I have been hearing some horror stories with huge fees being charged and a nasty rumour that every Inspector has to bring in a certain amount of revenue. On a similar note my child was handed a £50 fine for dropping a sweetie wrapper by agents acting on behalf of the EA.

I guess the OPs thoughts are that there are alot more serious offences committed that go unpunished, and I have to say to a certain extend I agree. Whilst more serious (environmental and any other type of) crimes are being committed, why not apportion resources to catch / fine those first? If dropping a wrapper then becomes the worst crime committed that needs to be clamped down on, fair enough at that point! Untill that point, I can understand resentment (at wasted resources, not the punishment).

I was hoping for feedback on FFI. However if your underage offspring do no more than drop a sweetie wrapper then I suggest your family is heading for Sainthood. The point I was attempting to make is HSE is becoming about revenue not prevention of injury.

They were watching shoppers in a public area and the wrapper was a lozenge type size. The ticket was issued by Council Officers citing the words zero tolerance about Environmental crimes. Of course it is wrong but teenagers are daft and should always be given the opportunity to correctly dispose of the offending item first. £50 is very excessive for someone in full time education within a deep recession and could end up with the child in jail if they are unable to pay.

Just wondering where the heck these children are getting their toxic waste from. Things have really changed on Walton Mountain.

The problem with any sort of law enforcement is that with enough will (and perhaps a desire to generate income) it is possible for anybody in enforcement related activities to find just about anybody guilty of something. This seems to be the direction that enforcement is moving and away from the gentle reminder and bit of free advice approach that enforcers used to practice. This seems to be true of the HSE and other enforcing organisations. This has the effect of breaking down any trust between enforcers and us citizens. Example: So you go for a walk to your local park, and it’s a nice day and you feel like some alfresco grub so you buy a pizza and eat it in the park. What do you do with the box? Don’t think about putting into the nearest litter- how many people know that the bins you find on the street, parks and public places are not designated as places for ‘household waste’ disposal and that a pizza box is household waste even if you haven’t taken it home. So beware... and it gets worse see this story... http://www.trutv.com/lib...-in-the-trash/index.html Obviously the rule about not putting household waste in street bins etc is essentially a sensible one, but an enforcement officer who is determined to make up his numbers can stretch the definitions a long way.

In 2009 the Tories published their policy document ‘Regulation in the Post-Bureaucratic Age’ in which they produced some fantasy figures to provide an excuse to weaken inspections, amongst other regulatory ‘reforms’. In relation to inspection it was stated: ‘The final cost is inspection, where regulated organisations face periodic and, all top often, inconsistent and intrusive visits from officials checking whether they are complying with each set of regulations.’ It was also pointed out that different regulators may require different standards. As an example of the overwhelming burden this causes by health and safety laws, the following example was quoted: ‘For example, Health and Safety may require a particular door to be locked shut, while the Fire Authority may demand it is unlocked and open all the time.’ Presumably it is issues such as this that has caused the ruination of British Global competitiveness. From these humble beginnings we now have FFI and a shed load of changes occurring in health and safety regulation. 1 I understand that Inspectors are mandated to use FFI once a ‘material breach’ has been established. 2 The number of proactive inspections has been cut by 33%. 3 The income of the HSE has been cut by 35% over 4 years. 4 FFI is an income generator at £124.00 per hour. It seems probable that a significant amount of money will be raised by HSE pursuing dutyholders who are in ‘material breach’ of their legal duty. An appeal mechanism exists if dutyholders feel the issue is trivial. So there are likely to be ‘individual horror’ stories. However most of the money will be generated through the failure of dutyholders to comply with health and safety law. It will be interesting to see which laws are perceived trivial enough to ignore. The HSE have denied they have targets to be met for bringing in money through FFI. A child being fined £50.00 for littering - if one assumes this to be a 'material breach' - indicates that the HSE rate of £124.00 per hour could be reasonable in comparison: of course I would stress the HSE charge is not a fine but covers the costs the HSE deem reasonable that they incur in helping their 'customers' rectify a legal defect, as defined by the HSE themselves, rather than being confirmed by a guilty finding in a court. Cheers. Nigel

If you are concerned about FFI charges which are predicated on errors by HSE and which might, after challenge, be rescinded then it would be important to gather hard evidence. A suitable FoI request will winkle out the number and value of FFI charges issued, and the number/value of those cancelled. No doubt at some point the first half od the data set will be published, and understandably would accompany a very positive news story about how this public service is working hard to recoup its costs. Quite right too. But I would be a pound to a penny that information concerning the second half, of those charges challenged and rescinded, will be kept under lock and key unless secured through FoI. A task for an investigative journalist perhaps? The Daily Mail which you all love so much, or one of the other newspapers? Or how about the specialist press; step forward the SHP journo's?