Liberal Democrat peer Tim Clement Jones, who introduced a series of amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill. The government rejected these amendments but agreed to use guidance to check incentivised punishment. Now, the Home Office has revised…
A community volunteer in Nottingham was fined for leaving a single kale leaf in a shopping trolley. She was fined by a private enforcement agent contracted by the council, who was incentivised to issue as many fines as possible. This shouldn’t be…
After over a decade of our campaigning, Defra has released new statutory guidance on litter enforcement powers. The guidance, which came into force in April 2026, was the subject of a Guardian exclusive. This is the statutory guidance we have been seeking. It is not perfect and could have gone further, but it contains several provisions that – if enforced – should put an end to the worst practices of the private enforcement industry. Here are the key gains. 1. Private firms must not profit from increasing the volume of fines. This is the crucial provision. For years, the standard model has been for private companies…
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…
On 25 February, peers passed an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill to ban fining for profit for ‘busybody’ offences. The amendment states that companies ‘must not receive, directly or indirectly, any financial benefit that is contingent upon the (a) issuing of a fixed penalty notice, or (b) the number or value of fixed penalty notices issued’. This would mean that ‘payment per fine’ contracts – under which over 14,000 penalties are issued each year – would be declared invalid. Council ‘busybody’ powers (Public Spaces Protection Orders, and Community Protection Notices) have led to new bans on activities such as feeding…
The Crime and Policing Bill will increase penalties for ‘busybody’ offences from £100 to £500 (clause 4). On-the-spot penalties for Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPOs) and Community Protection Notices (CPNs) are currently issued at a rate of over 20,000 a year (in 2023 there were 19,000 FPNs for PSPOs, and 1,200 for CPNs). This price hike will therefore affect substantial numbers of people. These orders are issued on a low benchmark and have been subject to widespread misuse, including bans on gathering in groups or sleeping in public, and individuals banned from looking at their neighbours or ordered to cut their grass.…
‘Fining for profit’ is rampant in the UK. The vast majority of fines for litter and ASB offences are now given out by private companies, who are paid per fine. The company isn’t paid by the council – and they put up…
After the case of a man fined £500 for fly tipping when an envelope blew out of his bin, a similar thing has happened to a lady in Enfield. This case is even worse, however, since the council seems to be partly at fault for the incident. The lady’s bin had been broken – along with her neighbours’ bins – when a car crashed into the front garden in December, and the council failed to replace the bins for several months. In April, a letter that she had placed in her bin was found on the ground by enforcement agents, and she…
Welwyn Hatfield Council’s private enforcement contract has led to a number of unfair penalties, including a man fined £500 for ‘fly tipping’ when an envelope blew out of his bin. This is an extract from the letter we sent to the council’s executive member for the environment. I’m writing to express my extreme concerns about cases related to your employment of District Enforcement. As I’m sure you will be aware, these include a man fined for ‘fly tipping’ when an envelope blew out of his bin, and people fined when their envelopes miraculously ended up on the floor of other communal bin…
A man has been fined £500 for ‘fly tipping’, when high winds blew his bin lid open and deposited an envelope on the grass. The council was Welwyn Hatfield, which employs the company District Enforcement to issue environmental fines on commission (the…
The English Devolution White Paper proposes to allow local councils to bring through byelaws without first seeking consent from the Secretary of State. It also proposes to allow councils to punish byelaw infractions by on-the-spot fine. The Manifesto Club response is as follows: “There are important checks that currently prevent unreasonable or overly restrictive byelaws. The requirement that the byelaws be affirmed by central government means that the relevant government department can check that they are ‘proportionate and reasonable‘, as required by the legislation. Government also supplies template byelaws, which are time-tested and fit with these specifications. A Home Office Circular from…