The obedient citizens felt like criminals: The woman was fined £100 for visiting her husband’s cemetery with the family dog and £150 for feeding the birds. Councils are currently raking in millions by employing private companies to police minor ordinances.
Lynda Martin was fined $100 for bringing her dog “Fly-tipper” to her deceased husband’s cemetery. Patrick Ward was fined £400 for putting out recyclable cardboard.
James Watson, 68 years old, was fined £150 for ‘dropping bird food on the ground and fleeing’
Councils spending millions every year on private police teams to levy fines.
After her husband, Niall, was interred, Lynda Martin would visit his cemetery every day.
Megan, the couple’s beloved companion dog, remained by her side at all times.
The 12-year-old collie had accompanied Lynda to the burial service at the Herne Bay, Kent, cemetery, and was a familiar sight to the gravediggers and gardeners who maintained the plots.
However, not anymore In February, when Mrs. Martin and Megan were returning home, they were halted in their tracks.
“A man with a camera approached me and asked for my information,” she recalled.
“He informed me that dogs are not permitted in the cemetery and issued me a £100 fine.” I told him it was unfair and that I was visiting the grave of my husband.
In accordance with a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO), the cemetery had been classified as a no-dogs zone. In the five years since the order’s implementation, however, nobody had violated it.
Until the local government of Canterbury City engaged a private company to administer fines.
Mrs. Martin recognized the symptoms, but based on her consistent visits over the period of nearly a year, she thought she was healthy enough to continue. The 67-year-old retired receptionist stated, “Megan was on a leash; I’d never let her off the leash in the cemetery to run amok or do anything similar.”
Lynda Martin was fined £100 for bringing her 12-year-old collie Megan to her husband’s cemetery (pictured together)
“But it made no difference; I was made to feel like a criminal regardless.” Why were the enforcement officers targeting a poor elderly lady who was simply walking her dog to the church yard, as opposed to fly-tippers and thugs?
‘I suppose catching someone committing graffiti would require some effort. They are paid killers searching for easy targets.’
It is a viewpoint shared by a large portion of the population of the United Kingdom.
According to a new analysis, authorities are raking in millions of pounds annually by engaging private police teams to levy fines for a growing variety of minor infractions, including littering and loitering.
And contrary to official instructions, the great majority of these companies are compensated based on the number of Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) they issue.
It is feared that this incentivizes their agents to issue more and more tickets, not only burdening financially-strapped members of the public but also fining them for trivial or even fictitious offenses.
There are numerous accounts of persons being harassed solely for putting out their recycling early, accidentally dropping a tissue, or feeding birds.
One man was even compelled to pay £80 for spitting, although he was actually choking on the food he was eating.
Experts are concerned that the situation will continue to deteriorate in a ‘cutthroat’ environment where corporations compete with one another to gain contracts.
66 local governments now employ enforcement officials from the outside to issue FPNs on their behalf. (Image of an officer filling out an FPN)
‘Fining for profit distorts the enforcement system, which is not guided by justice or proportionality, or the goal of clean streets, but by a desire to issue as many penalties as possible,’ warns Josie Appleton, who highlighted the issue in a report published this week by civil liberties group The Manifesto Club, of which she is the director.
This results in the harassment and intimidation of the public by law enforcement agents, as well as the punishment of minor or nonexistent offenses.
Such practices discredit the enforcement system and deepen the divide between the public and government officials.
In the past decade, the number of councils engaging private corporations to issue FPNs for small infractions has skyrocketed, with 66 local governments currently employing private enforcement agents on their behalf.
In contrast to the beginning of the decade, when there was only one company offering these services, there are now eleven.
Ms. Appleton’s Freedom of Information requests reveal that these private corporations issued 188,895 fines in 2021-22, a number that very definitely would have been greater if not for the disruptions caused by Covid. Nonetheless, this is the second-highest amount of penalties ever handed.
NINE OUT OF TEN COUNCILS PAID THE COMPANY PER FINANCE ISSUED, OR USED ANOTHER PAYMENT SYSTEM THAT INCENTIVIZED THE COMPANY TO ISSUANCE THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF The most prevalent arrangement is for the corporation to retain a portion of the FPN fees. This means that the company needs issue a certain quantity to meet its expenses, and even more to generate a profit.
Ealing Borough Council, for instance, let the firm to retain 70% of the fines received.
In the West London borough, around 10,000 FPNs were granted, with one of the largest corporations, Kingdom LAS, receiving about £660,00 from the deal, while the council received £280,000.
In Manchester, the city government retained 25% of fine payments, with 3GS receiving £639,000 from 11,881 tickets last year.
All of this is especially worrisome in light of the fact that both the public and the government have long complained about how these companies operate.
In 2017, the BBC’s Panorama program discovered that cops receive a bonus for each fine issued. There were also allegations of persons being “stalked” in an attempt to induce them to commit a crime.
In response to these concerns, the Department of the Environment and Rural Affairs (Defra) produced new instructions in 2019 aimed at ensuring that fines were levied in the public interest and not for profit.
The guidance noted that “enforcement should never be viewed as a strategy to increase revenue,” and that “private companies should not be able to increase their revenue or profits simply by raising the number of penalties.”
In 2017, the BBC’s Panorama program discovered that cops receive a bonus for each fine issued. (File image)
While several councils have already abandoned private enforcement contracts, this week’s Manifesto Club research, Corruption Of Punishment 2022, demonstrates that ‘money per fine’ remains a significant component of the paradigm.
Ms. Appleton explains, “There are currently at least 10 companies in the enforcement sector, and council enforcement contracts are sometimes subject to bids from multiple companies seeking to offer councils the best FPN rates.”
Due to budgetary constraints, a growing number of municipalities rely on fines to support services, employees, and special projects.
In addition, whereas formerly the focus was on littering, certain contracts for law enforcement now encompass more than 25 offenses. These include fly-posting, vandalism, unauthorized leafleting, and even repairing a vehicle on a public road.
Many councils employ private security firms to enforce Public Spaces Protection Orders. These include drinking alcohol in public, loitering near a cash machine, and spitting, as well as bringing your dog into specific public locations, as Lynda Martin discovered to her cost.
And firms do not simply give out fines. Some collect payments for FPNs, prepare court documents, and under one council’s jurisdiction, prosecute court cases.
Given this context, it is perhaps not unexpected that members of the public oppose situations in which they believe they have been unfairly targeted and handled.
Patrick Ward placed some cardboard for recycling by his wheelie bin earlier this year, only to be labeled a fly-tipper and fined £400.
The problem occurred in April after the 55-year-old businessman made modest renovations to his Torbay, Devon rental apartment. As usual, he placed the ‘neatly crushed’ packing from a new shower under his garbage can.
Mr. Ward was unaware that a neighbor had videotaped him and reported the material to the council.
Thereafter, an enforcement officer from National Enforcement Solutions knocked on the door (NES).
The company was acquired by Torbay Council the year prior.
Mr. Ward stated, “He indicated they had video evidence that I had been littering.”
“I explained that I was registered for council tax at the apartment, that I had no tenants, and that I was permitted to throw out trash for recycling.” Everyone on the street separates their crushed cardboard from their trash cans.
He then awarded me a £400 fine after consulting with those in authority. It’s a tremendous amount of money, and the entire procedure was arduous.’
Patrick Ward (pictured) placed recyclable cardboard next to his wheelie bin, only to be labeled a fly-tipper and fined £400.
Mr. Ward claims he struggled to determine why the fine was levied. “It was unclear what their stated explanation was, but one of them was that there was “too much trash” for a regular collection,” he added. However, there was no definition of what “too much” trash meant.
An appeal against the fine was denied despite the support of his local councilmembers.
I then had the option of appealing to the magistrates court, but who wants to go to court? He elucidated. I didn’t want to go to court because my father had recently passed away.
I paid the fine, and by the time I gathered the necessary documentation and went back to the council to complain, they informed me that since I did not dispute the issue in court, I had no recourse.
Mr. Ward continued, ‘To be labeled a litterbug and fined £400 is unjust.’
This is the type of fine one might impose on a person who dumps asbestos on a country lane. But clearly these individuals are tough to arrest, therefore they are focusing on residential individuals who are easier to corner.’
A spokesperson for Torbay Council defended the fine, stating that Mr. Ward was filmed fly-tipping by leaving commercial waste behind a local authority public litter bin on council land.
He continued, “Mr. Ward pled guilty and was issued a fixed-penalty notice under the Environmental Protection Act of 1990.” NES believes that the rubbish would have been left for Torbay Council to clear up as an instance of fly-tipping had it not been for the individual filming.
A few hundred miles away in Ealing, West London, 68-year-old James Watson was required to contest a similarly perplexing fine.
In March, the senior citizen traveled to the nearby Grand Union Canal to feed the ducks. He had packed along special bird food. However, a member of the council’s private enforcement squad approached him and fined him £150 for “dropping bird food on the ground and walking away.”
Mr. Watson, with the assistance of his son Dave, was resolved to contest the penalty notice.
First, they informed the council that the food was being thrown into the lake rather than onto the land. Additionally, the erroneous location was written on the ticket.
Even though the ticket had incorrect information, false claims, and the wrong road, he was still required to pay the fine. Because defending it in court would have cost more money than simply paying the charge, he almost gave up and simply paid the fine. It caused him a great deal of worry when we informed him that duck food is not considered to be litter because its goal when tossed into the water is to be consumed, not to litter.
James Watson, 68 years old, was fined £150 for ‘dropping bird food on the ground and walked away’
Even though it was initially stated that the fine would have to be fought in court, the council subsequently backed down and even pledged not to target other individuals feeding ducks in the future.
A representative for Ealing Council stated, ‘This section of canal is frequently visited by the enforcement team, who have received positive feedback from the majority of towpath users, who appreciate that we want to maintain our waterways clean for everyone to enjoy.
“We appreciate that Mr. Watson was feeding ducks in the canal and not cluttering the towpath on this occasion.” We have canceled his ticket and apologized to him in person.’
‘Errors’ such as these will undoubtedly increase calls for resolute action to govern how councils engage private corporations to enforce such offenses.
The Manifesto Club is requesting that the Government’s guidance be codified into law, outlawing the current model of payment-per-FPN to remove incentives.
The council has declined to reduce Mrs. Martin’s fine, stating that while it “understood the reasons she cited for having her dog with her, we must consistently enforce the limits and cannot make exceptions.”
A brown envelope just arrived to her residence contained, however, more positive news. It was put together by a group of well-intentioned local folks and contained £100 in cash to satisfy her fine.
A gesture that brought tears to a widow’s eyes once again, but this time for the right reasons.