What are PSPOs?
Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPOs) are powers that allow councils to ban activities in public spaces.
PSPOs are contained in the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, and can be issued if a council official believes activities carried on in a public place ‘have had a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality’ (or ‘it is likely that activities will be carried on in a public place within that area and that they will have such an effect’). Breach of a PSPO is punished by an £1000 fine on prosecution, or by a £100 on-the-spot fine.
There is no requirement for public consultation: the law defines ‘the necessary consultation’ as ‘whatever community representatives the local authority thinks it appropriate to consult’. Nor is it necessary to pass PSPOs through a vote of elected council representatives. Indeed, a previous Manifesto Club survey found that half of councils that provided the data had passed the PSPO through a single, often unelected, council officer.
Our survey in 2022 found that there were 2,003 active PSPOs in England and Wales. It is very common for PSPOs to include five or more restrictions – and indeed some PSPOs include over 20 – meaning that thousands of new legal restrictions have been introduced under this legislation.
When we surveyed PSPO texts, we found that these tended to create ‘broad, catch-all offences’, such as Kingston Council’s prohibition on behaving in a way that ’causes, or is likely to cause, nuisance or annoyance to any other person’; or Caerphilly Council‘s ban on being ‘in possession of a potentially dangerous item’ (defined as an item that an ‘authorised person’ believes ‘could be used to harass, alarm or distress any person’).
We also found that PSPOs were being passed that gave council officers powers open-ended powers to ask someone to leave a pubic space, or to stop carrying out their activity (such as playing music, cycling, or swimming); if a person refused this order, they could be subject to fine or prosecution.
This report examines the enforcement of PSPOs in 2023. It finds a substantial increase in penalties, and a growing number of penalties issued for vague or subjective offences. It also finds that the vast majority of PSPO fines are now issued by private enforcement officers who are paid per fine, and therefore have a direct interest to issue as many fines as possible.
How many PSPO penalties were issued in 2023?
We asked 321 local authorities in England and Wales about the number of fixed penalty notices (FPNs) issued for breach of a PSPO in 2023. 298 councils provided data (15 didn’t reply, and 7 said that data was not held).
These 298 councils between them issued 19,162 penalties. This is a 42% rise on the previous year, when 13,443 FPNs were issued (which in itself had been a record high, rising from 470 in 2015 and 10,413 in 2019).
However, these 19,162 penalties are very unevenly distributed among councils. 145 authorities didn’t issue any FPNs, while 50 issued 5 or fewer. Meanwhile, top issuing councils issued over 3000 penalties each: Harrow issued 3919, Redbridge 3550, and Hillingdon 3060.
The primary explanation for this rise in penalties appears to be the expansion of private enforcement of PSPOs. Private enforcement companies – which are paid a percentage of each fine issued – have existed for many years, generally enforcing litter and dog fouling offences. Now are moving into enforcing non-environmental PSPO offences, and are issuing penalties at a much higher rate than local authority staff.
The 39 councils which employed a private enforcement company for PSPOs issued 14,633 penalties, while the 261 councils that did not employ a private company issued 4529 penalties. Out of the top 10 issuing councils, only two (Durham and Brent) did not employ a private enforcement company.
Several councils show substantial increases from the previous year. In 2022, Redbridge issued 163 FPNs for PSPOs; in 2023 it issued 3550, over 3000 of which were issued by a private enforcement company. Hillingdon is one of the councils that has previously employed private enforcement companies for PSPO offences, but these penalties more than doubled in a year, from 1347 in 2022 to 3060 in 2023.
This suggests that in some council areas private enforcement companies are becoming very efficient at catching large numbers of people for relatively anodyne actions, which would not be punished in other council areas. These fines make up the vast majority of PSPO penalties.
What were penalties issued for?
148 councils were able to state the subjects for which they issued PSPO FPNs. Some councils provided detailed data, outlining the number of FPNs issued for each specific offence; other councils provided a comprehensive or partial list of PSPO offences for which penalties were issued.
Overall, the largest numbers of councils issued penalties for dog offences, such as entering a no-dog zone or having dogs off leads. There has been a growth of new PSPO no-dog zones and dogs-on-leads areas, some of which have confusing signage and are enforced by private security guards. There are also new PSPO dog offences, including the crime of not being in possession of a dog bag, and the crime of walking more than a certain number of dogs at a time. These new dog offences are punished at a far higher level than dog fouling, for which fines are consistently low.
The highest levels of penalties are being issued in a handful of councils, where private enforcement companies on commission have started to punish broader offences such as noise, spitting, handing out leaflets, idling, swearing, cycling in no-cycling zones, or drinking alcohol.
For example, private enforcement officers in Redbridge issued 3016 penalties for spitting, as well as 142 for drinking alcohol in public, 8 for the distribution of leaflets, and 3 for gambling. Private enforcement officers in Hillingdon issued 2335 penalties for ‘idling’ (which was not a previously punished offence), 342 for spitting, and 115 for motorised electric vehicles. Meanwhile, Harrow listed its penalties as consisting of: amplification, feeding the birds, failing to produce dog fouling bag, drinking, leaflets, obstruction, smoking in a playground, spitting, street trading, and table stands.
Private enforcement companies appear to be moving into a more general policing of public space. Private officers in Peterborough issued 118 penalties for cycling in an unauthorised area. In Doncaster, private and council officers issued 54 penalties for failure to show means to pick up (including one to an under-18 year old), 9 penalties for begging, 2 for loitering, 16 penalties for people returning to an area after being dispersed for 24 hours, 15 for being in a group of three or more, 7 in the ‘urban road play area’ and 2 for ‘games’. Private officers in West Northamptonshire issued 395 penalties for spitting.
Some councils have used their own officers to issue large numbers of ‘busybody’ penalties. For example, Brent issued 679 penalties for consumption of alcohol in public, 7 for aggressive begging, 23 for the use of fireworks, and 1 for use of a megaphone or microphone. Durham Council issued 460 FPNs for untidy yards and gardens.
Here is a summary of the information provided by councils about the subjects for which they issued PSPO FPNs.
| PSPO OFFENCE | NUMBER OF COUNCILS ISSUING PENALTIES |
| Dog exclusion/dog fouling/dogs on leads | 88 |
| Alcohol/drinking in public | 47 |
| Vehicle nuisance | 18 |
| Urination | 18 |
| ‘ASB’ | 15 |
| Begging | 12 |
| Spitting | 8 |
| Car cruising | 5 |
| Cycling | 5 |
| Foul language/swearing/verbal abuse | 4 |
| Fishing | 4 |
| Loitering | 3 |
| Return to area/prohibited area/dispersal | 3 |
| Failure to carry dog bag | 3 |
| Gathering in a group | 3 |
| Noise | 3 |
| Amplification/use of microphone | 3 |
| Bin management | 3 |
| Feeding birds/animals | 3 |
| Handing out leaflets | 2 |
| Rough sleeping/sleeping in vehicle | 2 |
| Shouting | 2 |
Here is a selection of other notable FPNs, which provide a picture of how the PSPO power is being used:
- Greenwich issued 8 FPNs for abusive language, 23 for loitering at a cash machine, and 1 for an ‘obscene gesture’;
- Middlesbrough issued 17 penalties for rowdy/nuisance behaviour, and 2 for shouting and swearing;
- North East Lincolnshire issued 64 FPNs for dogs on the beach, 2 for metal detecting, and 14 for fishing;
- North Somerset issued a penalty for ‘failing to stop playing music when requested to do so’ in Weston-super-Mare;
- North Yorkshire issued 15 penalties for sleeping or remaining in a vehicle between 7pm and 7am;
- Nottingham City Council issued 38 penalties for unauthorised charity collecting and 6 for ‘obstruction’;
- Richmond Council fined one person for playing golf and another for ‘nuisance’;
- Southend-on-Sea issued 45 FPNs for begging, 15 for rough sleeping, 3 for ‘reckless behaviour’, 2 for ‘excessive noise’, and 1 for ‘stunts’;
- Sunderland Council issued 9 penalties for ‘removal of shopping trolley from designated area’;
- Thurrock issued 10 penalties for ‘verbal abuse’;
- Wirral Council issued a penalty for ‘gathering in a group’;
- Tonbridge and Malling issued 23 FPNs, ‘most for unauthorised swimming’.
This data shows that councils are starting to issue penalties for vague, subjective offences, which give officers – including private enforcement officers – a wide latitude to decide when and how to issue penalties. Almost anyone could sometimes fall foul of broad PSPOs punishing ‘excessive noise’, ‘nuisance’, ‘reckless behaviour’ or ‘gathering in a group’.
Council officers are also policing public mores and standards of politeness, with four councils issuing penalties for swearing, abusive language or ‘obscene gestures’. This puts officers in the position of being ‘language police’, controlling the words and gestures people can use in public spaces. Restrictions upon amplification represent another significant infringement upon free speech and public assembly, since without amplification it is impossible to speak to a public gathering.
We note that 12 councils issued penalties for begging, and two for rough sleeping; indeed, begging was one of the most commonly punished offences. This practice of fining people for being poor and without a home is both immoral and counterproductive. It is likely that a portion of the alcohol and loitering penalties are also targeting rough sleepers.
Finally, there is a worrying trend of PSPOs giving council officers powers to ban people from public spaces. Three councils issued penalties to people who had returned to a public space after being dispersed by a council officer. This use of PSPOs to extend police dispersal powers to council and private enforcement officers is of questionable legality, since it does not describe an ‘activity’ as required by the law. It means that person could be barred from a public space for 24 or 48 hours, without any right to appeal, which is both a grave infringement upon their liberty as well as potentially affecting their livelihood and safety (for example, in the case of a homeless person who is barred from a place where they can obtain food or shelter).
Case studies
Here is a selection of several case studies that provide a picture of how these powers are affecting people on the ground.
* Busking outside Wembley: David Fisher was playing outside a Bruce Springsteen concert when he was issued with an FPN for the Brent PSPO offence of ‘busking without consent’. David Fisher – who is also director of the busking organisation Keep Streets Live – approached the Musicians’ Union; they advised him that prosecution would place him at risk of substantial fines and advised him to pay the notice. Read a full account of the incident.
* Idling in Hillingdon: Online advice boards feature several people fined by private enforcement officers for the PSPO offence of ‘idling’ in Hillingdon. One man said ‘I certainly was parked up and had the engine on for “a few minutes”…as I was constantly moving the vehicle whilst waiting for my wife to come out of the doctors’. Another woman complained: ‘My son was issued with a £100 fine for leaving his engine running for a couple of minutes’, and ‘Now they want a further £250 for refusing to give his details’. Another motorist reported: ‘Got 2 tickets for keeping the engine on for more than 3 minutes on a hot day while parked up. And the other for disagreement on the offence’. Since there are various practical reasons why people might want or need to keep their engine running for two minutes, this is an easy win for private enforcement wardens.
* Cycling in Colchester: Colchester Council’s PSPO prohibits cycling in such a manner ‘that causes or is likely to cause intimidation, harassment, alarm, distress, nuisance, or annoyance to any person’, and handed over enforcement of this PSPO to the private company WISE. These wardens issued tickets for actions including cycling on shared-use paths, cycling slowly on a pavement to avoid a dangerous roundabout, and even cycling in a cycling zone. The council was forced to scrap the fines after a local cycling campaign provided evidence that the vast majority of these penalties were unfounded. See the testimony from one of these cyclists, who says he was fined for locking his bike to a bike rack.
* Revving in Westminster: Westminster appears to have installed noise cameras which automatically pick up loud exhaust noises, and lead to the issuing of an FPN for its PSPO offence of revving. One man said that he got a ticket merely for driving past the camera in his Porshe Boxster: ‘It wasn’t being driven aggressively, being revved or speeding up…the car was literally driving it, and it is a non-modified car with a factory-fitted exhaust’.
Conclusion and recommendations
The PSPO is an unprecedentedly unchecked power, which is leading to widespread misuse and perverse consequences. The vast majority of PSPO penalties are not issued for anything that most people would recognise as ‘anti-social behaviour’, and shows that the power is being used in a manner very different to the original intention.
It is our view that this power should be scrapped, or substantially reformed, to ensure that restrictions are proportionate, fair, and do not intrude upon people’s right to use public spaces. We suggest the following reforms as a minimum:
* Full public consultation and passing the PSPO through full council. A full public consultation allow for PSPOs to be subject to significant and broad input before passing – to ensure that the activity in question is a genuine public nuisance, and not merely something that one or two people find annoying. Interest groups affected by the PSPO should be specifically consulted. Passing the PSPO through full council would give an opportunity for greater scrutiny, and would mean that any new laws had a higher level of democratic legitimacy.
* Tribunal appeal system, which is cheap and easily accessible for any member of the general public. The current appeal system through the High Court is extremely expensive, and out of reach of most organisations let alone members of the public. In practice, therefore, there is no functioning appeal system. This means that there is no means for ensuring that the Statutory Guidance – or even the primary legislation – is respected, and there are large numbers (perhaps the majority) of PSPOs which run counter to this guidance or legislation. We suggest that councils establish local tribunals, in which PSPOs could be easily and cheaply appealed by local residents. This could be a similar structure as that existing at present for the appeal of parking tickets. This would allow for unreasonably broad PSPOs to be subject to challenge, and ensure that existing guidance is respected.
* Fining for profit should be banned for PSPO enforcement. It should not be permitted for private companies employed on a commission basis to issue PSPO penalties. When companies are paid per fine, they have to issue a certain number of penalties to make a profit. This inevitably leads to biased and distorted enforcement. Defra has issued guidance banning fining for profit in the case of litter offences, and is in the process of making this guidance statutory. The Home Office should do the same for PSPO offences. Any enforcement should be proportionate and in the public interest, not to make a profit.
Acknowledgements:
- Report written by Josie Appleton. FOI research by Alice Lemkes.
- Funding was received from the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust. The Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust has supported this work in recognition of the importance of the issue. The facts presented and the views expressed in this report are, however, those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Trust. www.jrrt.org.uk