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 1vut8bf3om5m9 on
-
I was referring to the larger scale dumping that per John is routinely done into skips of others by non-residents of the area.
I agree with you that the usual rubbish on the streets is from people shitting in their own nests.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
I watched the BBC programme yesterday and frankly was appalled at what their undercover reporter's filming revealed about the methods, attitudes and training of the KIngdom Security staff shown. Of course, it isn't evidence that such practices are standard across the entire company and in every borough. But - at least with me - they ring a louder warning bell about this company.
And about the wisdom of having a private company carry out this type of street enforcement where fixed penalty notices are run as tax-farming.Frankly I'm surprised that someone could watch the TV programme, reflect on what they've seen, and not have some serious concerns at the practices shown.
As I recall, Haringey's association with the company was based on a pilot scheme in Noel Park ward. Does anyone have any hard information about the terms of the scheme, and the outcome of the pilot?
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
What seemed quite telling for me in the programme was the claim that the company isn't interested in taking on contracts where councils won't give them free reign to enforce pretty much as they see fit.
Kingdom work by making no charge to their clients, but by making their income through the fines income. As an incentive to a council to sign a contract they even offer to remit a portion of each fine to the council. Each officer is also financially incentivised to fine.
It might be that this sort of set-up could work effectively and fairly, but the programme clearly implied that with Kingdom the effect is very clearly to encourage sometimes indiscriminate fining and at all times to fine whenever and wherever possible.
Where councils want to offer a more nuanced approach by mixing fines with warnings, the company will apparently decline to take on the contract.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
Hugh, when you say this: "It might be that this sort of set-up could work effectively and fairly" you make me laugh. The business model is completely responsible for the employees' behaviour.
-
-
Kingdom's model is, but I'd think it's possible that a model that finances through fines revenue could conceivably be set up in such a way as to encourage greater fairness.
-
Permalink Reply by pamish on
-
In the Utopia that will begin to evolve from 9th June, all such services will be brought back in-house.
-
-
Yes there is, but you have to wait until the children grow up and all the adult litterbugs die.
-
-
John, Haringey is already educating the next generations of children and young people into the same littering/dumping/ mindset. With a not-so-hidden-curriculum in the public "classroom" of our streets.
"Dump It and They Will Come"
-
-
Your last sentence, NeilT would be a sensible starting point. Rephrased as what do other countries do and what works/partly works/ doesn't work?
Though maybe a first stage would be to ask what steps Haringey's senior officers and "Cabinet" councillors took to ask that question before they arrived at the Kober Regime's standard approach. Namely that: whatever the question, the answer involves privatisation to commercial organisations.
-
-
Two Questions:
As I hinted above on 6th November, have Kingdom begun to hit Veolia with £400 fines yet? Gnawed puce or purple rubbish sacks cause me greater aesthetic annoyance than clusters of fag butts. Let these bucaneering privateers slog it out on the streets.
Since Kingdom police are reported to have been given free reign, if they were mounted would we have to give them free rein? My Kingdom for a horse, as Richard said.
-
-
Dismount my Lord, else Kingdom's clownish troupe
Do fine thee for thy horse's unscooped poop.
-
-
I like it, Alan!
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
