Private Enforcement Of Council Fines Grows

Cash for Councils: The Controversial Rise of Private Penalty Patrols

Residents across England are facing hefty penalties from private enforcement firms for minor household disposal errors. These companies, hired by councils, operate on a model that critics argue incentivises fining for profit. This system raises serious questions about fairness, transparency, and the very definition of public service. From a broken garden bench left for scrap to a bag of sand on a verge, ordinary people find themselves in the crosshairs of an aggressive enforcement regime. Their experiences shine a light on the complex and often fraught relationship between local authorities, their outsourced partners, and the public they serve. This trend towards privatisation of environmental enforcement is sparking a nationwide debate.

A Surprise at the Doorstep

Anna Gilkinson believed she was acting responsibly after her outdoor seating became unusable. She organised for a scrap dealer to retrieve it for recycling, leaving it outdoors for pickup. Her shock was palpable when two officials in uniform from a company called Waste Investigations Support and Enforcement (WISE) showed up. They charged her with illegal dumping, followed by a formal notice requesting £500. Anna described the incident as bewildering, explaining the bench was only outside for a maximum of 48 hours before the scheduled collection. Her case highlights a growing issue for many citizens.

A Widening Net of Enforcement

Anna is not alone in her experience. She is one of many to be given a formal citation, known as a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN), for alleged unlawful waste disposal by WISE. The private business works with more than forty English local authorities. Among them is the Broxtowe Borough Council in Nottinghamshire, Anna’s home district. WISE generates revenue from issuing these FPNs because municipalities allow the company to take a cut of the money paid. This financial arrangement has drawn considerable criticism, with accusations that it creates a profit-driven motive for issuing penalties, sometimes for trivial matters that stretch the definition of fly-tipping.

Broxtowe's Contentious Trial

In April, WISE began a year-long pilot scheme within the Borough of Broxtowe. Almost immediately, residents began to voice their concerns, feeling they had been unfairly targeted. Frank Brown, a resident of Chilwell, was told to pay a £500 penalty because he left a pair of sandbags on a turfed patch. He stated that the sand was still in use for a home project. Following media coverage, Frank’s FPN was cancelled, but he remains worried that others are being intimidated into paying fines they do not deserve. He believes the practice is outrageous and demands that it be stopped.

Disproportionate Penalties Alleged

Another situation in the Broxtowe locality has fuelled public anger. A resident of nearby Bramcote received a bill for £1,000. His supposed crime involved placing a sack of yard trimmings on a turfed strip while waiting to transport it to the recycling centre. Adam Castledine called his interaction with WISE personnel perplexing and aggressive. He felt the response was entirely disproportionate to the act of leaving out a single bag of green waste. The intensity of the enforcement, he suggested, made it seem as if he were discarding radioactive material.

Image Credit - Freepik

The Business of Enforcement

WISE operates as a private contractor, by collaborating with municipalities all over England to uphold regulations concerning ecological and disruptive conduct. Such matters cover common problems like dropping rubbish and failing to clean up after pets, fly-posting, and the controversial charge of fly-tipping. Traditionally, council employees handled such enforcement tasks. However, in an effort to cut costs, many local authorities now outsource this work. WISE promotes its service using a "cost-neutral" arrangement, which means the council does not pay directly for the enforcement activities. Instead, WISE generates its income by keeping a portion of the revenue from the penalties it issues.

The Profit Incentive Debate

The policy of letting commercial companies retain a portion of the penalties they impose is a subject of intense debate. Critics, including campaign groups like the Manifesto Club, argue this creates a direct financial incentive to issue as many penalties as possible, a system they label "fining for profit". This can lead to a focus on easily ticketable, minor infractions rather than addressing more serious environmental crimes. Defra, the government department for the environment, has issued guidance stating that enforcement should not be a means to raise revenue, as it undermines the legitimacy of the system. However, campaigners claim this guidance is widely ignored.

Is Leaving Scrap an Offence?

In Anna Gilkinson’s case, she placed her unusable seating on the walkway beside her garden entrance after scheduling a pickup with a metal recycler. The dealer himself affirmed this plan with the BBC. However, two agents from WISE found the item first. They were not present when the officials initially came by, so they spoke to Anna's mother. They informed her mother she was being formally warned for illegal disposal and would need to settle a £500 penalty. Anna described her mother as feeling very intimidated by the encounter. When Anna returned, the scrap merchant had also arrived and loaded the bench onto his truck, a scene captured on video. Despite this, the FPN was still issued.

A Legal Grey Area

A legal expert in highway regulations, Michael Orlik, affirms that putting scrap material on a public walkway, even for a short time, could be considered a violation based on the 1990 Environmental Protection Act. The statute provides no exceptions for placing refuse on the road, regardless of the time frame. He presumes that if a court convicted someone for this, the financial punishment would probably be very small. This suggests a significant disparity between the potential court outcome and the large fixed penalties issued by private firms. The act of leaving items out for scrap collectors, a common and often environmentally friendly practice, is thus caught in a legal grey area.

Yard Trimmings on the Kerb

Adam Castledine’s situation involved a lone sack of yard trimmings left on a turfed patch near his rear entrance. His plan was to drive it to the waste facility, but the sack was too cumbersome for him to manage alone, so he was waiting for assistance from a neighbour. Roughly 36 hours later, a pair of WISE agents appeared at his door. He described them as acting like intimidating doormen, citing various laws and warning of serious trouble. He requested their help to load the bag, which they declined. He then pulled the sack back onto his property. The agents came back two more times, ultimately giving his wife a £1,000 FPN for fly-tipping.

Defining Fly-Tipping

Fly-tipping is legally defined as the illegal deposit of waste on land. This can range from a single black bag to large quantities of commercial refuse. The main law covering this violation is the 1990 Environmental Protection Act. While Adam Castledine’s bag of garden trimmings technically falls under the definition of controlled waste, he questions the proportionality of the enforcement. He supports robust action against those who dump significant items like mattresses and bottles but finds the pursuit of his case to be "ludicrous." The solicitor Michael Orlik agrees that while a violation may have occurred, a magistrate would probably only impose a trivial penalty.

Image Credit - Freepik

The Challenge of Appealing an FPN

These formal citations are offered as a substitute for court action in small-scale infractions. They give a person the choice to settle a fixed sum, avoiding a court appearance and a potential criminal record. However, trying to contest these citations can be exasperating. Anna Gilkinson reported multiple failed attempts to contact WISE by phone, encountering only a full answering machine. An email she sent took eight days to receive a response, and the company requested documentation for the scrap pickup appointment and the dealer's permits—documents rarely available for such a casual transaction.

Navigating the Appeals Process

Officially, there are no formal grounds for appeal against an FPN, as it is an offer to avoid prosecution. However, most councils and their contractors have an internal review or representation process. A person can refuse to pay the penalty, which would then lead to the case being considered for prosecution in a magistrates' court. This is where the issue becomes intimidating for many residents. The citations distributed by WISE for illegal dumping state that the highest possible court penalty is £50,000. This amount, though accurate for major violations, generates considerable worry.

Intimidation and Misleading Information

Adam Castledine voiced his alarm about the £50,000 amount mentioned on his notice. He felt trapped between paying a fine he believed was unjust and risking a financially catastrophic court outcome. Michael Orlik, the highways solicitor, described the phrasing on the citations as deceptive. He asserts that a court would never impose such a substantial fine for a minor infraction. Orlik believes the wording is intentionally designed to pressure individuals into payment without challenge. He contends the notice ought to specify that such a large penalty is only for major violations prosecuted in a Crown Court.

Council and Contractor Response

A combined response was released by WISE and the Broxtowe Borough Council. Their statement confirmed the collaboration came from community input concerning deteriorating public hygiene. The statement asserted that after education and engagement initiatives proved insufficient, a more focused strategy was considered essential. When asked about the financial arrangement, they refused to release specifics, claiming the details were commercially private. This lack of transparency is a key point of concern for those who believe the system is primarily about revenue generation rather than genuine environmental protection.

The Review Process Clarified

The joint statement from the council and WISE did provide a route for residents who are dissatisfied. It explained that people can file a formal objection with WISE. If the outcome is not satisfactory, they can ask for a council review of the situation. This appeal will subsequently be considered by high-level council staff. The statement concluded by mentioning that they were unable to discuss specific situations but pledged to consider community input during the pilot scheme, which is due for evaluation after one year. This offers a potential, if somewhat bureaucratic, path for redress for affected citizens.

Outsourcing Public Services

The use of private companies like WISE is part of a broader trend of outsourcing public services by local authorities. Faced with budget cuts, councils see these "cost-neutral" contracts as a way to maintain enforcement levels without direct expenditure. However, reports from organisations like JUSTICE have raised concerns about a lack of accountability and oversight when public services are privatised. Critics argue that the focus can shift from public good to profit, potentially harming the relationship between citizens and the state and undermining the very services being provided.

Image Credit - Freepik

A National Issue

The issues seen in Broxtowe are not isolated. Councils across the UK have entered similar partnerships, and complaints of overzealous enforcement are common. In some areas, these contracts have been terminated following public backlash. In Armagh, Northern Ireland, WISE's contract was ended after concerns were raised about their tactics, including allegations of targeting specific groups. These experiences suggest a growing unease with the model of private environmental enforcement, particularly when the company's profits are directly linked to the number of fines issued.

The Householder's Duty of Care

The law places a "duty of care" on every householder to ensure their waste is disposed of properly. This means if you pay someone to take your waste away, you must take reasonable steps to ensure they are a registered waste carrier. If your waste is subsequently fly-tipped, you could still face a penalty. This legal responsibility complicates matters for residents like Anna Gilkinson. While she intended for her bench to be recycled, just placing the item outside for pickup exposed her to a substantial monetary charge, illustrating the unforgiving nature of the current enforcement regime.

The Path Forward: Transparency and Fairness

The ongoing controversies highlight a clear need for greater transparency and fairness in environmental enforcement. Councils must scrutinise their contracts with private firms to ensure they do not incentivise unfair fining practices. Clearer public information is needed regarding what constitutes an offence and what rights citizens have when confronted by enforcement officers. The current system, as experienced by residents in Broxtowe and beyond, appears to be creating fear and resentment rather than fostering a shared sense of responsibility for keeping communities clean. A fundamental rethink is required to restore public trust.

Reforming the System

To address these issues, some have called for the government to make its guidance against "fining for profit" a statutory requirement, giving it legal force. This would allow individuals to challenge fines issued by companies paid on commission. Furthermore, there is a push for better training for enforcement officers and a more proportionate response to minor infractions, prioritising education and warnings over immediate financial penalties in less serious cases. Ultimately, the goal of enforcement should be cleaner streets achieved through public cooperation, not a system that feels punitive and arbitrary to the very residents it is meant to serve. The government has also announced plans to tackle waste crime more broadly, including digital waste tracking and increased powers for the Environment Agency.