Inside the Litter Police Panorama

Litter is a big problem. ?2 billion spent on cleaning up litter and

waste last year. The public wants to see something done about litter. An

increasing number of fines are being issued on behalf of councils. It's

causing real anger. All I want to do is pick up the poo that you say I'm

responsible for. Look at this poor old man. You all right, mate? And

they're abusing him, you scumbag. Many of the fines are being handed

out by private companies who often split the takings with the local

authority.. There are millions to be made. So is this really about

preventing litter or increasing profits? Now we're all one slip away

from a criminal record. Amber Langtry, a graphic designer

from Brighton, faced a criminal record after a council employee

accused her of failing to clear up a dog poo, a poo, she says, her German

shepherd Olive never did. Any friend and I decided to take the dogs for a

walk in the park. The dogs had run off lead, immediately gone to the

toilet. We picked it up, put it in the bins. We were on our way out of

the park. I could hear somebody shouting behind me. Turned round and

I could see this man in a uniform with high vis jacket. I would like

to walk over there, you can come with me. I'll pick up the poo that

you say I'm responsible for. The man in the high vis jacket is a local

authority litter enforcement officer. He claimed Olive had done a

poo but wouldn't tell Amber where it was. I'm actually trying to remove

the dog poo that this man won't allow me to. I'll caution you. You

do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence, if you

(inaudible) later rely on in court. He read me my rights, that was

confusing. Because I thought that was a police power. He didn't work

for the police, but he was dressed like a police officer. The litter

enforcement officer still hadn't shown Amor the alleged poo. -- Amber

the alleged poo. I'm going to call the police now. Amber says she found

the whole experience intimidating. That's a deliberate ploy to confuse

people and scare them into accepting the fine. Where is this phantom poo

that my dog is supposedly responsible for? I realised he was

basically there to try and extort money from me on behalf of the

Council. After a complaint from Amber, Tower Hamlets Council dropped

the case. It told us that environmental enforcement officers

change people's behaviour by fining irresponsible dog owners. An

increasing number of enforcement officers are now provided by private

companies. They often share ticket revenue with the local authorities

that hire them. The Local Government Association says its members have

suffered significant budget reductions. Bringing in fully

accountability private companies may be better value. But it's a

development that concerns civil liberties group the Manifesto Club.

They say look, we'll come in. We'll deliver the service for you. It

won't cost you anything. You won't have to do anything. It's a

seductive offer to say hand it over to us, sign it over to us, and we

will make you a bit of money and you won't lose anything. This was very

concerning for us, because essentially what you have here was a

fine on behalf of the behalf of a public authority being contracted

out to somebody who doesn't have public interest at heart and is

seeking to make money. The most widely used company is Kingdom

services based near Warrington. It has 28 contracts with local

authorities in England and Wales. It made a gross profit of ?9 million

last year. Up more than 30% on the year before.

Enforcement officers issue fixed penalty notices. One man didn't take

his fine lying down. I could have been charged with a criminal record

for doing nothing wrong. Luke Gutheridge helps out on his dad's

market stall. The company responsible for environmental

enforcement here until recently was Kingdom. It was a nice summer's day.

I had a bag of fruit in my left hand. I was unpeeling the orange

from my right hand. By accident, Luke dropped a small piece of orange

peel, which was spotted by an eagle eyed Kingdom officer. It involves

the orange peel that you've dropped on the floor. There

I put it all in the... There is a peel on the floor there, Sir. I

retraced my toot steps and it was the size of a 50 p piece. I picked

it up and put it in the bin. He started to issue a fine.

Unfortunately, it's an offence contrary to section 87 Environmental

Protection Act. Unfortunately, it's still an offence. Even though Luke

dropped the peel by accident and picked it up, the Kingdom officer

was determined to proceed. I will be issuing a fixed penalty notice for

some ?75 payable within 14 days. I was shocked I received a ticket.

There was nothing to do once you receive the ticket, you had the

ticket. I was going to basically appeal the case, because why should

I pay for something I didn't do? Neither Kingdom nor the council had

reckoned with Luke's mum, who works for a lawyer. My main concern was

trying to find any case law had somebody been prosecuted before? And

the cases that I did find were people who actually did litter, but

there was nothing like this, nobody had actually challenged. So this was

a one off actually. Kingdom's own body camera footage shows that the

enforcement officer failed to follow guidelines set out by DEFRA, the

Government department responsible for policing litter. The DEFRA

guidance says look, in cases such as this, then it's not good to

prosecute. So in Luke's case, clearly, had the officer merely

wished to carry out the spirit of the act, they would have said OK,

not a problem. End of story. In court, magistrates accepted that

Luke had dropped the peel accidentally and acquitted him. But

his decision to fight wasn't easy. Had he lost he could have been fined

?2,500 and got a criminal record. Standing in the box, you know,

saying the oath was a bit daunting really. Had we not appealed, or we

weren't in the financial position to, he could have ended up with a

criminal record for life for dropping a piece of orange peel.

It's just nonsense. It's just disgusting to be quite honest.

Broxbourne Council told us that the local Government ombudsman found

that it had acted without fault when it issued the fixed penalty notice

and decided to prosecute Luke. Figures suggest that as more

councils use private contractors, the number of fines has soared. To

start with the fines were very low level, about 15,000 a year. Now

we're seeing really an exponential increase with almost 150,000 fines a

year. Really you're seeing, over time, this moving from something

that's quite marginal to something that is becoming a real trend. So it

seems more and more people are at risk of finding themselves in the

frame. One of the companies likely to fine them if they stray -

Kingdom. We've heard that officers are incentivised to fine as many

people as possible, something the company denies.

To find out how Kingdom goes about its business, we've decided to send

in an undercover reporter. She gets a job in the London borough of

Bexley. Her training starts with a lecture on how a litter-free

environment is in the public interest. But the trainer also makes

clear that Kingdom is after profits. Our undercover reporter wants to

understand exactly how the business works. She probes another manager.

Kingdom's website says it doesn't reward staff only for the number of

tickets they issue. It says that they do get a competency allowance,

which also takes into account attendance, punctuality and positive

public and customer feedback. The manager has just described the

competency allowance as a bonus and made it clear it's based on the

number of tickets issued. There's no mention of attendance,

punctuality and positive public and customer feedback.

At lunch time, our reporter's fellow trainees are excited about how much

money there is to be made. The trainee planning to dish out

fines like smarties is going to be based in Ealing, west London. Can I

have a coffee please, white, no sugar. It was in Ealing that retired

civil servant Sue Peckitt was served with a fixed penalty notice. She'd

allegedly polluted the water course. On the day, I bought myself a

takeaway cup of coffee. I thought I want rid of this, I was rushing to a

meeting. I took the coffee and I put the coffee down the drain in the

road. Then I walked towards the waste bin. When the enforcement

officer stopped me and told me I was going to be fined and it was illegal

to put coffee down a drain in a public place. To avoid the criminal

record Sue paid the fine, but then went to a local paper. The Council

caved in and handed her money back. Kingdom apologised and sent her a

?20 gift voucher. It is pure greed on the part of the enforcement

officers, I would say. In no stretch of the imagination could you say

that the liquid from the coffee cup is cross-contamination, when it's

going in a sewer and she placed the coffee cup in the bin. Ealing

Council told us the officers who fined Sue made an error of judgment.

But that the vast majority of fines are correctly issued. In Bexley, our

undercover reporter is learning the ropes from more experienced

officers. This one is scouring the town for litterers.

The number one target is smokers. It's not long before they get one.

He applies pressure to get the man's details. He needs them in order to

issue the ?80 fixed penalty notice. As the man waivers, the officer

threatens to call the police. The man is dealt with. The kingdom

officer tells our reporter that he routinely pretends to call the

police. What our reporter's witnessed isn't

a one off. Kingdom's instructor talked about it in training.

Over lunch our reporter asks the Kingdom officer how he's paid. He's

guarded. So it seems clear, if you work for

Kingdom the more you fine, the more you earn. In a statement, the

company told us its competency allowance isn't to incentivise

officers to issue fines. It says the allowance is discretionary and only

paid if officers meet all their basic competencies. In Ealing,

Kingdom officers have come up with a new tactic - they ride on council

trucks to check on people's rubbish. It's not gone down well.

The borough has a very big problem with fly-tipping, I appreciate that.

But they're targeting the wrong people.

On the 29th December, I put my recycling out two days later than

usual. Due to the holiday, Christmas time recycling always changes. So, I

put the big blue recycling bin out. Six small extra bags of recycling.

And my green food bin. Nothing unusual. Everyone doing the same.

About a week later, I received a fixed penalty notice for ?80 for

fly-tipping, on to the public highway, outside my own property.

The notice felt quite forceful. You have to pay it, or you're going to

be taken to court. You're going to be prosecuted. The consequences of

losing in court would have been severe. You have to pay court costs

and you get a criminal record on top of that. I the esided as soon as I

saw that -- decided as soon as I saw that I would not pay it. Liz took

the case to her local MP and paper. The council backed down saying the

decision to fine Liz was an error of judgment. It told us that it expects

the highest standards and a common sense approach from kingdom.

I think it is fine if the council get a private company to enforce

these fines, but they need to target the right offenders and not people

that just want to have their recycling taken away.

Even if you do the public spirited thing you could fall foul of these

wardens. Essentially they have a different agenda. It is about making

a target, which involves a different knowledge, in a way. It involves

knowing, for example, this is a really good spot because if you

stand here people tend to put out their cigarettes to get on the bus

in a rush. They learn the tricks more than they learn the law.

Britain's leading antilitter pressure group says it is vital

there is public confidence in enforcement. The cost of clean-up,

topped over ?1 billion last year. That is the cost of clearing up

litter. If you add to that the cost of waste criminal, that is another

?1 billion. ?2 billion spent on cleaning up litter and waste.

Enforcement is one of the methods we can use to change people's

behaviour, but it needs to be fair and have the public on our side.

Back in Bexley, our undercover reporter is learning the techniques

of the trade. She's learnt how to fake calls to the police to get

people to pay up. She's now being shown another rouse

And her instructor's got another technique. In court, the prosecution

must show the accused intended to leave the litter. On the street, a

fine can be issued as soon as the person moves away from it.

There is a way of making this happen.

In training, a Kingdom manager says the company's only interested in

working with councils who want to adopt a hard-line approach.

Our undercover reporter and her boss are patrolling. They spot two men,

one of them is smoking. The boss decides to follow.

We were crossing the road and we saw them pass. My brother asked me, who

are they? I thought they were traffic wardens. The officer sees

one of the men drop his cigarette butt and follows him into a shop. It

should be an open and shut case, but there's a problem. I was trying to

put forward to the officer that my brother is not understanding

anything and he was not resident in this country. But he wouldn't

listen. Kingdom's training manual says its officers shouldn't issue

fixed penalty notices to people living outside the UK.

Carlos gives the officer some important information.

I tried to put forward to the officer about my situation and

showed him my dressing. But he wouldn't listen. The officer issues

the ticket to a man who lives outside the UK. It is sent to the

home of his sick brother. I started to feel really, really

anxious that something will happen to me because he was maybe the first

time I get so excited after the operation. You don't know how you

will react because it is something new. My strategy was let him finish.

If he wants an address, I will give him my address. If he wants anything

else, I will do anything to get out because I need to go back home

because I started to get panicky. Worried about Carlos's health the

brothers gave up. They now intend to fight the case. The experience has

left Carlos deeply suspicious about the deal between Dinning dom and

Bexley Council. I am very untrustful about this relationship between the

private companies and councils. They become sticky. The companies weren't

put people as the first priority. Kingdom says officers are trained to

exercise their individual professional judgment about issuing

fines to non-UK residents, who have no immunity from committing

environmental offences. Bexley Council says environmental

enforcement is reducing littering and that the public have given it

positive feedback. Nationally, companies like Kingdom can enforce

even more anti-social behaviour laws. The latest, a public spaces

protection orders, or PSPOs. These allow councils to ban some actives

they consider undesirable. This prohibition which is obviously broad

in the extreme is being enforced by private companies on commission

basis. So I think you have got a worrying combination of on one hand

broad powers given to local authorities to create new crimes and

then the right for local authorities to contract out the enforcement of

those crimes to private companies on a commission basis. In the Forest of

Dean, the council working without an enforcement company tried to use

these new powers to overturn a right some local people say has existed

since Magna car the. Come -- Magna Carta.

Come on then... The right to graze your sheep on any piece of common

land. Come on! The council said there'd been

complaints. Incident 2280. -- 280. Three lambs and ewes walking around

at 3am. Incident, bleating. 297, ewe and lamb, two lambs roomed all day.

12 sheep present. Came back at 10. 30, some unmarked. The PSPO would

have banned sheep from grazing on common land in the village of Bream.

Any shepherd who broke this could have faced a fixed penalty notice.

The shepherds say they are worried it would not have stopped there. The

problem with this open spaces order is it could be extended to cover the

whole or any part of the forest at any given time at the stroke of a

pen. We considered that that could well

have been the end of commoning and the end of free roaming sheep.

For now, the shepherds have seen off the proposal. But they remain

worried that it could be reintroduced. And contracted out to

a private company, like Kingdom. The Forest of Dean council told us

that the planned PSPO was introduced because of irresponsible shepherding

and that it couldn't have been extended without public consultation

and a vote of the full council. Complaints about enforcement

officers have led to pressure for a national training academy.

We would like all enforcement officers to be properly trained. We

would like them all to understand what needs to be achieved within the

guidelines and I think we need to continually check with the public

that this is very much done on their behest.

Kingdom says it believes its training is extensive and effective.

That basic training lasts for at least 12 months and that there are

stringent checks of enforcement officers. But there is opposition to

companies like Kingdom being involved in policing laws at all.

Before the early 1800s we had thief thief catchers. Everybody knew they

would catch people who were not thieves because they would get the

money. There is the idea this person is not trying to punish you for the

sake of it. And I think that is something that should be of concern

to all members of the public, whether they find themselves on the

receiving end of these fines or not. Private companies are now being paid

to enforce the criminal law. The more people they fine, the more

they can make. While this continues, and companies like Kingdom keep

winning contracts, more and more of us are at risk of being branded

criminals.