Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Private Uniformed Officers to Police Litterbugs and Fly-Tippers in Haringey
People who litter in Haringey are to face tougher enforcement action as part of a new trial announced by the Council last week.
During a nine month trial starting on 21st of this month a new team of uniformed officers will patrol the streets handing out fines ranging from £80 to £400 to anyone aged 18 or over who is seen dropping or dumping rubbish or allowing their dogs to foul the streets.
The new regime will include handing out fines to anyone who drops chewing gum or cigarette butts. The officers will wear body cameras with footage used as evidence if required. People under the age of 18 will have their names and address taken for a letter to be issued to their parents.
The uniformed officers will be employed by Kingdom Security. The contract with the company is expected to cost £120,000 per year with the costs covered by money received from penalties issued.
Last year 586 fixed-penalty notices were issued for littering in Haringey. If the same number were to be fined in the coming year, this would generate an income of between £46,000 and almost a £¼M. Of course if detection rates increase significantly, a much higher sum could be expected.
Whilst more attention to littering will be welcome, there are reasons to give a cautious welcome to the new scheme. Kingdom Security claim in their promotional material that the environmental division is "led by experienced experts with police and military backgrounds" and recent press coverage suggests that their powers may sometimes be exercised with too little restraint.
Last year Maidstone Council suspended the operations of Kingdom's entire litter operation after a woman was fined for feeding the ducks. The Kent Messenger reported that the "£80 fixed penalty notice was issued to a woman feeding the ducks in Tovil – because the warden insisted no birds were present at the time."
In another incident a Twitter storm was unleashed when a photographer was arrested by Kingdom Security guards for taking pictures of a Golden Wonder crisps factory. Whilst the exchange is not particularly edifying from either side, the law was on the side of the photographer and the viewpoint of the Kingdom security guard rather indefensible:
The Manifesto Club (which describes itself as campaigning against the hyperregulation of everyday life) conducted a short investigation into Kingdom Security and found that the number of fines issued by the company has increased steeply. In 2011-12, the company issued 18,690 penalty notices on behalf of 13 councils. By 2014-15, that had climbed to 42,529 fines for 16 councils.
The Manifesto Club say that "In most cases, Kingdom Security receives a portion of each fine issued, between £40 and £75 of a £75 fine (on average, the company retains £45). In some cases, councils pay Kingdom Security on an hourly or annual contract basis, but this arrangement comes with ‘projected income’ figures: that is, the arrangement is based on a certain number of fines being issued."
The precise details of the Haringey contract have not been released, but there are some worrying local precedents. In 2014-15 Enfield Council received £221,200 after 6,255 penalty notices were issued by Kingdom – but the company was paid £279,090.
Apparently the vast majority of fines are issued for cigarette butts. However, fines are also being issued by Kingdom Security officers for: spitting, handing out leaflets without a licence and smoking in Taxi or work vehicles.
Whilst Haringey's focus on litter is to be welcomed, it is also to be hoped that they have drawn up a contract designed both to curb any excesses and to ensure value for money.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Finsbury Park Ranger on
-
I hope they fine the shops pumping up our burnt kebab smoke every bleeding day.
-
Permalink Reply by DTW on
-
Hopefully they focus on the professional litterers that exist. Be interesting to know if they intend to fine shops
-
Permalink Reply by john higson on
-
So they'll probably just target little old ladies dropping cigarette butts and other easy targets rather than bothering to go after the big and bad fly-tipping operations. As I tink I've said a time or two, the level of rubbish in the streets of Haringey, especially the mean ones that I live around, is pretty depressing, but handing the job of solving this problem to these private johnnies is likely to skew the objective of stopping this blight more towards them making a hearty profit
-
Permalink Reply by Maddy on
-
Well let's hope they do make a profit, otherwise looks like we'll be making up the shortfall.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
"It is to be hoped" that we will see a range of features and safeguards including: politeness; reasonable common sense behaviour (feeding ducks is not "littering", though it may be unwise and even damaging to the ducks to feed them unsuitable food). I would also hope to see proper checks and balances, with clear and well publicised ground rules; plus a quick, free, and simple means to appeal a fine.
I understood this is to be a Pilot Scheme and confined to Noel Park ward. Is that accurate?
I've two main worries about this scheme. One is that it seems to be yet a further step towards privatisation. If a private company can run the scheme in Enfield on the financial basis set out above. Why can't Haringey's own staff do it?
My most serious concern is that this risks becoming simply another form of 'tax farming', with the "farmers" (Kingdom) having a strong incentive to operate so as to maximise fines. Which could mean going for softer targets.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
Well yes it's a pilot, as it says above. As to its being restricted to Noel Park, not that I'm aware. Wouldn't £120,000 seem pretty steep for a single ward?
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
I wonder what powers they will have - presumably not powers of arrest.
I don't litter or flytip but if I did and one of these pseudo-PCSOs asked me for my name and address, I can I tell them to sod off ? If so, how do they levy the fine ?
-
-
This is what's supposed to happen:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/enforcement-officers-issuing-fixed-pena...
-
-
Good question and whilst it's one to which I'm not qualified to give a professionally based answer, I've set out below what my understanding of the situation is.
Provisions in the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 (CNEA) and the Environmental Protection Act 1990 make it a crime to drop or dump litter. Authorities may issue fines to transgressors. In the interests of efficiency fixed penalty notices may be issued. Offences can be prosecuted in the magistrates’ court, should a fixed penalty notice go unpaid.
As I understand it, by contracting with Kingdom Security, the Council is essentially delegating certain powers it is given by the Acts. This delegation of powers is specifically allowed by the CNEA.
As far as I can make out the CNEA requires an authority to set out who is to issue any fixed penalty notices and how these staff will be managed.
As to the officers' powers on the ground, they can gather evidence and issue fines, but my understanding is that they do not actually have any more legal powers than any member of the general public, but like shop-based security guards and any member of the public, they can make a citizen’s arrest under certain conditions.
To the best of my knowledge they may in theory detain a person they suspect of committing a crime as long as they have reasonable grounds for this suspicion. In order to detain them, they are also entitled to use a ‘reasonable’ amount of force.
The theoretical entitlement to use force to detain a transgressor is based on the belief that they have committed a criminal offence, so proof of this is needed to show that there was an entitlement to use whatever force was exerted. I understand that in practice force is not used nor are the powers to use it expressly given by local councils.
As to the attempt to avoid payment by the giving of false information, the Clean Highways* website has the following:
If someone is non-cooperative, for example is unwilling to give their details, they should be reminded that failing to do so constitutes a further offence and, should they fail to cooperate, that they will be prosecuted in the magistrates’ court for the offence that they are alleged to have committed, along with the further offence of failing to provide their details. If they then cooperate, it is considered appropriate to issue a fixed penalty notice.
However, if they don’t, the details of the offence should be recorded, enquiries as to their identity undertaken, and prosecution pursued where possible.
In some council areas the security guards patrol along with police or PCSOs and make use of their powers of detention if neccessary.
In summary, littering is a crime, the officers have delegated powers to sanction that crime and whilst in theory may use some force, in practice use of force is generally not sanctioned by councils. Thanks for asking the question.
*Clean Highways is a reputable but non-official campaigning organisation.
Sources used in compiling this response:
-
Permalink Reply by Sarah on
-
That is all correct. I used to work in the field.
In my experience people who litter cigarette butts are more likely to litter other items: cigarette packets, cans, etc. By far the number 1 item of litter though is cigarette butts and it's costing us the taxpayer a fortune to clean up. If they get into the waterways then it's poisoning our water supply too. A lot of people don't seem to realise that cigarette butts are made of plastic and do not biodegrade.
When I moved to Haringey from Camden I couldn't believe the amount of mess on the streets and the number of people openly littering. We need a culture change here and if that means more enforcement bring it on. I do hope that Haringey will have staff monitoring the contract though.
-
-
The thing with cigarettes is that you can't just chuck them in the bin unextinguished, or put them in a pocket to be disposed of later, so you really need to provide Joe Public with somewhere legitimate to dispose of their butts. Friends of mine who live in Richmond (where they often encounter similar uniformed officers attempting to fine smokers) have taken to discarding all their butts down drains because you can't be done for littering the street unless the butt is actually on the street. So perhaps this policy may have an unintended negative consequence in that more butts will end up in the waterways.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
