[Mark Mountford (Regional Manager) and Paviter Singh (Wolverhampton Site Team Leader) will give a presentation on the work Kingdom carry out on behalf of City of Wolverhampton Council and will be able to answer questions put by Scrutiny Panel Members. Council Officers Ross Cook (Service Director City Environment), Colin Parr (Head of Business Service) and Shaun Walker (Service Lead Residential) will be in attendance].
Minutes:
The Chair welcomed Mr Daniel Edwards and Mr Paviter Singh (Team Leader) representing Kingdom to the meeting.
The Team Leader for Kingdom gave a verbal presentation on the work which Kingdom carried out on behalf of the Council. He said Kingdom had been in partnership with the Council since 2015 to make Wolverhampton a safer, cleaner and greener place. They tackled issues surrounding litter offences and walkers failing to remove dog faeces. They had achieved considerable success since the contract commenced. Their work had initially begun with a twelve-month pilot scheme. Since the Council had begun working with Kingdom there had been a reduction in the overall amount of litter in the Wolverhampton area. Kingdom also had contracts with Walsall, Dudley and Birmingham.
Several members of the Panel expressed their support for the work Kingdom were carrying out on behalf of the Council. A Member asked about the recent coverage in the Express and Star newspaper regarding the headline of “dropped an apple, face an eighty pound fine.” The article was in reference to the PSPO (Public Space Protection Order) in Park Village. The majority of comments she had seen on the social media platform, Facebook, had been of a positive nature in reference to the PSPO. There were a couple of negative comments she had seen, which included a person who alleged his wife had been fined £75 for dropping a cigarette outside New Cross Hospital having just been diagnosed with Cancer. She was also aware of a homeless person who had been given a fine outside of a hostel. She asked how Kingdom supported vulnerable people including those with learning disabilities.
The Team Leader for Kingdom stated they had a representation process where if there were mitigating circumstances they could be forwarded in writing to them. The case would then be reviewed and if it was deemed appropriate the fixed penalty notice would be revoked. Kingdom Officers were allowed to give a verbal warning if it was obvious they were dealing with a vulnerable person, instead of issuing a fixed penalty notice.
The Cabinet Member for City Environment stated he had been the person responsible for signing the contract with Kingdom on behalf of the Council. Before this time, it had been a very limited in-house service, which had little resources dedicated to enforcement. When the service was in-house only 2-3 fines had been issued in one year. Kingdoms patrols were not just restricted to the City Centre. The service was cost neutral to the Council as part of the fine income went to Kingdom and the remainder was received by the Council. Since the Council’s contract with Kingdom, the amount of litter in Wolverhampton had significantly reduced and more people were being caught for dog fouling. Fines could be revoked when there were special circumstances. He was of the view that overall the partnership working with contractor Kingdom had been a great success.
A Member of the Panel asked what training Kingdom gave to their Enforcement Officers in relation to vulnerable people. He had witnessed an event where a person in a wheel chair with motor neurone disease had dropped a full packet of cigarettes when in conversation with him. Three enforcement Officers had appeared from inside the Civic Centre and had assertively issued him with a fixed penalty notice. Whilst the fixed penalty notice was ultimately revoked, he had been appalled by how the gentleman had been treated. The Team Leader for Kingdom in response stated each case was reviewed individually, if a need for training had been identified, the employee (s) would be instructed to undertake further training. There were various in-house training courses and they worked with provider Aspire. There was training in relation to vulnerable adults. He added that Kingdom were not only there to enforce but also to educate and inform.
A Member of the Panel stated that if education was part of the service Kingdom provided, he thought the visibility of their Officers should be improved. He did not agree with covert practices such as hiding behind corners or hiding in buildings. He was of the view that they should wear high visibility jackets with clear identifying marks, which would give people the opportunity to reform their behaviour. The Team Leader for Kingdom responded that the uniform had recently been reviewed. The jacket would be replaced with one of a high visibility style.
A Member of the Panel stated that the Magistrates in Wolverhampton had a diverse range of opinions on fixed penalty notices. Some were of the view that their time was not well spent on these issues. There were concerns around the area of vulnerable people. People with serious special needs would not be capable of effectively representing themselves to have fines revoked.
The Cabinet Member stated he thought it would be useful for the Scrutiny Panel to have an update on the number of people who had applied to have their fines revoked because of special needs or vulnerabilities and the amount of fines that had been revoked. He agreed that effective training should be in place for all Enforcement Officers. He was aware that about 10-15% of people gave false details to Enforcement Officers. He added that the number of fixed penalty notices remaining unpaid should form part of the update paper and the amount of people the Council had pursued through the legal system.
The Service Lead for Residential stated a, Single Justice Procedure, had been introduced where cases were held in Birmingham and not at the Magistrates Court unless the person had pleaded not guilty. The Council did have a policy of pursuing people for non-payment of fines because if they did not, then it would become known that people could get away with non-payment.
Mr Daniel Edwards representing Kingdom said their Officers were mindful of being filmed and appearing on social media. All Kingdom Enforcement Officers had body cameras on them which were activated before the issuing of a fixed penalty notice and remained recording until the Officer had walked away after the issuing of the notice. This allowed any complaints to be reviewed with the facility of watching the coverage. When Officers commenced their role, they had to complete a five day training course and two days law training. They then spent three days on patrol with experienced Officers. If they were deemed not capable of acting without supervision, they would continue patrols with experienced Officers until ready. Officers were not supposed to issue tickets to people with clear vulnerabilities. All fixed penalty notices issued had to be in the public’s, Council’s and Kingdom’s interests and the representation procedure allowed for mistakes to be corrected. Kingdom were able to extend the 14 days permitted to pay a fine, to help people with financial difficulties.
A Member of the Panel said she had some concerns with dog fouling in the evenings and was particularly concerned about the areas surrounding the canals. The Team Leader for Kingdom said they were carrying out patrols along the canals. In the previous month, four patrols had taken place along the canals and there had been two already in the month of June. Two fixed penalty notices had been issued during the last weekend. They were also now carrying out dog fouling enforcement patrols on all seven days, having recently introduced Sunday’s into their schedule.
A Member of the Panel asked how Kingdom dealt with 16 -18-year olds and students at University. The Cabinet Member stated a significant amount of work had taken place with the schools on environmental enforcement which included the use of completions. Education activities also took place within the parks and town centres. The Service Lead for Residential stated there was a Juvenile Enforcement Policy which meant in most circumstances that 16 and 17-year olds would not get a fixed penalty notice. A large amount of work took place with the University, which included them receiving information about fixed penalty notices in their induction packs. For the first two weeks in September enforcement was not carried out around the University grounds, which enabled the University to convey the policies to students around environmental enforcement in the City.
A Member of the Panel asked about the percentage income the Council received from fixed penalty notices. The Service Lead for Residential stated that the income from a fixed penalty notice was £75.00, if paid. £60.00 was received by Kingdom and the remaining £15.00 went to the Council. The Council did not pay any fees to Kingdom for carrying out the enforcement service.
A Member of the Panel stated that communication was key. When prior notice of speeding enforcement was given, some people reformed their behaviour. He felt a similar practice could be introduced for Kingdom enforcement patrols. They also felt the hours where enforcement was carried out by Kingdom should be extended. There was considerable littering in the late evening, which meant litter was visible first thing in the morning. Mr Daniel Edwards representing Kingdom responded that the risk assessment for night-time enforcement was considerably higher. Enforcement at such a time would require discussions with the local Police. People who dropped litter in the evening were often intoxicated and so Police support would be required. The Police provided support in Birmingham where night time enforcement did take place.
Resolved: That the Panel receive an update paper in the future covering the following areas: -
a) The number of known people with special needs or vulnerabilities who had applied to have a fixed penalty notice revoked and the number that had been successful.
b) The number of people who had failed to pay their fixed penalty notice.
c) The number of people the Council had pursued through the legal system for non-payment of fixed penalty notices.