The £150 Coffee Fine: How a Sip Sparked a Storm in Richmond

In the usually quiet borough of Richmond upon Thames, southwest London, a rather ordinary act of convenience recently became the center of a heated public debate. It all began with a cup of coffee, a street drain, and one unsuspecting woman who never imagined that a few drops of liquid could land her a £150 fine.

A Small Action, a Big Reaction

Bourjou Yesilyurt, a Turkish woman living in London, was preparing to board a bus one morning when she noticed she still had a small amount of coffee left in her takeaway cup. Not wanting it to spill inside the bus, she did what many might consider harmless—she poured the leftover coffee into a nearby street drain. Moments later, she found herself being stopped by three local council officers from the Richmond Council’s environmental enforcement team.

What happened next left her stunned. The officers informed her that she had violated Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, a law that prohibits the disposal of waste—including liquids—in public places if it might cause pollution to land or water. Her action, they said, amounted to illegal waste disposal. The fine: £150.

“I was shocked,” Yesilyurt later said in an interview. “I had no idea it was illegal to pour coffee down a drain. The officers were very intimidating—it all happened so suddenly. I just wanted to empty my cup before getting on the bus.”

The Law and the Logic

Under the Environmental Protection Act, even small quantities of liquids can fall under the definition of “controlled waste.” The purpose of the law is to prevent substances that might contaminate waterways or harm wildlife from entering the drainage system. Yet, as many people pointed out after the incident, it is hard to imagine that a few milliliters of coffee could have caused serious environmental damage.

Yesilyurt also argued that there were no warning signs or public notices nearby to inform citizens that such an act could lead to a fine. “If I had seen a sign saying not to pour liquids into the drain, I would have never done it,” she said. “But there was nothing. I was completely unaware.”

A Public Outcry

When Yesilyurt shared her experience, the story quickly spread online. Many Londoners expressed disbelief, calling the punishment “absurd,” “ridiculous,” and an example of over-enforcement. Local media picked up the story, and it soon appeared on BBC London, sparking a wave of commentary on social media.

Critics accused the council of lacking common sense and compassion. “It’s one thing to stop people from dumping paint or oil into drains,” one Twitter user wrote, “but coffee? Really?” Others defended the council, saying that even minor actions could set bad precedents and that rules existed for a reason.

The Council’s Response

Richmond Council initially stood by its officers. After reviewing body camera footage from the enforcement team, the council stated that the officers had “acted appropriately and in accordance with environmental protection laws.” However, as public reaction grew louder, the council found itself in an uncomfortable position.

A few days later, in an email sent directly to Yesilyurt, the council reversed its decision. “In light of the minor nature of the offence and your assurance that it will not happen again,” the email read, “we have decided to cancel the fixed penalty notice.” The council also offered an apology “for any distress or inconvenience caused.”

The reversal was welcomed by many but also reignited debate about the boundaries of environmental regulation. Was it fair to fine ordinary citizens for small, harmless acts? Or did such strict enforcement help build awareness about the importance of environmental protection?

A Lesson in Proportion and Awareness

For Yesilyurt, the ordeal was a stressful experience—but also an educational one. “I understand now that even small things can have environmental impacts,” she said. “But I still think there should be clearer communication. People can’t follow rules they don’t know about.”

Environmental experts, while sympathetic, noted that the case revealed a broader issue: public misunderstanding of how urban drainage systems work. “Street drains often lead directly into rivers, not into sewage treatment systems,” said one expert. “Even something as simple as coffee can alter pH levels and harm aquatic life.”

The Bigger Picture

The Richmond coffee incident may seem trivial, but it raises a deeper question about the balance between law enforcement and public education. Should city councils focus on punishing small infractions, or on informing citizens before those infractions occur?

In this case, a small act led to a national discussion about fairness, proportionality, and the role of government in environmental protection. While Yesilyurt’s fine was eventually lifted, her story remains a vivid reminder that in a city as tightly regulated as London, even the simplest actions—like pouring out your coffee—can have unexpected consequences.

As she put it: “It was just coffee. But it turned into something much bigger.”