
Man fined £1,000 for putting bins out one day early
Hammersmith and Fulham Council claimed Clyde Strachan had been fly-tipping when he placed rubbish sacks and a food recycling bin outside his home at noon the day before the refuse collection.
Now the west London council's 'law enforcement team' - its 'eyes and ears' - has been criticised as 'overzealous' after it refused to give an official warning despite the 37-year-old resident saying he put them out early because he was going away.
Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, rounded on the local authority.
'Instead of cracking down on genuine anti-social behaviour, the state tries to reassert itself by punishing well-meaning people for tiny infringements. It's the easy thing to do but it's counter-productive and unfair,' he told The Telegraph.
'This huge fine for putting the bins out a few hours early veers into Stasi-like control of people's lives. This man was clearly doing the right thing in the circumstances.'
Within two hours of The Telegraph contacting the council, the fine was withdrawn and town hall bosses issued a statement saying Mr Strachan, a lead engineer at a technology company, was 'not a persistent fly-tipper'.
The local authority insists that the 'number one priority' for the 72 officers in its enforcement team is keeping 'residents and visitors safe'. However, they issued more than 2,200 fines in 2024.
In May, Mr Strachan was leaving his West Kensington home for a few days and decided to help refuse collectors by putting his rubbish out shortly before midday.
'I deliberately put them out of the way on the pavement, tucked to one side against the wall so they weren't in anyone's way,' he said.
'It meant I had put them out about six or seven hours before the evening when I would normally take them there.'
When he returned from his trip he discovered an 'environmental enforcement notice' demanding he make contact.
'I spoke on the phone to one of the council officers and said I was willing to receive a warning but felt a £1,000 fine was excessive.
'I said I had put the bins out early as I was not available the next day. It was an honest mistake. I didn't feel as though I needed to grovel, but it felt like that was what he was after.'
A week later a £1,000 fixed penalty notice (FPN), with an early £500 option, arrived stating: 'There was one large box, six bags of waste, and one food bin deposited on the pavement and left. It isn't collection day so it shouldn't be there.'
The notice said: 'There is no formal right to appeal, however the council will accept representations from you within seven days…'
'It was excessive, completely shocking and quite unbelievably unfair. It feels like an abuse of their powers', Mr Strachan said, adding that he often picks up litter on the street or cleans up if a fox has ransacked bins.
Challenging the penalty
Mr Strachan challenged the penalty, claiming the 'extreme fine' was not appropriate for a 'minor infringements', adding it was tantamount to 'bullying and coercion.'
William Yarwood, of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said the huge fine for such a minor transgression was 'completely disproportionate'.
'This was a clear case of an honest mistake, not fly-tipping - yet overzealous enforcement officers have treated it like a serious offence. Residents expect fair treatment, not to be targeted for trying to do the right thing.
'Councils should focus on real issues, not hammering taxpayers with excessive fines for trivial matters.'
Councillor Jose Alfonso, leader of the Tories at the council, said enforcement officers should be restricted to 'working with the police to keep our streets safe - not trying to catch residents out on technicalities'.
He said the 'contemptuous and high-handed approach' was 'the hallmark' of the Labour council.
'We thought we were getting a law enforcement team, but it appears we've ended up with a council revenue collection team.'
A council spokesman said: 'Mr Strachan asked for a review of the FPN on May 28 when he let us know that the reason he put the rubbish out early was that he had been going on holiday the following day.'
The following day, they froze the fine pending a review. 'We have since cancelled the FPN as we agree that Mr Strachan made an honest mistake and is not a persistent fly-tipper' he added, claiming officers respond to 'numerous complaints from local neighbours about fly-tipping and waste on pavements in this neighbourhood' and it acts 'both firmly and fairly when residents ask us to deal with the ugly scourge of fly-tipping.'
Council's 'eyes and ears'
The council website says the enforcement team was set up in 2021, serves as its 'eyes and ears' and is 'one of the largest' such forces in Britain.
It claims 'uniformed staff patrol the borough day and night, seven days a week,' adding that they issued 2,270 fines in 2024, but 'are not the police'.
Council taxpayers foot the team's £2.1 million annual bill.
A separate web page explains how bags should be put out 'before 6am on your normal collection day, or after 9pm on the evening before.'
It adds: 'Putting your bins out on the wrong day or in the wrong way could result in action against you for dumping rubbish.' However, that page does not mention £1,000 fines for fly-tipping.
In 2024, the council announced that it was introducing 'hefty new fines for fly-tipping' to 'act as a deterrent'. Fines were increased from £200 to £1,000, with a pledge that money raised will fund clean-up operations and 'enforcing the new rules'.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


BBC News
29 minutes ago
- BBC News
Met defends facial recognition plan for Notting Hill Carnival
The Met Police commissioner has defended Live Facial Recognition (LFR) technology as a tool that helps officers locate people on watch lists, ahead of its use at Notting Hill Mark Rowley responded to calls from civil liberty and anti-racism groups to drop its use of LFR, which treats people "as potential suspects", at the bank holiday event."Our aim is to ensure that Carnival remains a safe and inclusive celebration for all. It is our operational judgement that LFR has an important role in delivering on this aim," Sir Mark said in a added that almost 350 arrests were made at Carnival last year for a range of offences including homicide, rape and possession of weapons. On Sunday, 11 organisations penned a letter to Sir Mark, where they described LFR as "a mass surveillance tool that treats all Carnival-goers as potential suspects and has no place at one of London's biggest cultural celebrations".They said the decision to reintroduce the technology at Carnival was "deeply disappointing" and argued it could be "less accurate for women and people of colour". 'Learning from experience' Sir Mark said the force had designed an extensive and complex policing operation to keep carnival-goers, expected to be more than one million in number, wrote: "We acknowledge that when LFR was previously deployed at Notting Hill Carnival in 2016 and 2017, it did not build public confidence."At that time, the technology was in its early stages and the algorithm's performance was limited. The legal and oversight position was also very different."He said that since, the technology had made "considerable progress", and had an improved algorithm that performed at a higher standard."We have also refined our operational approach - including not using LFR within the Carnival footprint," he added."These developments reflect our commitment to learning from experience and improving how we support public safety while maintaining trust." The groups concerned about the technology included Liberty, Big Brother Watch and the Runnymede Trust. They highlighted an ongoing judicial review brought by Shaun Thompson, a black Londoner who says he was wrongly identified by the system and letter stated: "Notting Hill Carnival is an event that specifically celebrates the British African Caribbean community, yet the [Metropolitan Police] is choosing to use a technology with a well-documented history of inaccurate outcomes and racial bias." Sir Mark said the force had selected an LFR algorithm with care, which "does not perform in a way which exhibits bias".He added that safeguards were in place to ensure the force used the technology in a non-discriminatory way. Referencing the number of arrests last year, Sir Mark said that a small minority of Carnival attendees "have used the event to commit serious crimes"."Our use of LFR is part of a much broader strategy to locate, disrupt and deter the minority who pose such risks," he said. He concluded: "Where we know that LFR can help locate individuals the police need to speak to, and those people pose a public safety risk to the many seeking to enjoy Carnival, it is entirely reasonable to ask - why wouldn't we use it in this context?"


Times
an hour ago
- Times
Stamp duty's got to go — but be careful what you wish for
The countdown is on for Rachel Reeves to balance the fiscal books and the latest rumours are that she is drawing up plans to raid homeowners as she tries to boost the economy. The chancellor is said to be considering scrapping stamp duty in favour of a new property tax. According to The Guardian, Reeves could replace stamp duty, which is paid when you buy a home, with a transactional tax based on the value of a property when you sell it. Treasury officials are also said to be looking at the findings of a report published last year by the centre-right think tank Onward, which proposed an annual property tax. This would not be applied retrospectively but would be paid by anyone who bought a home after it was introduced. Rather than paying stamp duty (which ranges from 2 per cent on the portion of a purchase price between £125,000 and £250,000, through to 12 per cent on the portion above £1.5 million), Onward suggested that those whose homes were worth more than £500,000 should pay a 0.54 per cent annual tax on any value above £500,000. Any home worth more than £1 million would pay 0.81 per cent on the portion of its value over that threshold. Further down the line the government is thought to be considering replacing the council tax system with a local property tax. On top of the annual property tax paid to the Treasury, Onward proposed a 0.44 per cent annual tax levied by local authorities on house value between £800 and £500,000 (a maximum of £2,196 a year). • Read more money advice and tips on investing from our experts Stamp duty is one of the most damaging taxes we have. It is enormously complex, having gone through many revisions. Rates have gone up more than 20 times since 1984. First-time buyers (below a certain property value) and second-home owners pay different rates. It is ripe for reform — but the government needs to be careful. An annual property tax would hit hard-working families looking for their forever homes. For example, someone buying a £1 million home — what many family homes now cost in London — would have to pay £2,700 a year, or £225 a month. At the moment, someone buying a £1 million house in England or Northern Ireland for use as their main home would pay £43,750 in stamp duty. You would have paid that amount in property tax after 12 years — starting with a £2,700 a year bill that would have risen to £4,671 a year by year 12, assuming a 2 per cent rise in property prices. After 20 years, you would have paid almost £89,000 — £45,000 — more than the stamp duty bill. What would this do to an already static housing market? Why would you move — unless you absolutely had to — if you knew that you could live in your home forever without further tax but that a new house would come with an open-ended liability? • How could Rachel Reeves reform stamp duty and other property taxes? As for encouraging downsizing, it is already difficult to get older homeowners to consider leaving their family homes for smaller properties. The lack of suitable homes, plus the hassle and the cost of moving mean that many are staying put. Hitting them with an annual tax bill if they move, or a transactional tax on the bigger property that they were selling instead of a stamp duty bill on the smaller property that they were buying, would be the final nail in the coffin. I don't see why anyone in their right mind would even consider downsizing if they didn't absolutely have to if these proposals went ahead. And if they replace stamp duty with a transactional tax, it will essentially mean double taxation on death if your home is valuable enough to trigger an inheritance tax charge, plus a tax on its sale. • Treasury accused of punishing homeowners with new property tax There are benefits, of course. First-time buyers could get a foot on the first rung without having to pay a big bill if a transaction tax was introduced. Those buying the most expensive homes could also see total costs reduced, especially if stamp duty was replaced with a transactional tax. Stamp duty has to go but we need to be careful what we wish for. For so long the conversation has been about how to get people moving and free up larger homes. I fear these suggestions might not be the answer. They would simply be another tax on the middle classes.


Times
an hour ago
- Times
Public fails to applaud Labour's boast about one set of figures
When, a few days ago, gross domestic product (GDP) figures were released for the second quarter, showing a 0.3 per cent rise, the sighs of relief from the Treasury were almost loud enough to be audible all over London. Better-than-expected figures are quite rare, and they did indeed exceed expectations. Quite quickly, relief turned into something more pugnacious. Combining the second-quarter figures with the first, which showed a stronger 0.7 per cent rise, meant UK growth in the first half of the year was the strongest in the G7, which Labour was soon splashing all over social media and encouraging journalists to put in their stories. 'Labour is driving growth so that we can put more money back into people's pockets,' was the accompanying message, highlighted by Rachel Reeves, the chancellor. The G7 is the grouping of large economies which takes in, as well as the UK, America, Japan, Germany, France, Italy, and Canada, and the claim was true. The UK's growth over that period compared with 0.6 per cent in America, 0.4 per cent for Japan and France, 0.2 per cent for Germany and Italy, and 0.5 per cent for Canada. • UK growth beats expectations, boosted by higher government spending If the government expected a warm reception for bringing this to people's attention, however, it miscalculated. The 'fastest growth in the G7' claim was met with scepticism, outright disbelief, and hostility. Some of this was based on ignorance. Many people responded by pointing out that the US economy grew by 3 per cent in the second quarter alone. That was based on a misunderstanding of the statistics. America reports growth rates on an annualised basis, so 3 per cent annualised growth in the second quarter was a shade over 0.7 per cent, as we and most others would report it. It followed a 0.5 per cent annualised fall in the first quarter, so a drop of just over 0.1 per cent then. Combining the two gives 0.6 per cent. Some hostility was from bots or people who cannot concede that anything even slightly good can happen under this government, a number that has grown over the past year. • Beware statistical quirks — they may not tell the whole story Another strand of criticism was that growth has happened only because of increased government spending, which is not sustainable. There is an element of truth in that, because government spending in real terms grew by 1.2 per cent in the second quarter. Over the first and second quarters together, though, both consumer spending and net trade (exports minus imports) made bigger contributions to growth. The other ways of estimating GDP showed a rise in private sector services and manufacturing, as well as a strong rise in income from employment. There are two essential points to be made in all this. The first is that comparisons with the rest of the G7, particularly the very slow-growing rest of the G7 during a turbulent first half of 2025, do not cut much ice. Most people do not know what the G7 is, let alone have any grasp of what growth conditions have been like among its members. People and businesses know only what they themselves have been experiencing and are not happy with that. Indeed, you do not have to look very far into recent history to know that 'fastest growth in the G7' is no political game-changer. The Tories tried it in the run-up to last year's election after an even stronger first quarter of 2024 figure, now estimated at 0.9 per cent. There was no political turnaround but a landslide defeat, the economy's late flowering being not enough to convince anybody. • Another interest rate cut but Bank warns of new UK inflation shock Despite the government's emphasis on growth, which is indeed necessary, changes in GDP, or GDP per head, take time to feed through to perceptions. If people are doing better, they will tend to attribute it to their own efforts, or good fortune, rather than the gift of growth handed down to them by the government. The same is true for businesses, which is why just about every confidence survey has firms more optimistic about their own prospects than the economy in general. There is another dimension. As I write this, the next set of UK inflation figures are awaited, and by the time you read this, they may well have been published. They were set to show inflation running closer to 4 per cent than the 2 per cent official target. That matters. Another lesson from recent history concerns the woes faced by America's Democrats last year. Had Joe Biden tried to fight the election last year, despite his obvious infirmities, he probably would not have fared much better than his then vice-president, Kamala Harris. On the economic front, what did for Biden and Harris was high inflation, particularly for gasoline, rents, and basic products such as eggs. Had Biden been able to rely on GDP alone, he would have sailed home. America's GDP at the end of last year was 12 per cent above pre-pandemic levels, four times that of the UK and streets ahead of any other G7 economy. Not until UK inflation is back down to 2 per cent, the current wave of food price inflation has passed through, the public finances are under control, and growth stronger than in the second quarter will the government have something to brag about. It is a pity for the government that the 'strongest in the G7' message got in the way of aspects of the GDP figures that were encouraging. GDP per head, which many people would regard as the key measure, rose by 0.8 per cent in real terms in the first half of the year and at the end of the second quarter was 0.7 per cent up on a year earlier. That represented a reversal of fortunes, in a good way. During the last parliament, GDP per head fell by 0.5 per cent, a terrible performance. There were the seeds of something better in the latest figures, but it is never a good idea to take these things, and the public, for granted.