Following a formal complaint I submitted earlier this year, DEFRA has now corrected wording on its ragwort guidance page concerning fines under the Weeds Act 1959.
The original wording implied that compliance with the Ragwort Code of Practice could “help you avoid fines”. In isolation, this created the impression that landowners faced a general risk of fines if ragwort was present on their land and that following the guidance prevented those fines.
This was misleading because the enforcement mechanism under the Weeds Act 1959 operates through a specific legal process.
Under the Act, action begins with the service of a Control Notice. Only if such a notice is served and subsequently breached can enforcement proceedings potentially lead to fines. There is no automatic liability simply because ragwort is present.
DEFRA has now amended the page to reflect this structure. The relevant sentence now reads:
“If you have been served a control notice under the Weeds Act 1959, but you can show you have since adopted control measures which comply with the guidance in the code of practice, this can help you avoid fines.”
This correction restores the correct sequence of enforcement under the law by making clear that fines only arise in the context of a served Control Notice.
The distinction is important because inaccurate descriptions of ragwort law are frequently repeated in social media posts, advertisements for weed-control services, and campaigning material. When government guidance is unclear, it can unintentionally reinforce those misunderstandings.
Clarifying the legal position helps ensure that discussions about ragwort management are based on the actual structure of the law rather than assumptions about general legal duties or automatic penalties.
I am grateful that DEFRA reviewed the issue and updated the wording accordingly.
Accurate public guidance is important, particularly where legal obligations are concerned, and this change helps ensure that the Weeds Act 1959 is described correctly.
Just to explain the law here. I've put in this section to explain it in more detail.
The enforcement mechanism under the Weeds Act 1959 operates through the service of a Control Notice.
A Control Notice is a formal legal notice issued by the Secretary of State (in practice through officials acting on behalf of the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs). It can be served on the occupier of land where specified injurious weeds are considered to be growing in a way that may cause agricultural harm.
The Act lists five species as “injurious weeds”, including common ragwort (Senecio jacobaea). Injurious here is a legal word that means harmful to the interests of something, Injurious weeds are, or were in 1920 when the term was first written into law, Weeds that are harmful to the interests of agriculture. It has nothing to do with causing an injury, Many of the other can be found in books on foraging for humans as wild foods. They are in fact edible. Ragwort of course isn't
The purpose of a Control Notice is not to impose an immediate penalty. Instead, it is a direction requiring the occupier of the land to take specified steps to prevent the weeds from spreading.
A Control Notice typically:
• identifies the land concerned
• specifies which weeds must be controlled
• sets out the measures required
• gives a time period in which the work must be carried out
Importantly, the Weeds Act does not create an automatic offence simply because these plants are present on land.
Enforcement action only becomes possible after a Control Notice has been served.
If the occupier fails to comply with the notice, two forms of enforcement may follow:
Prosecution for non-compliance
Failure to comply with a Control Notice is an offence that may lead to a fine.
Default action by the authorities
The authorities may carry out the required control work themselves and recover the costs from the occupier of the land.
In other words, the sequence under the Act is:
A Control Notice is served
The occupier is given an opportunity to carry out the required control measures
Enforcement action is only possible if the notice is ignored or breached
This means that the presence of ragwort on land does not by itself create legal liability. Enforcement under the Weeds Act arises only through the formal process of issuing and enforcing a Control Notice.
Key points: Ragwort enforcement under the Weeds Act
• The Weeds Act 1959 does not make it an offence simply for ragwort to grow on land.
• Action under the Act begins with the service of a Control Notice requiring the occupier to take specified control measures.
• The occupier is given time to comply with the notice and carry out the required work.
• Fines can only arise if a Control Notice is served and the occupier fails to comply with it.
• If a notice is ignored, the authorities may either prosecute for non-compliance or carry out the work themselves and recover the costs from the occupier.
In short: no Control Notice then no enforcement under the Weeds Act.
