A van driver who was fined for urinating in a lay-by has said he felt 'ridiculed' by a council worker who questioned him about his prostate problems. Lee East, 51, was caught on the A12 near Colchester in April after driving from Clacton-on-Sea, Essex. He suffers from an enlarged prostate, which causes frequent and urgent urination.
Confrontation and fine
Mr East was approached by a worker from Waste Investigations Support and Enforcement, a private contractor hired by Colchester City Council. The worker, who identified herself as Anna, filmed the encounter. In the video, she tells Mr East that prostate issues are common in men, saying: 'I just can’t believe how common it is with men, probably out of 10, potentially five or six, minimum, prostate problems.' She then asks him how often he takes medication. Mr East was issued a Fixed Penalty Notice of £200, reduced to £150 if paid within 15 days. He was warned that if the case went to court, he could face a fine of up to £2,500 and a criminal record.
Driver's response
Mr East, a professional driver with 30 years of experience, said the incident left him feeling 'disgusting, very very angry' and 'embarrassed'. He said: 'I’m quite a respectful law-abiding citizen, to be caught short in that situation in the first place.' He added that being questioned by a female officer was 'not pleasant at all' and that he felt 'ridiculed'. After the fine was overturned on appeal, he installed a portable toilet in his van to avoid future incidents. However, Colchester City Council said the appeal did not set a precedent and that a subsequent offence would still be penalised.
Council's position
Colchester City Council said it took public hygiene complaints seriously and did not target specific groups, but focused on 'known hotspots' for littering and urination, such as lay-bys. In a statement, the council said: 'Lay-bys can, unfortunately, become locations where this type of behaviour occurs, and our officers carry out proportionate enforcement where necessary to maintain public health and environmental standards. Public urination is an offence and can pose health risks, create unpleasant conditions for other users, and damage the local environment.' The council acknowledged that lorry drivers need facilities during long journeys but said it was National Highways' responsibility to provide them on major A-roads. It added that income from fines was strictly regulated and not a revenue-generating exercise, covering costs of enforcement and environmental services. Council enforcement officers are salaried and do not receive commission for issuing fines.
Broader context
The case highlights the tension between enforcement of public hygiene laws and the needs of drivers with medical conditions or limited access to restrooms. Mr East's experience has sparked debate about the availability of toilet facilities on major roads and the sensitivity of enforcement officers when dealing with individuals with health issues.
