I am aware of the serious concern expressed at Monday’s Rye town council meeting about the civil enforcement of fines for littering. Rother District Council (RDC) officers will make contact with the town council about the specific incident quoted. Meanwhile I wish to explain about the scheme more generally, and how it works.
The council entered into a concessionary agreement with NES Ltd (National Enforcement Solutions Ltd) at the end of August to enforce a range of environmental offences including littering, fly-tipping and dog control, issuing fixed penalty notices (FPN), when it was recognised effective enforcement was not being carried out.
The company has contracts with numerous councils, including Canterbury, Torbay and Tonbridge and Malling.
NES officers are authorised officers of the council and wear a uniform with a Rother logo, and are overt in carrying out their patrols across the district. It is an offence not to provide them with your name and address.
A FPN is an alternative to prosecution. There is no legal obligation on someone to pay a FPN. If they do not pay the matter is referred to the council with a decision whether to prosecute.
NES employees all wear bodycam cameras when interacting with the public. If the council receives a complaint, council officers can view these videos. They have found that the NES officers have acted reasonably, even in the face of abuse. They are assertive but not aggressive. To comply with data protection legislation these video images are deleted shortly after an FPN has been paid.
If we receive complaints from the public about particular issues, for example dogs in cemeteries or dog fouling outside schools we can direct patrols to be carried out there. They will be used to control littering in Camber over the summer.
The majority of FPNs are issued for littering by way of dropping cigarette butts on the ground. This is not surprising as this is the most common form of littering. Tidy Britain is currently running a publicity campaign to highlight this anti-social act. It would be good if all smokers carried a pouch to dispose of their cigarette butts responsibly.
We have been surprised by the extent that businesses in Rother have been mistakenly disposing of their waste through the council street cleansing and waste collection service. This has been for domestic waste only for over 30 years.
NES Ltd have issued over 1000 FPNs since September. It is therefore expected that some will be issued in error. In those cases the company has cancelled the FPN upon representation.
The council is receiving an income from NES Ltd, which is being used to clear fly-tips, sweep twittens and remove graffiti, including a new project to clean all our bus shelters.
Rother’s cabinet will make a decision about whether to continue with the concessionary agreement with NES Ltd in June. The council cannot resolve not to enforce legislation in Rye or elsewhere.
Image Credits: Andrew Mier , RDC .
Cllr Prochak states that “It is an offence not to provide [NES officers] with your name and address.” While I do not doubt this, could she please tell us the legislation they rely on for this, the circumstances under which they can demand this information, and what happens if you refuse – what actions are the NES officers are instructed to take? Do we have the right to demand ID from the NES officers should they ask us for our details?
She also expects that FPNs will be issued in error – what is the current error rate and what rate does the council deem acceptable?
[Rye News Note..more information on https://www.gov.uk/pay-challenge-fine-environmental-offence
David I have asked for the information you want. Your questions I am sure will be relevant when RDC discusses the renewal of the contract.
The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 amended the Environmental Protection Act 1990 which allowed LAs to issue FPNs and created the duty to provide your name and address. Yes, you can ask for ID, all NES officers have ID and an authorisation signed by our Chief Executive. An error rate of 1%, 5% would be reasonable. No enforcement agency is going to be perfect. However, remember if someone feels wrongly accused, they don’t have to pay the fine and Rother will then make a judgement.
I feel that in view of the above I must comment that when a very elderly lady is left shaking and in tears after an encounter with an NES Officer, something is definitely wrong in their approach to reasonable enforcement. This is what needs to be addressed!
As an aside, I am happy to hear that NES Officers will be tasked with addressing the littering at Camber during the summer. Perhaps they could also patrol near the Public Conveniences at Winchelsea Beach and by doing prevent the massive and truly offensive mountains of refuse left there by visitors to the beach every weekend.
Could the income received from NES also be used to provide more litter bins which potentially could reduce the amount of fines issued, or would that be counterproductive for NES ?
Whatever happens with businesses in the rest of Rother, I know from speaking with many business owners in Rye Town centre that they have been surprised at being mistakenly targeted by these NES Officers. Can our current Rother councillors please get involved with this issue and speak to and for your residents and businesses? Where are you!
The fine income received by NES remains with NES – it receives no funding from Rother – hence, issuing fines is an imperative!
Si, You have had Cllr Sue Prochak MBE – Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member holding the relevant portfolio – answering residents’ concerns and troubling to respond in to a comment on a Sunday. What more do you want?
It’s no secret that Cllr Howard Norton is not standing at the 4 May Rother elections. At the age of 82 he has earned his retirement, having been a very active and effective councillor.
The Lib Dems announced their local candidates in the Rye News on 15 December, so this should be no surprise to anyone.
https://www.ryenews.org.uk/news/lib-Dems-select-candidates
I do not know Cllr Stevens plans.
There is a worrying story from Loretta Williamson currently circulating on Nextdoor Neighbourhood which reports dogwalkers receiving instant fines of £100 for walking their dogs through Rye cemetery, despite the dogs being on leads and in areas designated as permitted for use by dog walkers – the principal footpath. If this is true (and the posts indicate that it does have substance) then it seems that Rother should be very carefully considering their management of contracts with such companies. If they are put in a position of authority by the Council and on the Council’s behalf, then there must be some very strict safeguarding rules in place.
Who polices the policeman?
I don’t know precisely what has been posted on NextDoor, but I question what is meant by “instant fines of £100”. Apart from the fact that they are not fines, in what way are they instant? I assume the transgressor is not marched off to the nearest cash-point. Further, if they are wrongly challenged then it is easy to rebut the charge and it will be cancelled, as noted in the piece above.