Moment ‘unwell’ commuter is fined £250 by council enforcement officer for ‘spitting on grass during coughing fit’

This is the moment an ill traveler was fined £250 for allegedly spitting on the grass in public on his way to work, despite insisting he was coughing.

Alberto Tandoi initially believed that the private bailiff who appeared before him in Haringey, North London, was checking to see if he was feeling well.

But when the 46-year-old portrait photographer started taking the officer’s details he was stunned to realize he would receive a fixed penalty notice.

Mr Tandoi, who was born in Milan but now lives in London, was told he had breached the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Protection of Public Places Order.

He gave his name and address to the officer and was later fined £250; He was given 14 days to pay this fine until the amount increased to £500.

Mr. Tandoi requested the body-worn camera video, which was provided to him. However, it only showed the confrontation following the alleged spitting incident, not the act itself.

Footage of the incident, which took place at 7.30am on Monday 11 May, began with the officer telling Mr Tandoi firmly: ‘It’s not about the cough anymore, it’s about the spitting.’

A stunned Mr Tandoi replies: ‘He’s not spitting, there’s nothing here… and I was on the grass. ‘It’s not like I did it on purpose.’ But the officer tells him: ‘No, actually you did it on purpose; All you had to do was spit into a tissue and throw it in the trash.’

Photographer realized he would be fined when officer started taking his details

Mr Tandoi initially believed the officer was checking to see if he was feeling well.

Mr Tandoi says: ‘No, I don’t have a tissue. ‘I’m running, I’ve been sick for a week.’

The officer says: ‘You see that’s the problem, because now you’re spitting; People here will take this into their bodies.

‘What you are doing is actually an offense under section 87 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 as amended and I would like to see your ID.’

Mr Tandoi apologizes to the officer but is then asked for his ID again. The officer says: ‘I would like to verify your identity.

‘You have violated Article 87 of the Environmental Protection Act of 1990. ‘You have also breached the Public Places Protection Order.’

Mr Tandoi ‘insists he’s sick, I have to go to work’ but the officer tells him: ‘That’s the problem, because you’re sick.’

Then he gives his name and address to the officer and asks: ‘Are you going to fine me? Sorry, I don’t want to do this. ‘Are you going to fine me?’

Mr Tandoi refuses to give his date of birth and says: ‘You must have it in your system. ‘I don’t feel comfortable giving you all my information, I’m sorry.’

And he tells the officer, ‘Man, honestly, when I look at what’s been going on in this area since I came here to live, it’s incredible that you’re doing all this just because I’m sick and I’m coughing and unfortunately I’m coughing and something comes out on the floor.’

But the officer says: ‘Nothing came out, you spat there once, you spat there once.’

Mr Tandoi insists: ‘I’m sick, I’m sick, I’m sick.’

The officer then tells him: ‘Well, that’s the problem, you should use tissues.’

But Mr Tandoi says: ‘I don’t have any tissues, so I run to the coffee shop to get a coffee and a tissue. What can I do for you? What should I do? Is this really why you’re going to come after me? You said you wouldn’t punish me.’

The officer responds: ‘I didn’t say I wouldn’t give you a ticket, I said I needed to verify your identity.’

Mr Tandoi then walked away, saying: ‘Sorry, I have to go to work,’ despite the officer asking him not to.

The officer says: ‘Mr Alberto, come here for a minute, come here. ‘It’s in your best interest to wait here… Okay, so he’s gone and I’ll give you a ticket for littering and we’ll send it by post.’

Following the incident, Mr Tandoi, who has lived in London for several years, shared the images exclusively with the Daily Mail after receiving them under a Subject Access Request.

Mr Tandoi was told by the officer that he had breached the Environmental Protection Act 1990

He said: ‘It’s not just the £250 payment that makes me so upset about this case. On the day in question, I had not been feeling well for several days and had largely stayed at home.

‘That morning was one of the first times I felt well enough to go out and return to work. While walking down West Green Road I had a severe coughing fit and was visibly struggling.

‘I also question the training and guidance given to enforcement officers. If a police officer encounters someone who is visibly disturbed, struggling with a severe coughing fit, and clearly in distress, it seems reasonable to expect a degree of judgment, common sense, and basic compassion before proceeding directly with enforcement action.

‘In my view this raises wider questions about how these officers are trained, what guidance they receive when dealing with vulnerable or sick members of the public, and whether the current system pays sufficient attention to common sense and proportionality.’

Mr Tandoi said his ‘first real reaction’ was that the officer was concerned for his welfare, adding that ‘it never crossed my mind that I would be investigated or receive a penalty notice’.

He also said the communication was ‘confusing’, explaining: ‘During the interaction I asked if I would be penalised.

‘My understanding at the time was that the officer needed my information to confirm my identity and establish what had happened. After providing these details I subsequently received a Fixed Penalty Notice.’

Mr Tandoi also confirmed that he had paid the £250 fine because he had only four days to make the payment when he received the letter.

He had not received the video at the time and the notice stated that if payment was not made within the required time the amount would increase to £500.

Mr Tandoi eventually walked away after giving the police officer his name and address.

Mr Tandoi said: ‘I decided to pay as I did not want to risk the amount doubling, but continued to discuss the matter through the complaints process.’

Haringey Council ‘2. He said he had lodged a complaint with Phase’ and had also contacted the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

A Stage 2 complaint is when someone says ‘1. The ‘Stage’ is a complaint that is subject to an independent review by the council’s Feedback and Solutions team if it is not satisfied with the response.

Mr Tandoi added that data obtained under the Freedom of Information Act showed that 245 fixed penalty notices issued by the same contractor last year generated £33,750, with 78 formal objections.

It concluded: ‘I have concerns about how a system led by private contractors operates in practice and whether sufficient confidentiality and clarity is implemented.’

But a Haringey Council spokesman told the Mail: ‘We have reviewed the body-worn video and are satisfied that the officer involved acted appropriately and in accordance with relevant enforcement policies and procedures.

‘The issuance of the Fixed Penalty Notice was proportionate and justified in the circumstances observed at the time.

‘We have a strong enforcement policy to prevent littering and ensure Haringey remains a clean and green space for all our residents.’

Mr Tandoi is an Italian photographer known for his book ‘400km’, where he walked around London and took portraits of people who caught his eye.