Litter and flytipping offences - enforcement review: final report

The effectiveness of enforcement measures

Overview

Enforcement should be used to deter potential offenders, punish offenders, raise awareness that particular actions are unlawful, address persistent environmental quality issues for which other interventions have had a limited effect, and promote positive behaviour in the long term^[121].

It was recognised by stakeholders interviewed and by local authorities surveyed as part of the project that enforcement does not always act as an effective deterrent. 56% of local authorities surveyed felt that in its current format, the enforcement model does not act as a deterrent to those carrying out litter and flytipping. In addition, only 12.5% of local authorities surveyed felt the current enforcement model is effective, 37.5% felt it maybe is, while 50% felt the current model is not effective.

As well as not currently acting as a deterrent, the level of the fine is also often not comparable to the time and money spent investigating the offence and clearing it up. The Local Government Association (LGA), a national membership body for local authorities in England and Wales, has publicly stated that, in England and Wales, “fines for flytipping must be significantly increased to act as a suitable deterrent^[122]”, with proposed changes to flytipping fines being outlined in a letter to the Sentencing Council, which has been co-signed by the LGA alongside 158 local authorities and 10 professional bodies.

The level of the fine (for FPN and in some cases FMPs) is also often not comparable to the financial benefit of carrying out the offence to act as a deterrent. This is especially true for waste criminals and businesses disposing of waste incorrectly. If criminals are saving a lot of money by not disposing of waste in the correct manner, then a small fine is not going to be comparable to the saving/profit that they are making. Waste criminals will find innovative ways to beat the system and the low level of fines (value and quantity) currently issued will make others think they can get away with it. The VMP that can be issued by SEPA helps to tackle this issue for waste criminals as a fine of up to £40,000 for flytipping offences under Section 33(6) of the Environmental Protection Act can be issued, helping to remove the financial benefit up to that level. It should be recognised, as highlighted by Keep Wales Tidy^[123], that issuing a larger (or increasing) number of FPN’s (and FMPs and VMPs) does not mean that enforcement has succeeded as the crime is still taking place.

There is an argument to increasing the level of the fine (FPN) for flytipping to be proportional with the potential financial benefit gained from the crime. However, for litter, its relative seriousness, and the time and money spent investigating and clearing it up, means this is not necessarily the most effective solution. Enforcement cannot work in isolation and must be part of a wider engagement and prevention strategy^[124]. Research suggests that there is no direct correlation between increased enforcement and happier, or cleaner, communities^[125]. Intelligent enforcement strategies are needed which specifically address local issues for the purpose of behaviour change. Stakeholders interviewed as part of this project highlighted that litter is a particular problem around schools and on roadsides, each bringing their own enforcement challenges.

In addition to the level of the fine, fines are not always paid, and this gives the message that individuals can get away with the crime without any punishment. When individuals choose not to pay a fine, cases can be passed to prosecutors, though reports can only be taken forward by prosecutors where there is sufficient evidence. Given the evidence requirements for prosecution many cases, including those where the FPN has not been paid and the case has been passed onto prosecutors, may not be taken forward. While this is directly linked to the availability of evidence, it may appear to the public that the threat of consequence looks empty and undermines the effectiveness of the model regardless of the value of the fine.

Stakeholder engagement highlighted that on the ground resources are a key challenge in ensuring that enforcement works to its full potential. Despite some enforcement bodies having dedicated enforcement teams, litter and flytipping is often not seen as a priority and resources are stretched. The current model is also not working due to a lack of consistency and approach across enforcement bodies. Litter and flytipping are very separate crimes with different motivations and offenders and the enforcement model used by enforcement bodies needs to reflect this.

Case Study – the role of technology

Our analysis indicates that gathering robust evidence of flytipping instances is hindering enforcement activity, making it challenging to fine and prosecute offenders. However, recent installations of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology has been proven to be a highly effective method for aiding enforcement activity. AI has the potential to transform the way local authorities deal with flytipping^[126], with high resolution cameras being combined with AI and automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) technology, to provide a quick way of capturing flytipping incidences and identifying and tracing the offender through their number plate details. This in turn can impact re-offending, as offenders know there is a higher likelihood of being caught.

Westminster Council has installed AI technology in flytipping hotspots in light of the rising number of incidences being reported in the area since 2018, with cameras capturing the offender in action^[127]. The footage is then sent to city inspectors, who look to identify the offender. Once an identification has been made, the team will request the driver’s details from the DVLA, allowing for a FPN to be issued (or prosecution to be pursued if the case is deemed more serious).

Another example of AI in action is Vodafone’s Smart Camara Solution, which has enabled Kingston Borough in London to have better visibility of flytipping incidences, encouraging a higher prosecution rate and an overall decline in reoccurrence as offenders are becoming less confident that they will get away with carrying out the crime unseen. Since installation, there has been an 80% reduction rate of flytipping incidences occurring over the 12-18 months in Kingston^[128].

The technology works by highlighting differences and unexpected items. The cameras provide a real-time feed of events, ensuring that every incident is flagged. The system analyses HD images captured in the cloud via AI such as object recognition, ensuring greater visibility in hotspots. The technology can also use more sophisticated cameras which can capture vehicle registrations, even when vehicles are in motion. This is highly effective when it comes to flytipping as the majority of flytipping crimes are carried out using a vehicle.

Despite the success of AI in flytipping prosecution and prevention, the UK has very stringent rules and regulations governing the use of AI cameras for surveillance. A council must justify the need for covert surveillance. Such demands mean that councils commonly opt to use CCTV for overt surveillance, which requires appropriate signage to inform the public that they are being filmed. Despite traditional CCTV being more expensive and less flexible, there have been successful outcomes from installing traditional CCTV. CCTV cameras were recently installed in West Yorkshire, with camera footage successfully capturing the vehicle registration, helping with offender identification. The specific camera that captured the offenders was hidden and therefore out of sight. This suggests that the perpetrators were avoiding all cameras they could see, highlighting that having CCTV cameras in full view is itself^[129] a highly effective deterrent. Surveillance cameras are also used widely across Scotland to capture incidents and assist in identifying the offender and gathering robust evidence. Some local authorities in Scotland are also utilising the AI technology outlined above.

Social Media:

The City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (Environmental Task Force and Environmental Enforcement Teams) is using social media platforms in a new effort to identify illegal waste carriers, working in collaboration with West Yorkshire Police’s Operation Steerside Team. The team successfully identified a business that has been involved in at least 6 cases of flytipping^[130]. The business was using social media platforms to advertise their illegal waste removal service. Officers used social media to contact the business to arrange for a waste collection removal. When the van arrived, it was stopped by the police and seized by the council. The vehicle has now been removed from the road and the associated illegal waste disposal activities have been disrupted.

Enforcement action alone does not identify why an item has been littered or flytipped. In many cases, littering and flytipping is down to individual attitudes, but it can also be linked to changes in services such as Household Waste Recycling Centre (HWRC) opening hours or provision of litter bins. Cause and effect are complex and often there is little data to back this up, providing a link between the two.

Stakeholder engagement indicated that Scotland’s enforcement model and its success is constrained by the legal system (please note this was only the view of some stakeholders interviewed as part of the project, and not COPFS, SCTS or members of the judiciary). Currently the number of cases passed from local authorities to COPFS are low as are prosecutions and convictions. Due to the low number of cases, prosecutions and convictions are unlikely to have an effect in reducing the number of litter and flytipping offences, and reduce their power as a deterrent. – they are unlikely to act as a deterrent. However, due to the very low number of cases passed to the Procurator Fiscal it is challenging to make a robust and meaningful link due to a significant lack of evidence. The COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted the judicial system in Scotland (including cases prosecuted for littering and flytipping –

Figure 1 Number of people proceeded against between 2011/12 and 2020/21 in the Scottish courts for flytipping offences (Scottish Government, 2022). and Figure 3 Number of people proceeded against between 2011/12 and 2020/21 in the Scottish courts for litter offences (Scottish Government, 2022).), with a large backlog still being worked through^[131]. It should also be noted, as outlined earlier in the report, that the ability of COPFS to prosecute cases is directly linked to the sufficiency of evidence. Cases cannot be progressed where there is not sufficient evidence.

There is no perfect way to deter people from littering and flytipping. A range of different approaches from enforcement to prevention need to be used alongside each other. An efficient and effective enforcement model clearly has a role to play alongside innovative behaviour change interventions.

The effectiveness of innovative approaches and non-monetary penalties

The monetary value of a fine is often not the key driver in making people care about their behaviour or to dissuade them from reoffending. Effective enforcement comes down to changing mindsets. For some, warning letters often work just as well as fines in terms of the acknowledgement of doing something wrong and the associated consequences^[132].

Case Study: The use of warning letters

Warning letters are pre-enforcement notice letters sent by a local authority to a property owner, landowner or occupier informing them of unacceptable behaviour. In England 54,000 warning letters were issued in 2021/22 for litter, flytipping and other waste related crimes (Figure 7 Flytipping enforcement actions in England from 2013/14 to 2021/22 (Defra, 2023)., an increase of 26% from the previous year^[133]. Warning letters accounted for 11% of total enforcement actions in 2021/22 in England^[134].

Warning letters are an effective way of addressing offenders at their home or place of business, with the offender being directly contacted and called out for their irresponsible behaviour. In Bolton, volunteer litter pickers shared personal information from litter found^[135]. These details were then given to the council who contacted the offender to discourage further irresponsible behaviour. This initiative encouraged councils and residents to work together to solve a shared problem.

As discussed in this report it is particularly challenging to pinpoint the perpetrator of littering and flytipping, even on a residential street. There have been examples of councils sending a generic warning letter to all residents, however, this is not always a productive course of action. For example, in Darwen, a warning letter was addressed personally to every resident (via house number^[136]) in an area notorious for flytipping and littering. This led to some residents feeling ‘personally threatened’ as they were not the offenders but were the ones who had in fact reported the problem.

While warning letters can be a useful form of enforcement there will always be some people who are not responsive to this approach. North East Lincolnshire Council held a pilot over 22 weeks where street cleaning took place to encourage positive habits and responsible waste management^[137]. During this time, 195 flytips and 915 bags of rubbish were collected. Many households responded positively to the change but 38 did not and continued to dump their rubbish in the streets. These households were issued with warnings for repeatedly littering and flytipping, but this did not help to discourage their behaviour.

Engagement with local authorities as part of this project confirmed that while warning letters can be a useful tool, many people do not respond to warning letters. Warning letters could be more successful if the wider picture around enforcement was more transparent (e.g., penalties issued and paid and successful prosecutions). Publicising this information could help people see that threated action outlined in warning letters is followed through.

Fife Council launched a campaign to tackle flytipping called ‘Don’t Rubbish Fife^[138]’ in February 2022. The campaign was designed to tackle illegal dumping, which has been recognised as a serious problem in the area. It initially began in the Templehall area of Kirkcaldy. Actions included increasing resources, including patrols, clear-ups and CCTV in hotspots to encourage people to dispose of their waste responsibly. The campaign also encouraged locals to contact registered waste carriers to dispose of their waste and to report illegal dumping of waste on the Fife Council website.

Glasgow City Council has also introduced an innovative non-monetary approach where some litterers are offered the option of a litter pick instead of an FPN. More information on this approach can be seen in the case study below.

Case Study: Glasgow City Council “fine or time”

In Glasgow City Council, those caught littering are sometimes offered the option of spending three hours on a litter pick instead of paying the £80 fine^[139]. This initiative benefits the community where the litter pick takes place and also makes the litterer think about litter and the act of littering. This can potentially get the individual thinking more about the momentary act of dropping litter and the impact it has on the environment and communities.

Glasgow City Council has reported that many of the “fine or time” litter pickers have gone on to become Neighbourhood Improvement Volunteers. While this approach would not work everywhere it does go some way in making individuals think more about the act they have mindlessly carried out, and could potentially, depending on circumstances have a bigger impact than a fine that is forgotten about as soon as it is paid. This is, however, subject to individual circumstances such as income.

While CCTV can play a key role, as outlined in the earlier case study, it will not solve the wider issue – if a flytipping “hotspot” gets CCTV the offenders will just move to a different area. CCTV in one area can act as a deterrent for that specific area (and significantly increase the chances of collecting robust evidence), but ultimately if the individual is looking to flytip they will go to where there is little or no CCTV coverage.

While not a case study country for this project, Singapore is known to have very clean public spaces and strict anti-littering laws. In addition to fines, measures include plain-clothed patrolling officers and surveillance technology, which act to strengthen monetary penalties and make it clear that littering is treated seriously^[140].

Education and awareness around personal responsibility also have a clear role to play. One of the challenges faced with flytipping is that householders pass their waste to organisations they may think are legitimate who then dump the waste illegally to avoid the costs associated with correct disposal. Three Rivers District Council which covers an area on the outskirts of London has developed a county wide campaign to help reduce the number of flytipping incidents across Hertfordshire^[141]. The campaign encourages residents and businesses to follow the campaign’s S.C.R.A.P.^[142] code, which provides a check list to follow when arranging one-off collections of waste. Householders are encouraged to suspect all waste carriers, ensure they are legitimate, check their waste carrier’s registration details and refuse unsolicited offers to have any rubbish taken away. The campaign places an emphasis on personal responsibility.

North Ayrshire Council approaches litter and flytipping enforcement collaboratively across the local authority, in a partnership process that has proved to be really effective. More information on their approach is outlined in the case study below.

Case Study: North Ayrshire Council’s partnership approach to enforcement and prevention

North Ayrshire Council is located in the west central lowlands and includes the islands of Arran and The Cumbraes. The North Ayrshire Council Streetscene Team has established strong partnerships with various other services within the council to support their enforcement processes and activities. This partnership approach includes working with:

• Housing services who have agreed to issue warnings on tenancies when it is clear that tenants have breached their duty of care in terms of waste (normally for repeat offenders) as this ultimately ties in with the tenancy agreement.
• Licensing colleagues who have agreed to issue warnings on taxi driver permits for those caught discarding cigarettes etc from their vehicles and potentially refusing future event licenses for those who, for example, fly post.
• Education services who participate in the OB-litter-ATE campaign to tackle lunch time litter at schools. Part of this involves offender’s parents being informed of littering and the potential consequences that future occurrences could carry (e.g., anti-social behaviour contracts).

In addition to these collaborative partnerships the Streetscene Team at North Ayrshire Council has also worked to increase engagement with, and understanding from, the anti-social behaviour team and planning team on flytipping and persistent behaviours.

Part of the council’s enforcement investigation process involves the sending of a “waste discovery letter” when names and addresses are found with illegal deposits. This not only informs individuals that their waste has been discovered and that their details were included, but it gives them an opportunity to evidence how the waste came to be illegally disposed. This is commonly due to employing unlicensed waste carriers.

The council’s follow up process gives the individual a period of time to remove the waste and provide evidence that it has been correctly disposed of, or alternatively, North Ayrshire Council removes the waste on their behalf and invoices them accordingly. This is then classed as a debt to the council for “works” rather than charges being pursued through the courts.

Engagement with North Ayrshire Council suggests that this collaborative and preventative approach works because the burden of responsibility is shared throughout the council and outward partners and not just one department. A proactive partnership helps educate the public on a wider scale, and allows powers, policies or procedures out with the normal fixed penalty approach to be considered when holding alleged offenders accountable for their actions.

The challenges faced on private land

The robustness of data collected on private land is a key issue, with many landowners not reporting instances of flytipping. Private landowners and land managers are particularly adversely affected as they can often be left paying the significant cost to clear and dispose of any material. There are also frustrations around who is responsible for what when it comes to flytipping reporting and clear up on private land. While litter does pose a challenge for some private landowners, the key challenge is flytipping due to its scale and cost to clean up, so the following section mainly relates to flytipping.

A Members Bill^[143] was raised in the Scottish Parliament, looking to change the law when it comes to dealing with those responsible^[144]. The Bill was welcomed by the National Farmers Union Scotland, whose members see significant flytipping and illegal dumping incidents. The Bill focuses on better collection of statistics, removing any liability on the occupier of the land for clean-up whilst increasing penalties available for the producers of the waste, and strengthening existing FPNs to act as a deterrent.^[145].

The general feeling amongst those stakeholders interviewed as part of the Landowners Focus Group was that the current enforcement model is not effective. There was agreement that a lack of data makes understanding the issue of flytipping across Scotland challenging, with there also being a lack of clarity on reporting outlets, resulting in many cases of flytipping on private land not being reported. This was flagged as possibly impacting on funding to deal with the issue. Specifically for managed and accessible sites (e.g., forestry sites), hotspots often tend to be around entrances due to easy accessibility. Areas adjacent to railway lines and places with no CCTV are also often targeted.

Confusion over responsibilities to deal with flytipping incidences, due to different landownership, can lead to conflict between landowners and local authorities and ultimately, a lack of action. This is especially prevalent at the cross-over between public and private land. The overall view from engagement with landowners was that a joined up, coherent approach is desperately needed. Consistent dialogue regarding where to report incidences and who is responsible for dealing with flytipping across landownership boundaries was highlighted as an area for improvement.