Private/Council Litter Police - powers to arrest or detain?

[footnote]

I watched a Panorama programme on the Litter Police last night - an undercover investigation of a firm called Kingdom http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08mk133 who are contracted by many Local Authorities to enforce litter laws.

It was mainly about the shady/fraudulent methods employed by the firms to issue Fixed Penalty Notices for littering. They don't charge the councils for their services - they are paid entirely from revenue from fines.

There was lots of footage of 'enforcement officers' misrepresenting the truth about what was 'litter' and what would happen if people wouldn't give their names and addresses etc etc.

One woman was followed by a 'poo officer' across a park demanding her identity and that she pay a fine but refusing to tell/show her where her dog had pooed.

He 'read her rights' to her - 'anything you say could be used in court' etc
He wasn't a police officer.
He didn't seem to physically touch her but he pursued her and eventually called the real police - I think.


However, what I couldn't make out from the programme was what the actual powers of arrest and detention given to Enforcement officers?

What can they do if a 'suspect' walks away non-violently?
Or refuses to supply name and address?
Can they legally use physical restraint on a person to detain until the real police arrive?

Do the police attend littering calls from these people?

[footnote]

There are so many 'paramilitary', quasi-police types wandering the streets laying down the law, I think it's becoming increasingly hard for the public to identify who the 'real' police are... maybe that's the point.

Between the RSPCA with their semi-military garb or the parking and litter police, it seems every 'authority' wants to appear to have physical strength by wearing 'police' style uniforms.

It's really disturbing.

I mean, it's just psychological intimidation tactics really.

All of these people could do really worthwhile jobs in social care or agriculture but they prefer to march around inmtimidating and fleecing the public - however worthy the aim of a tidy Britain is.

Can Councils actually empower officers to physically detain people? Or are they committing an 'assault' if they do that?

[footnote]

La Liga said:

2Btoo said:

La Liga said:

kiethton said:

How are they going to verify the name you give, surely you'd just give them a moody one?

You can, but the encounters are recorded so you risk ending up in court and receiving a much larger fine / criminal record.

But if you are under no obligation to give your name then how can it be an offence to give them an incorrect one?

(To do so is surely no more than to reply 'Jo Bloggs' should a random man on the street ask who you are).

As I wrote above, it depends on whether or not they're an 'authorised officer' for the purposes of the legalisation.

Obviously if there's no legal power there's no obligation.

If they are an 'authorised officer' - and I think they were, and I would expect the Councils to want them to be 'authorised officers' what steps would they follow if people did refuse to give a name?

One of the 'characters' in Panorama said he often pretended to phone the police and that usually persuaded the person to give their name and/or pay the fine.

How long could an 'authorised officer' legally detain a member of the public and what steps could they take to enforce that detention? Coul they physically restrain them if they attempted to walk off? Or like the woman in the 'poo video' will the 'authorised officer' just follow them ?

What if the police don't turn up? I think the 'authorised officer' on Panorama only ever 'pretended' to phone the police because he suspected the police (having more serious crimes to investigate) would tell him to 'leave it' if he really phoned them.

[footnote]

La Liga said:

footnote said:

If they are an 'authorised officer' - and I think they were, and I would expect the Councils to want them to be 'authorised officers' what steps would they follow if people did refuse to give a name?

One of the 'characters' in Panorama said he often pretended to phone the police and that usually persuaded the person to give their name and/or pay the fine.

How long could an 'authorised officer' legally detain a member of the public and what steps could they take to enforce that detention? Coul they physically restrain them if they attempted to walk off? Or like the woman in the 'poo video' will the 'authorised officer' just follow them ?

What if the police don't turn up? I think the 'authorised officer' on Panorama only ever 'pretended' to phone the police because he suspected the police (having more serious crimes to investigate) would tell him to 'leave it' if he really phoned them.

The area of law we're talking about is quite convoluted with designated powers / community accreditation schemes etc.

Without trawling through it, I think the following is correct:

If they request your name and address you are obligated to provide it. You are under no obligation to remain there nor do they have the power to prevent you from leaving / to detain you.

Upon not providing your name and address, either through refusing to / giving false details or practically walking away, then you commit an offence. It would then come down to the the LA to try and identify who you are and start Magistrates' court proceedings through their legal department - they may have civil options available (County court) but I am unsure about this. Primarily this would be from the body cameras but the question is who will be able to ID you?

Obviously they're free to call the police, but whether or not such a minor matter is going to get any sort of prompt attendance is another matter.

Thanks for that.

Assuming they are an 'authorised officer' and that a person commits an offence by refusing or giving false details - and then attempts to walk away but is, for example, restrained by the 'authorised officer' placing a hand on their shoulder to stop them leaving while he phones the police.

Has the 'authorised officer' then exceeded their 'authorisation'?

Does exceeding their authorisation then constitute an offence?

I suppose in theory it could deteriorate rapidly into a fight and or a he said/she said and then the police would probably be called by someone else.

I would have thought that a police officer would be required in order to detain someone for refusal of details (apologies if I overlooked you saying that already)