I was fined 500 for putting a cigarette butt in a refuse sack

"Councils are allowed to issue on-the-spot fines of up to 500 which, unlike penalty charge notices for parking breaches, can't be appealed. Recipients have to argue the toss in court when the council puts their case. They double if unpaid within 28 days and are issued, in many cases, by private enforcement firms that benefit from the revenue raised. People can make an initial representation to the council if they feel the fine was issued incorrectly, which you did, but the council turned you down flat."

"The government guidance on littering enforcement states that fines must be proportionate, and different councils have wildly differing interpretations of what that means. Drop a fag end in one London street and you face an 80 fine, stray a yard into a different borough and it's 500. A 500 penalty for using a bin bag does not strike me as proportionate when a warning about acceptable receptacles would have sufficed."

"Haringey replied that an offence is committed when litter defaces a public place. Which your butt clearly did not. As a public litter bin was not used, placing the cigarette end in the bags is otherwise depositing the litter, it says."

"In principle I support penalties for littering that despoils and disfigures our streets, but in your case it was not littering as most of us would understand it. Moreover, the level of fines for first or ambiguous offences is concerning, as is the lack of transparency and accountability."

A 500 fixed-penalty notice was issued for placing a cigarette butt into a refuse sack awaiting street collection, with the council claiming it counts as littering because a public bin was not used. The recipient argues the act did not despoil or disfigure streets and that the fine is disproportionate for a first or ambiguous offence. The notice threatens prosecution if unpaid and cannot be appealed like parking penalty charge notices. Initial representations to the council can be rejected, requiring the recipient to contest the case in court. Enforcement guidance requires proportionality, but councils apply it inconsistently, leading to large differences in fines across boroughs. The council maintains an offence occurs when litter defaces a public place, and that using a non-public bag still constitutes depositing litter.

Read at www.theguardian.com