Local councils across the UK have recently come under increased scrutiny for imposing what many see as excessive or petty fines on residents for minor infractions under Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPOs). These orders, introduced nationwide in 2014, empower local authorities to enforce restrictions aimed at curbing antisocial behaviour in public spaces, including rules around dog ownership and littering. However, recent incidents have prompted debate about the proportionality and fairness of some enforcement actions, raising questions about the use of these orders as revenue-generating tools rather than purely public safety measures.

In a striking example from south-west London, a woman named Burcu Yesilyurt was fined £150 by Richmond-upon-Thames Council after she poured a small amount of coffee from her reusable cup down a road drain to avoid spilling it on public transport. Despite her explanation, she was approached by several council officers and issued the penalty under Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The encounter left her feeling intimidated and distressed on her way to work. Following public outcry and media coverage, the council reversed the fine and admitted it would review its guidance on the disposal of liquids in public places, acknowledging that this type of enforcement could be seen as excessively harsh. The council maintained its staff acted professionally but conceded the penalty was inappropriate in this case.

Elsewhere, in Northampton, a dog owner named Paula was fined £100 for walking her Welsh Springer Spaniel without carrying a waste bag as mandated under the local PSPO. Although her dog did not foul on the pavement during the walk, she was penalised because she lacked the means to immediately clean up if necessary. A spokesperson for West Northamptonshire Council defended the penalty by emphasising the importance of dog owners being prepared to clean up after their pets in designated PSPO areas, citing the orders as key tools for maintaining public cleanliness and community standards.

These incidents exemplify the broad scope and sometimes contentious application of PSPOs across the country. Local councils often have considerable discretion in defining the rules and enforcement protocols in their jurisdictions. For instance, in London Boroughs such as Hammersmith & Fulham, PSPOs address a range of antisocial behaviours including dog control, with fixed penalty notices typically set at £100 but reduced if paid promptly. Other councils, like those in Halton and the City of London, implement similar measures with fines ranging up to £1,000 for breaches, reflecting a nationwide trend of using financial penalties as deterrents.

While PSPOs are aimed at improving quality of life by controlling nuisances such as dog fouling, littering, and public drinking, critics argue that overzealous enforcement risks alienating the public and undermining trust in local authorities. The sizeable fines represent a substantial source of income for councils: for example, in London alone, Transport for London issued 7.6 million penalty charge notices in one year, amassing an estimated £400 million, according to research by the Daily Mail. This large scale of enforcement has been characterised by some as a 'war on motorists' and reflects wider concerns about councils’ motivations and methods.

Government guidance clarifies that breaches of PSPOs can result in on-the-spot fines of £100 or more if prosecuted, with penalties meant to be fair and proportionate to the offence. Nevertheless, cases like Yesilyurt’s coffee fine highlight the delicate balance between maintaining public order and respecting common sense and individual circumstances. As councils continue to review and refine their enforcement practices, there is growing public demand for transparency, accountability, and a measured approach that prioritises community welfare over punitive income generation.

📌 Reference Map:

  • Paragraph 1 – [1] (Daily Mail)
  • Paragraph 2 – [1] (Daily Mail)
  • Paragraph 3 – [1] (Daily Mail)
  • Paragraph 4 – [2] (UK Government), [3] (LB Hammersmith & Fulham), [4] (Halton Council)
  • Paragraph 5 – [1] (Daily Mail), [2] (UK Government)
  • Paragraph 6 – [1] (Daily Mail)

Source: Noah Wire Services