BBC News reported today that Richmond Council has. within hours, reversed its decision to fine a woman £150 for pouring the remnants of her coffee into a drain.
The local resident said she thought she was acting responsibly when she poured a small amount from her reusable cup down the drain – rather than risk spilling it on the bus she was about to catch to work.
She was stopped by three enforcement officers at the bus stop near Richmond station and given a fine under Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which makes it an offence to deposit or dispose of waste in a way likely to pollute land or water, including pouring liquids into street drains.
Richmond-Upon-Thames Council has now said it had cancelled the fine as it was “likely” that Ms Yesilyurt’s appeal would have been successful. The council also said the contravention was “minor” and the resident had “agreed not to repeat it”.
“As soon as I turned around, I noticed three men, enforcement officers, chasing me, and they stopped me immediately.” The resident said the encounter was quite intimidating and she was left feeling “shaky” as she went into work. She said she had asked the enforcement officers if there were any signs or information warning people of the law but received no response.
A Richmond Council spokesperson said the body-worn footage of the incident had been reviewed and the council was satisfied the enforcement officers acted appropriately. Three of them?
This is a truly outrageous story. Is it really an offence to pour coffee down a drain? The regulations were patently designed to deal with polluting substances. What if it had been water? Does the Council have guidance for their enforcement officers? And if it was an offence the guidance on section 33 states that the standard responses are a warning or a formal caution.
The Council backs down saying the ‘offence’ was minor and the resident had agreed not to repeat it. This sounds very much like blackmail. Would she have agreed if she had been advised by someone other than a council officer. The threat of a fine intimidates most people, especially when it will be increased if not paid promptly. And if the saga had not featured on BBC News would they have backed down?
The Council of course still defend their enforcement officers – does that suggest they were indeed following council policy rather than being merely jobsworth?
Would these enforcement officers not have been better engaged in warning people they are committing an offence if they cycle on the pavement or keeping an eye on shoplifters?
