1

Car Wash Code of Practice Project Report:

Home Office Modern Slavery Prevention Fund

Report prepared by the Responsible Car Wash Scheme and the Work, Informalisation
and Place Research, Nottingham Trent University

Teresa Sayers
Nidhi Sharma
Jack Barratt
Rich Pickford
October 2022
Ian Clark

RCWS |Nottingham Trent University 1

2

Intentionally blank
2 Car Wash Code of Practice Project Report: Home Office Modern Slavery Prevention Fund
3

The Project Team

Teresa Sayers: CEO, Responsible Car Wash Scheme

Jack Barratt: Research Fellow, WIP Research Centre , NTU

Nidhi Sharma: Research Fellow, WIP Research Centre, NTU

Rich Pickford: Manager, Nottingham Civic Exchange and Knowledge Exchange and
Policy Engagement Lead, WIP Research Centre, NTU

Professor Ian Clark: Director of Research, WIP Research Centre, NTU

This report and associated materials are Copyright © Responsible Car Wash Scheme
and Nottingham Trent University and the report authors.

Dissemination, copying or further distribution of the report and materials must be

requested by the authors in writing.

This project is funded by the Home Office Modern Slavery Prevention Fund.
The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and not necessarily of the
Home Office.

Report Designed and Typeset by

RCWS |Nottingham Trent University 3

4

Content
List of Figures and Tables 5
Executive Summary 6
Introduction 11
Scope and Deliverables 18
Methodology 19
Identification of Car Washes 20
Visit One 22
Identification of the Landowner 24
Visit Two 25
Workshops 25
Raising Awareness 27
Results 29
Analysis of results against clauses contained within the code 30
Workshop Outcomes 46
Conclusion 52
Recommendations 62
Annexes 66
Site Scores 66
Home Office Project Audit Questionnaire 69
References 74

4 Car Wash Code of Practice Project Report: Home Office Modern Slavery Prevention Fund
5

List of Tables and Figures

List of Tables
Table 1: WIP’s Risk Score model with example factors 15

Table 2: The RCWS Code of Practice 19

Table 3: RCWS code of conduct scores across the three project areas 30

Table 4: Showing number of times a nationality was identified at a car wash, by position and region 55

Table 5: Average risk and compliance scores across each area 66

List of Figures
Figure 1: Example of Hand Car Wash sites with colour graded overall risk scores 15

Figure 2: Hand Car Wash locations across three participation areas. Scaled and coloured by risk score 21

Figure 3: Billboard design that was displayed near the hand car washes to raise awareness 28

Figure 4: Screenshots of the Safe Car Wash App 28

Figure 5: Uneven terrain, broken drain covers and large pools of water. Suffolk 33

Figure 6: Pump for the pressure washer with electrical cables and hoses causing trip hazard. Leicester 34

Figure 7: Staff room with organised chemical and PPE storage. Leicester 35

Figure 8: Displayed poster Health and Safety Executive requirements. Leicester 36

Figure 9: Well-maintained staff room area with fridge, kettle, food and heating. Leicester 37

Figure 10: Purpose made water drainage by the petrol station. Surface requires upkeep. Norfolk 37

Figure 11: Pooling at a hand car wash, the surface is not designed to handle capacity. Suffolk 38

Figure 12: Image from a site highlighting water flow from HCW site. Suffolk 39

Figure 13: An example of unlicensed interceptor waste disposal. Suffolk 40

Figure 14: A bin on a site with empty chemical bottles and solid waste on top. Leicester 40

Figure 15: Wash pad with severe corrosion due to use of cleaning chemicals including acid. Leicester 41

Figure 16: On site caravan. The presence of accommodation on site is of concern. Suffolk 45

Figure 17: RCWC compliance percentage change between visit 1 & 2 for Leicester, Norfolk and Suffolk 59

Figure 18 Graph shows compliance levels with RCWS clauses between Visit one and two for Leicester 60

Figure 19: Graph shows compliance levels with RCWS clauses between visit one and two for Norfolk 60

Figure 20: Graph shows compliance levels with RCWS clauses between Visit one and two for Suffolk 61

Figure 21: Graph shows WIP score frequency for Leicester, Norfolk and Suffolk 67

Figure 22: Graph shows WIP scores frequency for all sites 67

Figure 23: Graph shows RCWS score frequency for Leicester, Norfolk and Suffolk 68

Figure 24: Graph shows RCWS scores frequency for all sites 68

RCWS |Nottingham Trent University 5

6

Executive Summary
This report documents a project funded by the Home Office’s Modern Slavery
Prevention Fund that was led by the Responsible Car Wash Scheme (RCWS)
with support from the Work Informalisation and Place Research Centre (WIP) at
Nottingham Trent University (NTU) and a number of policing colleagues. It
aimed to understand the impact of a two-visit engagement approach built from
the RCWS Code of Practice audit model and to catalogue the challenges across
the hand car wash sector. Our aim was to explore the levels of non-compliance
at the more serious and non-complaint end of the sector in three locations in
the UK and to understand how and where these businesses could be
challenged.

The project team estimate that there are approximately 5,000 hand car washes
in the United Kingdom. We believe that non-compliance in pay and contracts is
endemic and the impact on the wider business community, workforce and the
UK revenue base should be addressed. This project aims to add further
evidence and solutions to improve the sector.

The ability of non-compliant sites to operate highlights what NTU academics

have termed permissive visibility, which stems from a lack of resources and
collective engagement to tackle unlawful and poor practice in the sector. The
lack of attention to lower priority breaches may generate more egregious
behaviour in the form of trafficking, slavery and organised criminality. If
regulatory breaches are left unchecked the opportunity for criminal activity
increases.

Criminological research has identified that situational crime approaches can

reduce and prevent various types of crimes through environmental product re-
design. Such approaches equally apply in the prevention of regulatory offences
which, if unchallenged, can morph into a greater range of regulatory breaches,
and ultimately criminal offences, that affect individuals as well as the
environment.

Offenders choose to commit offences based on their perceptions of available

opportunities. Situational factors stimulate these offences. By making the hand
car wash the target of greater scrutiny, coupled with support from multi-agency
enforcement partners, the risk of identification of regulatory breach and
criminal offences increases. This changes the risk reward balance for the hand
6 Car Wash Code of Practice Project Report: Home Office Modern Slavery Prevention Fund
7

car wash operator that exhibits non-compliance. This project aims to tip the bal-
ance and highlight a way forward for agencies to keep track of a sector known
for breaches.

Early in 2022 the team undertook a project aimed at tackling this perception by
engaging with hand car washes and challenging poor compliance across the
sector. Working within three distinct geographical areas, we adopted an ap-
proach designed to identify non-compliance, sharing information with the site
operator and within a multi-agency network to educate, raise standards and
facilitate better prioritisation of enforcement resources.

By working together in this way, we believe that the effect of this approach, and
the support of proportionate use of enforcement partners time and resources,
can assist the development of a compliant sector in the future. A failure to do
so at a time when the ODLME views on statutory licensing are unlikely to gain
traction whilst plans develop for a Single Enforcement Body, may leave a gap
where inaction can lead to the increased proliferation of non-compliant hand
car washes and greater problems to resolve.

During the course of the project 36 sites were selected from three police force
areas, 12 in each area, with each site visited twice and assessed against the
RCWS Code of Practice. These sites across Leicester, Suffolk and Norfolk were
selected through a mapping activity by WIP with support from the Police Modern
Slavery Organised Immigration Crime Unit (MSOIC) and local police intelligence.
The first visit was unannounced whilst the second visit was undertaken within a
fixed three-day period and the operator advised in advance, to allow time to col-
late any additional evidence. Police from Leicester, Suffolk and Norfolk support-
ed the RCWS during the visits, with NTU attending every visit.

Following the conclusion of the second visits, the team hosted three half day
workshops, one for each area, inviting a broad range of agencies and enforce-
ment bodies. Using photos and audit information from each site, the workshop
explored the perceptions of the compliance rating from the workshop partici-
pants, comparing them with the RCWS compliance score and the risk rating
from NTU to understand perceptions from professionals who engage with hand
car washes on a day-to-day basis and to explore what they saw and how they
would challenge non-compliance.
RCWS |Nottingham Trent University 7
8

In conjunction with the site visits, a public awareness campaign highlighting

commonplace non-compliant practices associated with hand car washes was
designed. A series of billboards, posters located at bus stops and advertising on
the side of buses was deployed at strategic locations and routes within the
areas targeted by the project. The public were encouraged to report any
concerns via the Safe Car Wash App.

The full report outlines the context for this project, how the RCWS operates and
the project methodology. It explores the nature and extent of non-compliant
practices found at the sites following the two visits, the challenges of driving
change and raising standards where business practices have become
embedded and provides recommendations for multi-agency working to
maximise resources.

The project identified the eight recommendations to tackle non-compliance

across the hand car wash sector based on the project’s mapping, risking, site
visits and engagement with partners. They aim to prompt a system that
challenges unlawful and poor practice that should ultimately benefit the public
purse, members of the public and those people who are in employment across
the sector.

1. A shared and agreed approach to eradicate non-compliant activity and

unlawful actions needs to be developed, implemented by all agencies and
organisations working within the system. This needs to be based on a
common understanding of what constitutes compliance and who is
responsible for regulation/enforcement of the difference facets that
impact hand car washes. This project has highlighted the depth of non-
compliance and the lack of unified approaches in three areas of the UK.
Despite our extensive engagement in this sector, we were reminded that
the embedded nature of non-compliance is a clear and obvious failure of
our society to regulate business and support workers and consumers. The
lack of rule following and the visible nature of non-compliance to
regulators and citizens is a clear sign that this type of activity is tolerated.
Reflecting on Keizer et al’s work (2008) we should be concerned of the
wider ramifications of this on society.

8 Car Wash Code of Practice Project Report: Home Office Modern Slavery Prevention Fund
9

2. The current system of labour market regulation is fragmented, and this

enables non-compliance to continue throughout the hand car wash (HCW)
sector. Various agencies regulate their respective components of the
sector but what is needed is a holistic and unified multi-agency approach.
Such an outcome could be one positive result of a movement towards a
Single Enforcement Body for labour market regulation. Evidence from our
sector wide workshops highlights valuable multi-agency working
approaches but a lack of shared strategic objectives and agreed data
sharing processes hinders further joined up and targeted work in the
sector with many participants indicating that fragmentation of
perspectives and organisational needs limited the ability to see the car
wash as a whole business. We already observe a sector that fails to be
compliant and this will not change without concerted efforts by all parties
responsible for tackling the multiple failures documented in this report
and through the RCWS Code.

3. Multi-agency action requires effective use of participants resources to

disrupt and tackle non-compliance in a targeted way. Many of the
elements of compliance are binary; for example, whether a trade effluent
consent is in place or not or whether the car wash is registered for
business rates. However, other elements are not binary. For example,
compliance with PPE regulations where the business may fall short, or the
presence of workplace facilities that may, at times, be in an unhygienic
condition or require other improvements. Focusing on the binary
elements of compliance and applying a continuous pressure on these
elements, will bring about a rapid and measurable rate of change. For
businesses that comply, as opposed to exiting the market, this will likely
have the effect of bringing about further improvements as the continuous
pressure applied by regulators then focuses on other elements of
compliance. Failure to continue this approach will only cement the belief
by operators that they can continue to disregard their legal, moral and
ethical requirements and will lead to further abuses of workers, consumer
rights and environmental standards.

RCWS |Nottingham Trent University 9

10

4. The use of effective multi-agency reporting and monitoring of at-risk sites

needs to be considered in a longer-term process that ensures regulatory
non-compliance across the full spectrum of rules and legal obligations are
tackled together. Workshop participants highlighted that data and
intelligence on sites was never stored centrally meaning different
agencies hold different parts of the jigsaw restricting the ability of
everyone to see the whole picture. Through this project we did not engage
with anyone who indicated that they were being forced to work on site.
Workshop participants highlighted that those at risk of modern slavery
were unlikely to engage with organisations or individuals who made short
or one-off engagements with longer term relational engagement needed.
Joined up and long-term engagement is recommended.

5. The RCWS code provides a useful check list of legal minimum

requirements for hand car washes operating in the UK. The code should
be used to raise standards of compliance across the whole HCW sector
through education. This approach will not, on its own, tackle the
embedded nature of non-compliance in the sector as proved by our prior
research (Pickford et al, 2022). We believe that the RCWS code should be
used as a checklist for any new business entering the market with a
licensing model used to prevent businesses that don’t follow these legal
minimums barred from setting up. Further local or regional level
enforcement of existing businesses is also required to improve standards
and remove unlawful actions.

6. In-depth engagement with hand car wash workers across the UK to raise
their awareness of their employment and pension rights. The almost
complete lack of employment information and awareness (purposeful or
not) requires work to ensure that staff are aware of their rights and have
agency to affect change. We have seen the challenges owners face in
keeping workers but suggest that they tackle this lack of employee
longevity not by treating them as cheap assets but as valuable and critical
components of their business by providing them with employment
contracts, legal minimums in terms of wages alongside sick and holiday
pay and by ensuring PPE and welfare facilities are fit for purpose.
10 Car Wash Code of Practice Project Report: Home Office Modern Slavery Prevention Fund
11

7. Community engagement in the form of publicity campaigns may offer a

valuable route to educating consumers to the risks of non-compliant hand
car washes and results from the billboard and bus stop adverts has seen
an increase in local reports to the Safe Car Wash app. However, it must
be stressed that none of the sites visited through this project met the
legal threshold for a legitimate law-abiding business so we must ensure
consumers have a valid legitimate alternative option otherwise we fail to
provide them with a clear choice. Campaigns such as NCA’s Ethical
Consumer campaign clearly articulate the dangers but must consider the
alternative option for consumers. The workshop aspect of this project has
highlighted the value of partnership working and information sharing. This
project recommends the establishment of hand car wash agenda items
for all Community Safety Partnerships across the UK to facilitate multi-
agency awareness and engagement with a sector in need of reform using
the RCWS Code as the basis for engagement with the sector and to
determine the risk profile of sites.

8. The ODLME should continue to explore and promote the use of local or
regional licensing for this sector with government helping to produce a
sector that is fair for all businesses and provides safe businesses for
consumers and workers. Any licensing regime should be based on the
RCWS Code and Co-badged with the RCWS. This project has highlighted
the extensive nature of dangerous practices across a range of factors that
should not be allowed to be the sectoral norm.

The project team would like to thank the staff who engaged with us before,
during and after our site visits and who helped to facilitate this project. It would
not have been possible without their time, energy and interest. We recognise
that extensive work occurs across the UK by many organisations and agencies
to challenge unlawful and poor practice in a sector recognised as a hot spot for
modern slavery and non-compliance across a multitude of factors. This report
and its recommendations are intended to support the collective effort to
eradicate unlawful activity and ensure that both consumers and staff
experience a sector that meets all its legal obligations.

RCWS |Nottingham Trent University 11

12

Introduction
Car washes have been identified as being problematic in terms of their
propensity for labour exploitation (Clark and Colling 2018) as well as a range of
other non-compliance and criminal activity including modern slavery offences.
They are commonly associated with environmental non-compliance, tax
avoidance, health and safety and trading standards offences. The industry
continues to feature as a sector where workers are at risk of exploitation,
resulting in significant volumes of referrals to the Modern Slavery Helpline, the
police, the GLAA and other enforcement bodies.

According to the GLAA Headline Trends (GLAA, 2022) “New and irregular
migrants to the UK are attracted to employment in the industry as work can
often start immediately, without employment checks. Some businesses also
proactively recruit workers from overseas, with some report’s indicative of
trafficking.”

It is anticipated that the new immigration system and rules for EU and non-EU
migrants, coupled with the economic impact of the pandemic, will lead to an
increase in modern slavery victims. EU nationals who have either not applied for
settled status or had their application rejected as well as workers coming to the
UK without the right to work may become vulnerable to labour exploitation,
likely to take place in unregulated workplaces such as car washes. The
economic downturn may mean that more people may have to accept more
exploitative practices in order to secure work and wages and that workplaces
may take additional risks when employing workers (Walsh et al 2022).

Criminological research has identified that situational crime approaches can

reduce and prevent various types of crimes through environmental product re-
design. Such approaches equally apply in the prevention of regulatory offences
which, if unchallenged, can morph into a greater range of regulatory breaches,
and ultimately criminal offences, that affect individuals as well as the
environment. This applies in the context of hand car wash operators.

Offenders choose to commit offences based on their perceptions of available

opportunities. Situational factors stimulate these offences. By making the hand
car wash the target of greater scrutiny, coupled with support from multi-agency
enforcement partners, the risk of identification of regulatory breach and

12 Car Wash Code of Practice Project Report: Home Office Modern Slavery Prevention Fund
13

criminal offences increases. This changes the risk reward balance for the hand
car wash operator that exhibits non-compliance.

This project was designed to test whether the RCWS could foster that scrutiny
and offer a way for businesses to learn how to become more compliant,
reducing the opportunities for, and risk of, offending. Non-compliance at sites is
widespread and the degradation of these sites can reduce a sense of shared
responsibility for the areas around them. This principle follows the Home Office
research conducted by Felson and Clarke “Opportunity makes the
Thief” (1998). The aim being that scarce resources can be focused on those
other criminal activities, and those hand car washes which may be a hub of
greater criminality and forced labour. The RCWS approach provides what Felson
and Clarke alongside Hollis et al (2013) describe as Capable Guardians. This
role in criminological theory has evolved into sub-classes, with Felson and Boba
(2010) arguing that crime is allowed to occur without suitable supervision from
a guardian or manager. The project also takes inspiration from Keizer’s work
that tested aspects of the ‘broken window’ theory of social decay and
degradation which indicates that when “others violated a certain social norm or
legitimate rule, they are more likely to violate other norms or rules, which
causes disorder to spread” (Keizer et al, 2008). Whilst not working on a
longitudinal basis this project provides a baseline to test if challenging
infractions can address the alternative regulatory models that appear to
operate in the hand car wash sector. (Clark et al 2022).

This project is an evolution of previous work undertaken by the RCWS working

with stakeholders to test the effectiveness of different interventions in raising
standards and to gain a better understanding of the hand car wash sector. The
RCWS Pilot in the West Midlands in 2019 was undertaken with the GLAA and
the HSE and tested the audit approach and the scope of the code of practice
working with network operators located on supermarket car parks. Work with
the South East Regional Organised Crime Unit, Thames Valley Police and NTU
on Operation Flinch also in 2019 where the RCWS tested an approach aimed at
engagement and education, encouraging operators to sign up to the RCWS. The
most recent project led by the GLAA in 2021 trialled three interventions
including the RCWS working with a local authority, RCWS working in isolation
RCWS |Nottingham Trent University 13
14

and the GLAA contacting the landlord of the site to bring about a compliance
pressure to improve standards at hand car washes. This project was evaluated
by NTU to measure the changes across these intervention areas and a control
local authority (Pickford et al, 2022).

The creation of a sector-specific scheme, that provides a focused guardian to

encourage owners to be market compliant, will contribute to the likelihood of
market compliance by acting as ‘soft’ pressure (Baldock et al, 2006). Co-
operative efforts with firms to improve rather than punish can be more effective
in the long-run for improving industry standards (Berliner and Prakash, 2015)
and although voluntary membership schemes historically have mixed success,
voluntary-membership bodies with the ability to refer to enforcement bodies do
encourage compliance. (Potoski and Prakash, 2005 and Vidovic et al, 2013).

To ensure a degree of fair comparison between each area we have chosen to

use WIP’s standard approach to measuring risk at hand car washes. Risk is
measured across three sets of factors creating three dimensions which are then
combined into an overall risk profile score. Each dimension and the overall risk
score are scored from 1-10 with 10 representing the most problematic sites.
This risk score methodology is undertaken virtually with Google Street View
used to explore the sites. We recognise that this approach has limitations
versus on-site visits where a more detailed investigation can be undertaken (for
example to search for the owner’s name and contact details, checking for
insurance certification and welfare provision for workers, etc). However, this
method has been utilised across all 1958 sites WIP has reviewed across the
United Kingdom. An outline of this model and some example factors are shared
below alongside a map of Norwich to highlight the way this can be represented
as a tool for agencies considering how to prioritise visits.

14 Car Wash Code of Practice Project Report: Home Office Modern Slavery Prevention Fund
15

WIP Risk Score Description

Physical Risk - 1-10 Environmental Risks - 1-10 Worker Risks - 1-10

Signs of historic and Trade effluent pooling on Absence or inadequate
present degradation the site, pavement or road. PPE such as high-vis
such as building clothing, gloves and
Broken or uneven ground.
damage. boots.

Frequent changes Lack of shelter from

of brand and name the elements.
which may indicate
phoenixing.

Overall Risk (compound score based on the three aspects of risk outlined
above) 1-10
Table 1: WIP’s Risk Score model with example factors

Figure 1: Example of Hand Car Wash sites with colour graded overall risk scores

This risk classification provides a level of comparison within test areas and
between them to understand and identify sites that may be of higher potential
risk.
RCWS |Nottingham Trent University 15
16

The project team have used this risk classification method to help identify sites
at the upper end of the risk profile and alongside Police and sector partner data
has been used to select the sites within this project.

It should be noted that not all sites are classifiable due to limitations imposed
by the Google Street View mapping schedule and photographic reach. It does
however provide a scalable and reliable method to judge any changes and
trends across areas or site types. NTU conduct these risk scores across all sites
in their UK database. At current rate they have mapped over 35% of English
neighbourhoods, validated with physical visits and by partners in the sector. It
has also been used by the National Crime Agency to inform their AIDANT
intensification activity at hand car washes through June 2022.

Data on risk scores are shared for each site within the report and compared
with RCWS site audit results alongside stakeholder scoring of sites during our
three area-based workshops. This helps create a compound view of these sites
and explore how this mixed review model can be used by partners to tackle
modern slavery and other regulatory infractions and build a system to review
work across the sector and beyond.

The Responsible Car Wash Scheme (RCWS)

The RCWS is a not-for-profit, voluntary scheme created to promote compliance

and raise standards in the car washing and valeting sector. As a voluntary
scheme it relies on operators coming forward to evidence that they run a
compliant business. In this regard the RCWS and its Code of Practice (Code)
provides an industry standard pulling together legislation covering employment
practices, financial transparency, health and safety, consumer and
environmental protection. The award of RCWS Accreditation provides a visual
indicator of compliance providing the consumer, and enforcement bodies, a
means by which to differentiate between a site that operates in a compliant
manner and those that clearly exhibit forms of non-compliance. As a voluntary
scheme the motivation for a HCW to seek accreditation will be varied. For
some, it provides the opportunity for independent, third-party confirmation that
they operate compliantly. For others, it may come as a direction from their

16 Car Wash Code of Practice Project Report: Home Office Modern Slavery Prevention Fund
17

landlord to gain accreditation to continue to operate. Operators outside of these

two scenarios have no compunction to join the scheme and with limited contact
from enforcement agencies, operate with impunity.
Aside from offering a voluntary accreditation scheme, the RCWS has
undertaken substantive work with enforcement bodies to provide a greater
understanding of the industry and the nature and extent of non-compliance,
with particular emphasis on the risk to vulnerable workers from all forms of
labour exploitation.

Work, Informalisation and Place Research Centre, Nottingham

Trent University
The Work, Informalisation and Place Research Centre (WIP) provides
methodologically innovative interdisciplinary studies with a specific focus upon
the spatial dimensions of contemporary work and employment in sectors such
as hand car washes, nail bars, and small-scale garment manufacturing. Work in
these sectors tends towards casualisation and informalisation where workers
operate under business models that embed patterns of labour market
exploitation.

Our research expertise enables us to study contemporary patterns of work in

many sectors of employment, determine the extent to which informalisation is a
feature and examine a sector through a place-based methodology centred on a
city, a county or region, a district or a suburb. We present our research at world-
leading conferences such as European Group for Organizational Studies, and
the International Labour Process Conference. We publish our research in world-
leading and internationally recognised journals and provide bespoke
confidential research intelligence-led reports and presentations for regulators
and other stakeholders.

Our work is currently themed into three strands exploring informalised labour
and work, regulation and enforcement and spatial analysis of informalised work
opportunities which are developed by the creation of empirical research and
policy and practitioner engagement.

Work, Informalisation and Place Research Centre, @WIP_research

RCWS |Nottingham Trent University 17

18

Scope and Deliverables

Scope of Work
The scope of work for the study was as follows:

• Area location and site identification

• Site visits, assessment and report
• Return site visits to discuss reports with operators
• Issue reports to site landlords
• Workshops to discuss results of study with stakeholders

Deliverables
The following deliverables were to be provided on completion of the study:

• Three workshops with stakeholders within each of the selected

geographical areas to discuss and disseminate the results of the study.

• A final report outlining the results of the study, conclusions and

recommendations.

• The Modern Slavery Organised Immigration Crime Unit (MSOIC) to update

their guidance material on targeting exploitation and modern slavery at
hand car washes to include reference to the RCWS Code of Practice and
its application in raising standards. This will be disseminated within all
Regional Organised Crime Unit (ROCU) areas as part of the project to
assist in awareness raising and to disseminate leading practice and will
be accompanied with the project evaluation report.

18 Car Wash Code of Practice Project Report: Home Office Modern Slavery Prevention Fund
19

Methodology
The intention of this project is to assess car washes against the RCWS Code of
Practice (the “Code”), to share this assessment with regulatory and
enforcement stakeholders allowing them to consider further action as
appropriate. The code has been developed in conjunction with a consortium of
enforcement bodies led by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority (GLAA)
and assesses car washes for non-compliance in areas of:

• environmental regulations, including trade effluent consents

• health and safety regulations
• non-payment of tax (VAT, income tax and business rates)
• lack of appropriate planning permission
• poor accommodation for workers
• evidence of modern slavery

PROVISION 1: CONSENT TO TRADE AND Clause 3.1: Risk Assessment of Site

TRADING STANDARDS Operator must identify potential hazards and take

steps to control risks.
Clause 1.1: Planning
Operator must obtain planning consent or have Clause 3.2: Personal & Protective Equipment (PPE)

confirmation from their local authority regarding Operator must provide appropriate PPE.

the status of their site with regards to planning. Clause 3.3: First Aid, Accidents and Ill Health

Clause 1.2: Trading Standards Operator must take all reasonable steps to prevent

Operator must display full name of proprietor, an accidents and injury in the workplace, report

address at which the business can be contacted according to RIDDOR, and have an adequate first

and have a clear, prominent pricing of their aid kit.

services. Clause 3.4: Workplace Facilities

PROVISION 2: FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY & Operators must provide adequate welfare facilities

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE including toilets, drinking water and somewhere for

workers to take breaks and eat meals.
Clause 2.1: Registration of Company
Operator must demonstrate the legal structure PROVISION 4: PROTECTING THE
under which they operate, that the company is ENVIRONMENT
registered with HMRC and confirm their VAT status.
Clause 4.1: Location of Site
Clause 2.2: Insurance Operator must be able to demonstrate the location
Operator must hold employers' liability, public of the hand car wash enables the site to comply
liability and, where vehicles are moved, the with environmental regulations.
appropriate motor insurance.
Clause 4.2: Disposal of Waste Effluent (Water)
PROVISION 3: PROVIDING SAFE AND Operator must obtain a Trade Effluent consent

HYGIENIC WORKING CONDITIONS from a water company.

RCWS |Nottingham Trent University 19

20

Clause 4.3: Disposal of Waste Material which they are engaged and compliant with current
The operator shall safely contain and dispose of employment law.
other waste associated with the business using the
Clause 5.4: Payment of Workers and Record
services of a registered waste carrier.
Keeping
Clause 4.4: Accidental Spillage of Chemicals The operator must evidence that payment meets
The operator must have an appropriate spill kit and national minimum wage requirements, that all
staff trained to deal with spillages. employees are registered with HMRC.

PROVISION 5: COMPLIANT & ETHICAL Clause 5.5: Employment Rights and Benefits
EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES Operators must evidence that all statutory rights
are provided and upheld.
Clause 5.1: Safeguarding Workers
The operator must be able to demonstrate that Clause 5.6: Accommodation provided for Workers
they operate compliant and ethical practices. That If provided, operators must evidence what
employment is voluntary and that there is no forced deductions are in line with NMW Offset guidelines
or bonded labour. and whether it is registered as HMO.

Clause 5.2: Checking Workers Legal Right to Work Clause 5.7: Providing Transport for Workers
The operator must undertake right to work checks If provided, the operator must evidence that the
for all workers. transport is optional, any charges are in line with
NMW Offset guidelines and that the driver has a
Clause 5.3: Terms of Engagement (contracts)
full licence to drive in the UK.
The operator must evidence that they provide a
contract for all workers outlining the terms under

Table 2: the RCWS Code of Practice

Identification of Car Washes

Due to the number of car washes, and their geographical variations, a major
challenge for the project was to identify which car washes were to be visited
given the available resources to visit them. Identification of geographical areas
was achieved through liaison with the MSOIC unit who the RCWS has previously
worked with. From this, the following ROCU areas were identified as available to
participate in the project:

• Leicestershire
• Suffolk
• Norfolk

Within each of these areas, contact was made with the relevant crime units
dealing with modern slavery and exploitation in order to gather local intelligence
on car washes in their areas.

20 Car Wash Code of Practice Project Report: Home Office Modern Slavery Prevention Fund
21

Figure 2: Hand Car Wash locations across three participation areas. Sites scaled and coloured by risk score. Darker and
larger equals more problematic

Due to the time constraints of the project, it was agreed at the outset that the
number of sites visited in each geographical area would be limited to twelve.
Therefore, a mechanism was required in order to identify which car washes
would be targeted. To achieve this, NTU, with whom the RCWS have worked
with on previous studies, were engaged as a partner in the project. NTU have
developed a methodology for identifying and ranking car washes based on
several risk factors: details of the NTU analysis are available on request and
have been shared with stakeholders. From this analysis, twelve car washes in
each area were selected which had the highest risk ranking according to NTU.
Once the initial selection was made, these were cross-referenced with
intelligence provided by the police units in each ROCU. Further adjustments to
the site selection were made to accommodate requests for the RCWS to target
HCWs in specific areas, as in the case of Sudbury (Suffolk) and Great Yarmouth
(Norfolk). Finally, a further six car washes were held in reserve for each area in
case some of the identified sites could not be visited or were closed. In the case
of Leicester, only eleven sites were visited as the last site was deemed by the
police as inappropriate to visit. For Suffolk, one car wash was uncooperative
RCWS |Nottingham Trent University 21
22

and could not be audited.

The objective of the visits was two-fold:

1. to educate the site operator on compliance requirements for hand car

washes.
2. to assess the site against the Code to establish a compliance rating and
to share the information with multiple agencies and regulatory bodies.
Each car wash was visited twice: the first visit was unannounced with the site
being audited against the Code and intelligence gathered on the site owner and
number of workers. The second visit was pre-arranged to discuss the site’s
compliance with the owner and to check for any improvements following visit
one. The details of the activities carried out for each visit are given in more
detail below.

Visit One
The site visits were coordinated by the RCWS and the police and were
unannounced. In addition to the police and the RCWS, a representative from
NTU attended every visit whilst in Suffolk a representative from the Safe
Neighbourhood and Partnership Team also attended. The decision on whether
there was a uniformed police presence was a matter for the respective police
force. Suffolk police attended the visits in uniform and used marked cars.
Leicester and Norfolk attended visits in plain clothes and unmarked cars.

Upon arrival at the HCW, the police took the lead in establishing who manages
the site, outlining the purpose of the visit and introducing the RCWS auditor.
The remainder of the visit was led by the RCWS auditor, with the police
observing the process.

Following an introduction to the RCWS and the Code of Conduct, the auditor
requested the owner’s consent to look around the site and to ask a series of
questions. The audit was presented as an opportunity for the owner to have an
independent assessment of their business and for the RCWS to provide
guidance on compliance matters. The owner was advised that the audit report
would be sent to them following the visit. All audits followed a consistent
format, with the auditor using a pro-forma questionnaire as shown in Annex of
this report (pg 69).
22 Car Wash Code of Practice Project Report: Home Office Modern Slavery Prevention Fund
23

The audit allowed the RCWS to collect intelligence on the owner as well as the
business operation, cross checking this with data gathered through desk-based
research. Details of the owner’s name, contact details, registered name of the
business, landlord details and number of workers and their employment status
were collected, which allowed for checks regarding:

• planning permission
• trade effluent consent
• registration with Companies House
• latest accounts
• right to work checks
• payslips and employment contracts

Observations of the business operation provided an assessment of the site

from a health and safety perspective, amenities available to the workers,
provision of adequate PPE, discharge of trade effluent, compliance with trading
standards etc. Furthermore, workers were informed of the objective of the visit,
spoken to about working at the site, and provided with a card showing details of
the Modern Slavery Helpline and a link to the RCWS website containing
guidance on worker statutory rights.

In many cases it was stated that the owner was absent, with no one at the site
identifying themselves as being in charge, therefore compliance with some
parts of the code, such as right to work checks, could not be verified. In such
cases the contact details of the owner were obtained, except for two sites,
enabling the RCWS to contact the owner following the visit. Contact details for
all sites were recorded on a spreadsheet and updated when new information
became available to assist with follow up. Additionally, many operators claimed
that their accountant would be able to provide evidence of their compliance to
aspects of the Code and, as they had no notification of the visit, they would
have to refer the matter to them.

Following the visit, an audit report on each site was produced giving an
assessment of compliance against the Code. This included information verified
through desk-based research, such as company ownership and registration,
and whether planning permission and trade effluent consent was in place.
RCWS |Nottingham Trent University 23
24

The report was structured such that the requirements of the Code were clearly
laid out against the corresponding evidence obtained during site audit.
Identified non-compliances were highlighted in red. An example of an audit
report is given in Annex of this report.

The report was emailed to the site owner along with an explanation of where
they could find guidance on how to address any identified non-compliances.
Operators were encouraged to get in touch with the RCWS if they needed any
further assistance and encouraged to look at RCWS Accreditation. Contact
details for two sites were not available so the RCWS posted the report to the
hand car wash at the address of the site. Following the audit each owner was
contacted via email or phone a minimum of twice following issue of the report
to:

• ensure they have received the communication

• to ascertain if they need any assistance in identifying what they need to
do

Identification of the Landowner

The project methodology included an action to identify the landowner using
information shared by the HM Land Registry under the GLAA/Land Registry
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Due to delays in formalising the
MOU, the GLAA were unable to undertake this task within the project
timeframe.

Identification of the landlord to bring a compliance pressure on hand car

washes was initially trialled in the Intervention Project undertaken by the GLAA
and RCWS (Pickford et al. ,2022) with the GLAA highlighting to the landlord the
propensity of hand car washes to be involved in labour exploitation as well as
other regulatory and criminal activity. This resulted in a 54% response rate,
indicating that just over half see it as important to respond.

However, it did not correspond with a change in how the tenant hand car
washes operated with none of the sites engaging with the RCWS. The intention
in this project was to strengthen the message given to the landowners,
communicating any identified non-compliances of tenant car washes to the
relevant landowner.
24 Car Wash Code of Practice Project Report: Home Office Modern Slavery Prevention Fund
25

The GLAA intend to use the intelligence gathered during this project to notify the
landowners of the compliance rating of their tenants but this will be outside the
scope of this report.

Visit Two
Each site was given a period of six weeks between visits to address the
improvement measures highlighted in the site audit report. During this time the
RCWS contacted the owner either by phone or email asking if they needed
clarification on the report or guidance on how to implement improvement
measures.

The operators were contacted again, two weeks prior to the second visit, to
advise that the RCWS would be revisiting their site and to request that they
make available any new evidence to support their compliance with the Code.
Whilst the exact date was not given, the operators were given a narrow
timeframe of three days in which to expect the visit.

Leicester and Norfolk police supported the second visits, whilst the Safer
Neighbourhood Partnership supported the RCWS for the second visits in
Suffolk. Uniformed officers and marked police cars were not present at any
time during the second visits. Following the visit, a second report was produced
for each site detailing any changes from the first visit, including any progress
made towards compliance. This report was not shared with the owner but was
used in the metrics for the subsequent multi-agency workshops.

Using the results of both visits, a spreadsheet was developed showing the
metrics of non-compliance for each area and the changes between the visits.
The results of this are shown below on page 30.

Workshops
Following the conclusion of the second visits the RCWS, working with NTU, held
three half-day workshops, one for each area, inviting a broad range of agencies
and enforcement bodies. The workshops provided the opportunity to share the
intelligence obtained from the site visits as well as providing a compliance
description of each of the sites derived from the RCWS audit.
RCWS |Nottingham Trent University 25
26

Using photos of each site, the workshop also explored perceptions of site
compliance comparing the risk rating from the workshop participants with the
risk rating from NTU. These were then discussed in the context of the RCWS
compliance score obtained from the audit and follow up visit.

Following the workshops, all participants received a copy of the audit reports
outlining the nature of any non-compliances identified.

Purpose
The workshops aimed to bring together those agencies and authorities whose
expertise and specialisms are pertinent to the hand car wash sector. Issues
relating to the sector include potential labour exploitation, employment non-
compliance such as wage theft, health and safety risks, informal working
arrangements, the presence of undocumented migrant workers, detrimental
environmental impacts and the use of land across the sector. The workshops
aimed to facilitate a multi-agency discussion to share knowledge and ideas of
how best to regulate the hand car wash sector and encourage compliance.

The intended outcomes of the workshops were to:

1. Collectively formulate a set of features which are key indicators of non-

compliance in the hand car wash sector. Factors include physical, spatial
and environmental concerns as well as suspicious operational and
working practices.

2. To gain greater understanding and awareness of the risks in the hand car
wash sector through sharing insights and knowledge between agencies to
create a centralised hub of information for the sector.

3. To devise possible interventions and approaches to better regulate the

sector.

Workshop Process
These workshops were conducted following prior review by NTU’s ethics
processes. Workshop discussions were partly shaped by organisational rules
around information sharing and data protection and so participants were not
able to speak freely on given topics. This is a necessary limitation and does not

26 Car Wash Code of Practice Project Report: Home Office Modern Slavery Prevention Fund
27

compromise the validity of the workshop approach overall because it is

reflective of the nature of the participating agencies. Participant consent was
gathered for all members of the workshops and non-attributed notes were
taken by the research team to ensure anonymity and to increase the likelihood
that honest feedback and engagement was gathered. All participants were
reminded that comments made would not be linked directly to them and that
sensitive reflections and views expressed during the workshops should be kept
within the room. The results of the feedback from participants are shared
below.

The workshop was semi-structured which began with a presentation delivered

by the RCWS and NTU. The presentation gave an outline of the RCWS site visits,
findings and key topics of interest. Next, participants were asked to complete
an interactive task wherein they were provided with images of twelve hand car
washes from their respective regions which they had to rank from best to worst
based on visual observation. Leicester and Ipswich participants worked in small
groups, and in Norfolk they worked individually due to the overall lower
attendance. The task was completed using an app accessed on their mobile
phones. The app calculated the group average and plotted the results onto a
graph instantaneously. The group discussed the results and had the opportunity
to comment on specific sites and compare how they ranked them.

The Leicester and Suffolk participant scoring had a strong positive correlation to
the risk classification score of the site, with the riskiest sites being ranked
higher. The Norfolk participant’s ranking did not have a correlation with the risk
classification score and this was discussed during the workshop. Lastly, a
discussion took place for participants to make comments, share observations
and ask questions. At certain points in the workshops, RCWS and NTU members
highlighted issues for the group to consider.

Raising Awareness
Whilst the programme of site visits was underway, activities to raise awareness
of how to identify compliant practices at car washes was also undertaken in the
locality of the targeted sites. Working with our partner PR and communications

RCWS |Nottingham Trent University 27

28

agency Fourth Day, a campaign of billboards, bus adverts and local media
interviews was carried out in order to highlight the project.

The aim was to highlight poor practice and non-compliant behaviour in order to
tackle the idea of what NTU term permissive visibility (Clark and Colling, 2018)
within the communities that these sites operate in. Figure 3 shows an example
of the billboard design.

Figure 3: Billboard design that was displayed near the hand car washes to raise awareness

To encourage communities to look out for potential exploitative behaviour at

hand car washes in the targeted areas, the Safe Car Wash App was also
promoted. The App requires the user to answer five questions when observing a
hand car wash, with the data collated for access by the police and the
Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority.

Figure 4: Screenshots of the Safe Car Wash App

28 Car Wash Code of Practice Project Report: Home Office Modern Slavery Prevention Fund
29

Results
The results of each visit to each car wash were recorded on a spreadsheet,
which is included in Annex D. The spreadsheet shows the RCWS Code
compliance rating for each site, at both the first and second visit, with the score
relating to compliance with different clauses of the Code. Sites needed to be
fully compliant with the clauses in the Code to receive a score. Partial
compliance with a clause was registered as a failure. Clause 5.1 Safeguarding
workers did not factor in the scoring of the sites during the project. Under
normal circumstances the RCWS would confirm this by observing the site for a
period prior to entering, as well as through interviews with the workers. As
neither of these activities were undertaken during the project, the site was not
scored against this metric.

It is important to note that the auditors had no legal right to ask questions or to
check documents: the questions were answered entirely voluntarily, and the
answers accepted at face value. Documents offered to support compliance with
the Code were accepted as being valid. Furthermore, if an owner or operator
stated that they did not provide accommodation or transport, this was also
accepted. Auditors sought to verify this during the on site audit, looking for
evidence of workers sleeping on site, and through talking to the workers where
possible. In regard to electrical installations, wiring and cables as well as
drainage and sewers, the auditors carried out visual inspections.

The results are summarised in Table 2 with a full discussion given later in the
report.

RCWS |Nottingham Trent University 29

30

Percentage Compliance
Leicester Norfolk Suffolk
% Against
RCWS Code Clause
V1 V2 V1 V2 V1 V2 Clause

1.1 Planning 36 36 8 17 64 73 39%

1.2 Trading Standards 36 45 8 8 9 9 19%
2.1 Company Reg 27 27 50 50 45 45 41%
2.2 Insurance 0 27 0 17 0 27 12%
3.1 Site Risk Assessment 0 18 8 8 9 27 12%
3.2 PPE 27 36 42 50 45 55 43%
3.3 First Aid 9 27 0 8 0 0 7%
3.4 Welfare Facilities 27 45 58 58 27 27 41%
4.1 Drainage 9 18 8 8 64 73 30%
4.2 Trade Effluent 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
4.3 Solid Waste Disposal 55 55 50 58 64 73 59%
4.4 Spill Kit 0 18 0 8 0 0 4%
5.1 Safeguarding 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
5.2 RTW 0 9 0 25 0 9 7%
5.3 Contracts 0 9 0 17 0 9 6%
5.4 Payslips 0 9 8 33 0 18 11%
5.5 Employment Rights 0 9 0 25 0 9 7%
5.6 Accommodation 73 55 83 83 100 100 82%
5.7 Transport 91 73 92 92 100 100 91%
% Compliance Against
21% 27% 22% 30% 28% 34%
Visit

Table 3: RCWS code of conduct scores across the three project areas .
*Each clause is colour graded to indicate average level of clause compliance.

Analysis of results against clauses contained within

the Code.
Clause 1.2 Planning
The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA) controls all development on
land in England and Wales. Generally, all new buildings and uses of land
(premises) can require planning permission, but there are exceptions to this.
Enforcement action may be taken by a planning authority where no planning
consent (permission) has been granted, or where planning conditions are
contravened. The project validated planning by asking the operator to provide
evidence of planning consent, or by the RCWS checking the planning portal of
the respective council.
30 Car Wash Code of Practice Project Report: Home Office Modern Slavery Prevention Fund
31

Suffolk had the highest level of compliance in planning, achieving a 73%

compliance score. In comparison Norfolk achieved 8% compliance and
Leicester 36%.

The project did not look into whether the sites in Suffolk and Norfolk were fully
compliant with planning consent. However, all 11 Leicester sites that were
visited as part of the project had their planning permission condition checked
and a range of compliance was found. Sites that were operating with
permission often had a range of conditions to meet, with restrictions on opening
hours, new or updated drainage required and splash shields to contain spray.

• As an example, one site had permission to operate with new drainage

that has been installed.
• There are two examples of sites that had fixed term permission for
several years and then given permanent permission.
• Another site had its first permission in August 2003 for 1-year and had
three further temporary permissions granted with gaps in between of non-
compliance. Permanent permission was granted in September 2019,
even though there were complaints relating to the application that the
site did not keep to its operating hours restrictions. The two examples of
fully non-compliant washes either have no attempts made to gain
permission or have applied and have been rejected.
• Two sites had a temporary permission, but the permanent application
rejected on grounds of not adhering to restrictions on the temporary
permission (Noise, temporary buildings used as permanent structures
and impact on nearby grade II church). The owner applied for a 1-year
extension on the grounds of supporting the families connected during the
difficult times of the pandemic and has a new application being
processed. The new application has several suspiciously positive
duplicate responses for the site to gain permission. The origin of these
responses state they are neighbours but due to ease of access to the
submission system there is a possibility of owners to submit self-report
opinions to improve their odds of approval.

RCWS |Nottingham Trent University 31

32

Clause 1.2 Trading Standards

Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, councils have the power of entry to visit
businesses to check compliance with the Act, looking at issues such as
misleading pricing, the absence of business names and contact details.

The project validated this by looking for a clear and transparent pricing list,
together with details of the business names and contact details of the business
owner. Sites needed to be compliant in both aspects to achieve a score against
the clause.

The presence of a clear and transparent pricing list was universal across all
sites, being the sites main method of advertisement. The main obstacle for
sites in this clause was the absence of details regarding who operated the
business, together with contact details. This meant that consumers would not
be able to seek redress for any service level issues they may have. Leicester
scored the highest level for compliance against this clause achieving a score of
45%. In comparison, Norfolk and Suffolk registered low levels of compliance,
with 8% and 9% respectively.

Clause 2.1 Company Registration

Limited companies and partnerships must be registered with Companies
House. Sole traders are not required to register but they must maintain
accounting records, pay income tax and file a self-assessment return with
HMRC every tax year. Each operator was asked to provide details of the name
of the business and the legal structure it operates under. These were in turn
verified by checking Companies House details or, in the case of sole traders, a
self-assessment return requested. Norfolk achieved the highest compliance
score with 50%, closely followed by Suffolk with 45% and Leicester with 27%.

Clause 2.2 Insurance

Car washes, in line with other businesses, are required to have a minimum level
of insurance as outlined below:

Employers Liability: Employers are responsible for the health and safety of
their employees whilst they are at work. Employers may be injured at work or

32 Car Wash Code of Practice Project Report: Home Office Modern Slavery Prevention Fund
33

they, or former employees, may become ill as a result of their work while in
employment. The Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969
ensures that a minimum level of insurance cover against any such claims.
Operators can be fined if they do not hold a current employers’ liability
insurance policy which complies with the law.
Public liability insurance: This covers for claims made by members of the
public or other businesses. Whilst not a legal requirement, it is a
requirement of the RCWS.
Motor Insurance: If the site operator moves customers’ cars during valeting,
they must hold a valid motor insurance policy naming the workers who are
covered to move customers’ vehicles.
The project validated insurance by asking to see evidence of insurance
certificates for Employers’ and Public Liability, with the addition of motor
insurance if it was applicable to the site. Compliance against this clause was
extremely low across all three areas. Leicester and Suffolk both achieving a
compliance score of 26% following the second visit. No site in Norfolk was able
to provide evidence to support compliance against this clause. Compliance with
this clause was only evident during the second visit, with the majority of the
insurance cover commencing after their first RCWS visit and in the case of one
site operator taking out 6 months of cover for employers’ liability. Businesses
are required to publicly display this information for consumers which is a
significant concern.

Figure 5: Uneven terrain, broken drain covers and large pools of water. Suffolk
RCWS |Nottingham Trent University 33
34

Clause 3.1 Site Risk Assessment

Under the Health and Safety at Work Act (HSWA), employers have a duty to
maintain the health, safety and welfare at work of all their employees, including
providing and maintaining safety equipment and safe systems of work.
Enforcement of the HSWA is shared between councils and the Health and
Safety Executive.

The project validated this by assessing, through a visual inspection, whether the
operator had undertaken a risk assessment of the site to identify potential
hazards and take steps to control risks. This included:

• Ensuring that electrical installations, equipment and appliances are safe,

appropriate for use and checked in line with legislation
• Ensuring that all cleaning products and chemical are stored, labelled and
utilised in accordance with health and safety COSHH regulations
• Ensuring the site is free from trip hazards such as trailing cable

Figure 6: Pump for the pressure washer with electrical cables and hoses
causing trip hazard, Leicester

Clause 3.2 Personal Protective Clothing (PPE)

Where health and safety risks cannot be controlled in any other way, personal
and protective equipment must be provided by the operator for all workers.
Workers operate all year round, often in inclement weather, spending many
hours in wet conditions.

34 Car Wash Code of Practice Project Report: Home Office Modern Slavery Prevention Fund
35

For context, visit one was conducted between February - March 2022 with visit
2 between April – May 2022.

The project checked for workers wearing waterproof footwear and the presence
(wearing) of gloves as a minimum. Ideally workers should be wearing protective
footwear, waterproof trousers and hi viz vest/jacket as well. Despite the low
threshold to achieve a score against this clause, the highest score recorded for
compliance was 55% for Suffolk. This was followed by 50% for Norfolk and 36%
for Leicester.

Figure 7: Staff room with organised chemical and PPE storage, Leicester

Clause 3.3 First Aid, Accidents and Ill Health

In regard to compliance against this clause, the project looked for evidence of
the operator taking reasonable steps to prevent accidents and injury at the
workplace and specifically that they:

• Make a record of any accidents in line with RIDDOR requirements

• Ensure an adequate first aid kit and equipment are on site
• The project validated this by referring to clause 3.1 and 3.2, and
specifically looking for the presence of an accident book, a first aid kit
and a HSE health and safety at work poster prominently displayed.

RCWS |Nottingham Trent University 35

36

Only Leicester achieved a compliance score against this clause, achieving 27%
at the second visit, up from 9% from the first visit.

Figure 8: Displayed poster Health and Safety Executive requirements.

Clause 3.4 Welfare Facilities

Workplace facilities at car washes can vary and space is often at a premium. If
facilities are not available in the site due to these constraints the operator
needs to provide evidence of how workers’ welfare needs are met. In some
instances, they may rely on the use of facilities available on the premises of
their landlord i.e., toilets on the petrol station forecourt. The project looked for
the following:

• Toilets, free drinking water, clean and hygienic rest areas away from
chemical storage

The compliance levels varied across the three regions but with all regions
registering a compliance score below 60%. The highest compliance score of
58% was found in Norfolk. This was followed by Leicester with a compliance
score of 27% at the first visit, increasing to 45% at the second. Suffolk had a
compliance score of 27%.

36 Car Wash Code of Practice Project Report: Home Office Modern Slavery Prevention Fund
37

Figure 9: Well-maintained staff room area with fridge, kettle, food and heating, Leicester .

Clause 4.1 Location of site and drainage

Car washes are found at a variety of locations including car parks, disused retail
premises and petrol station forecourts, both active and disused. The location of
the car wash will provide several indicators as to the likely compliance of the
site with regards to compliance with environmental and planning aspects of the
RCWS Code.

Figure 10: Purpose made water drainage by the petrol station. Surface requires
upkeep. Norfolk

RCWS |Nottingham Trent University 37

38

The project looked at the following indicators:

• The presence of an impermeable wash surface (e.g., concrete wash pad)

• Appropriate shielding to reduce and capture effluent run-off
• A connection to a foul sewer drainage system which is regularly serviced
by a registered waste carrier.
Compliance against this clause was highest in Suffolk with 73%. In comparison
Leicester achieved 18% compliance with Norfolk lower still at 8%.

Figure 11: Pooling at a hand car wash, the surface is not designed to handle capacity.
Suffolk

Clause 4.2 Trade Effluent

Operators must obtain a Trade Effluent consent from a water supply company
to discharge their trade effluent into the foul sewer. A trade effluent consent is
a legal document issued under the provisions of the Water Industry Act 1991.
It’s an offence to discharge trade effluent without a consent. The consent will
contain conditions and limits to the discharge. Breaches of any consent
condition constitutes a criminal offence under the above Act and may lead to
legal action being taken against the discharger.

38 Car Wash Code of Practice Project Report: Home Office Modern Slavery Prevention Fund
39

If the car wash cannot dispose of its trade effluent via a sewerage connection, it
must be collected in a suitable trap or container and disposed of by a licenced
water carrier. Trade effluent must not pass to the surface water
drains. Wastewater from hand car washes contains a number of harmful
chemicals to the environment, primarily the heavily acidic soap products with
some heavy chemicals from oil and fuel spilt on the sites.
The impact on infrastructure by the cleaning products can be seen on the
surface of the sites, with laid concrete flooring being eroded over time with
channels and pooling occurring as a result of the damage.

Figure 12: Image from a site highlighting water flow from HCW site. Suffolk

Drain interceptors are often underground tanks that separate water from oil
and cleaning product pollutants, with the waste products stored for proper
disposal by a licensed water carrier and the water allowed to enter the public
sewers. They are normally kept underground and are common at sites that were
previously petrol stations and can be identified by the presence of underground
access grates on the site floor. Without regular emptying of the tank’s waste,
pollutants can enter the public sewers.

RCWS |Nottingham Trent University 39

40

Figure 13: An example of unlicensed interceptor waste

disposal. Suffolk

Clause 4.3 Solid Waste Disposal

The operator was asked to evidence how they disposed of waste material
associated with car valeting such as empty chemical containers, disposable
PPE, general rubbish from car interiors. Evidence of a contract with the local
council or registered waste carrier was looked for.

Figure 14: A bin on a site with empty chemical bottles and solid waste on
top. Leicester

40 Car Wash Code of Practice Project Report: Home Office Modern Slavery Prevention Fund
41

Clause 4.4 Spill Kit

Large quantities of chemicals in concentrated form, including acid-based
chemicals, are frequently stored on site. The operator was asked to
demonstrate that they had contingencies for accidental spillage and that
workers were trained and aware of their responsibilities in this regard.

Operators were asked to provide evidence that they had an appropriate spill kit,
commercial or custom made, together with details of how they would dispose of
the material. Leicester was the only region to register a compliance score
against this clause, achieving 18% following the second visit.

Figure 15: Wash pad with severe corrosion due to use of cleaning chemicals including
acid. Leicester

Clause 5.1 Safeguarding

As previously noted, safeguarding workers did not factor in the scoring of the
sites during the project due to the inability of the auditors to undertake the
usual checks to validate that safeguarding was not a concern at the site. Under
normal circumstances the RCWS would confirm this by observing the site for a
period prior to entering, as well as through interviews with the workers. As
neither of these activities were undertaken during the project, the site was not
scored against this metric. It is important to highlight that the RCWS Code is
comprised of 19 non-weighted clauses. As safeguarding could not be checked
or scored during the project, it is excluded from the metrics. The graphs
contained in this report include the remaining 18 clauses.

RCWS |Nottingham Trent University 41

42

Clause 5.2 Right to Work Checks

It is a criminal offence under section 21 of the Immigration, Asylum and
Nationality Act, as amended by section 35 of the Immigration Act 2016, if you
know or have reasonable cause to believe that you are employing an illegal
worker. If you are found to be employing someone illegally and you have not
carried out the prescribed checks, you may face sanctions including:

• A civil penalty of up to £20,000 per illegal worker

• In serious cases, a criminal conviction carrying a prison sentence up to 5
years and an unlimited fine.

The default answer for most operators when first asked for evidence that they
have undertaken right to work checks was that their accountant did these on
their behalf. In several cases the operator openly admitted that they did not
undertake any checks and in one case the operator admitted that they were
employing ‘illegal workers’, that is, undocumented migrants but they were
“planning on replacing them in the near future”.

Despite the severity of penalty if found to be breaking the law, compliance with
this clause was extremely low with Leicester and Suffolk achieving 9%
compliance and Norfolk achieving 8%.

Clause 5.3 Contracts

The operator is required to record and keep safe the terms of engagement and
personal details for all workers including full name, address and age if under
22. The contract must state the status of the worker i.e., whether they are
employed or self-employed.

The project confirmed this by asking the operator to provide a sample contract
of employment with confirmation of the status of the worker.

In the case of Suffolk, four of the sites produced contracts during the second
visit. It was clear from the design and content of the employment contracts
provided, and later confirmed by one of the site operators, that they had all
been provided by the same accountant. Furthermore, when reading the content
of the contract it referred to job roles not usually found at a hand car wash such

42 Car Wash Code of Practice Project Report: Home Office Modern Slavery Prevention Fund
43

as an administrative assistant, referred to a management structure unlikely to

exist at a hand car wash, and did not comply with employment law. This
suggests that the contracts were hastily created to appease the RCWS auditors
during the second visit. These contracts were discounted on the basis that they
had no relevance to the job role and business.

Compliance against this clause was extremely low across all three regions and
only registered after the second visit when the operators knew that we would be
visiting and were able to have the information to hand on site. Leicester and
Suffolk scored 9% compliance, representing one site out of 12 in each
case. Many operators openly admitted that they did not provide contracts for
workers on the basis that worker turnover was high, and that workers’
preference was to have casual employment.

Clause 5.4 Payslips

Car washes are bound by the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 which sets out
requirements relating to the payment of the national minimum and national
living wages. This is enforced by HMRC National Minimum Wage Unit.

All operators were asked to provide evidence that they supplied payslips to
workers and that they were clear, itemised, specifying gross and net earnings.
In the case of self-employed workers, copies of invoices relating to services
provided was requested.

In line with other clauses relating to employment, all three regions scored poorly
in terms of compliance with only one site per region achieving a score.

Clause 5.5 Employment Rights

Operators must ensure that workers receive their statutory rights including
holiday pay, sick pay and pension entitlement and that accurate records are
maintained to document entitlements and use.

The project verified this by scrutiny of the employment contract. Given that so
few of the operators provided a contract, the compliance score was extremely
low in regard to this clause and reflected the compliance with existence of
employment contracts.

RCWS |Nottingham Trent University 43

44

The exception was Norfolk where the employment contract supplied was not
compliant with workplace pensions therefore scoring zero.

Clause 5.6 Accommodation provided to workers

An operator that provides on site accommodation for workers can be subject to
an inspection by the council in regard to the Housing Act 2004. This act
empowers local authorities to tackle poor conditions and management
standards in the private rented sector.

Accommodation is sometimes used to exploit workers, particularly if it is

compulsory and comes with the job, or where excessively high rents are
charged for substandard housing. Accommodation may be used by employers
to restrict the worker’s mobility which is a potential risk factor that could
indicate workers are being treated as modern slavery.

Most operators stated that they did not provide accommodation with the auditor
having no way of validating this. However, where the operator was absent from
the site giving the auditors the opportunity to engage with workers, it was
confirmed that sites in Leicester and Suffolk provided workers with
accommodation.

Evidence of possible on site accommodation was found at one site located in

Ipswich, with a caravan located on the site that had bedding in place. The site
received a compliance score for not providing accommodation as there was no
evidence of workers using the caravan as accommodation at the time of the
audit however the potential for it to be used as such is of concern. Feedback
from the local authority indicated it had signs of overnight use when they had
previously visited it. Suffolk achieved 100% compliance, Leicester 55% and
Norfolk 83% reflecting comments from workers that the operator provided them
with accommodation. At several sites the accommodation was described as
being near the hand car wash.

44 Car Wash Code of Practice Project Report: Home Office Modern Slavery Prevention Fund
45

Figure 16: On site caravan. The presence of accommodation on site is of concern. Suffolk

Clause 5.7 Transport

Where it is stated that the operator provides transport for the workers the
RCWS auditor would, under normal RCWS auditing arrangements seek
verification of whether this was an informal arrangement or the provision of a
service. This would be done by talking to several of the workers engaged at the
site. If transport is the provision of a service, the operator would be asked to
provide details of insurance and details of any payment taken from the
workers. Where a site operator stated they did not provide transport they
achieved a score against the clause. The results show that few operators
claimed to provide workers with transport, with the compliance rating being
100% for Suffolk and 73% for Leicester and 92% for Norfolk.

RCWS |Nottingham Trent University 45

46

Workshop Outcomes
Participation and Engagement
The hand car wash sector is generally characterised as informal. The
enforcement of regulation is fragmented because different agencies have
authority over particular aspects of hand car wash businesses but at present
there is no centralised approach to oversee compliance across the sector as a
whole. The workshops enabled agencies that usually operate independently to
share their insights and perspectives in a joint discussion.

Workshops took place in Leicester on Wednesday 27 April, Ipswich on

Wednesday 11 May and Norwich on Thursday 9 June 2022. The workshops
differed in terms of participant numbers and professional backgrounds.
Leicester had 11 participants, Ipswich had 15 and Norfolk had 5. Across the
three workshops, attendees included Health and Safety Executive, Police, Fire
Service, Local Authorities, charities, HMRC National Minimum Wage, the
Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, safeguarding professionals and the
National Crime Agency. Not all the workshops had the same attendance from
these agencies with Leicester having the widest range of participants than
Ipswich and Norfolk. The nature of the discussions and levels of awareness of
the issues surrounding the hand car wash sector varied between the regions.

In the group setting, some participants spoke more than others, and this meant
that certain viewpoints and issues received greater attention than others.
Additionally, some expressed that they had pre-existing knowledge of some of
the hand car washes in their respective areas. The relevance of the hand car
wash sector to the different agencies in attendance may have been a factor in
the different levels of engagement and participation.

Workshop Findings
Indicators of non-compliance shared by workshop participants:
1. Overly legitimate behaviour to deter attention from the authorities: hand
car washes that try to look more legitimate than the average and owners
who are overly keen to speak to the authorities raise the suspicion that
they are over-compensating to hide organised criminality.
46 Car Wash Code of Practice Project Report: Home Office Modern Slavery Prevention Fund
47

2. Businesses in atypical locations: businesses that are located on roads

with little traffic or footfall raise questions as to how they make a profit
and raises suspicion that it may be a front for hidden organised crime.
3. The use of cash-only payment may be indicative of possible money
laundering and other crime.
4. Accommodation on site may indicate labour exploitation and modern
slavery.
5. Multiple hand car washes within close proximity.: difficult to see how the
businesses could be economically sustainable given the competition.
6. The absence of staff welfare facilities such as bathrooms, health and
safety practices and appropriate PPE.
7. The absence of appropriate operational procedures and equipment
including waste disposal, water and trade effluent drainage, secure
chemical storage and lanes for vehicles.

Key issues:

• Visiting a site in person and speaking to workers is a more effective way

to understand how a business operates than visual observation alone.

• Trust must be built between workers and the authorities to facilitate

communication and engagement which often takes multiple visits.

• Current regulation enforcement is fragmented. Agencies have different

remits, different powers, with no clarity on which body has overall
responsibility for the hand car wash sector or shared data sharing
principles to allow holistic interpretations of sites.

• In its current form, Companies House is a passive record which does not
verify the accuracy of information provided by filers. It is hoped that the
proposed reforms to the submission and collation of material at
Companies House will allow for verification of the information that filers
submit.

• Policy transfer of existing licensing mechanisms for alcohol, food hygiene

and HMOs could apply to hand car washes to encourage compliance and
increase awareness of the required operating standards.
RCWS |Nottingham Trent University 47
48

• Hand car washes are transient. The workers, conditions and levels of
compliance change over time. A business can change considerably in the
time between the first and second site visit.

• The role of consumers:

• Prices are determined by how much customers are willing to pay.

• It would be useful to know who washes the large fleets such as
couriers.
• Customer expectations affect how hand car washes are reviewed
online. The higher the expectation, the lower the review score and vice
versa.
• It is important for customers to know the name of the operator, rather
than just any individual’s name from the hand car wash.
• Employment non-compliance is a national issue, not limited to any city.

• The informal working arrangement without an employment contract

may suit some workers:
• Immigration status is interlinked with the right to work; for workers
who do not have the right to work and no recourse to public funds,
informal employment at a hand car wash may be their only option for
income.
• Migrant workers may fear deportation if they report poor practices to
the authorities.
• Those who do not have the right to work are not protected by HMRC
NMW and fall through the regulatory gap.
• Opposing narratives: the victim/worker’s own perspective and that of the
regulators are not necessarily aligned. The prevailing narrative is that
workers are exploited and need to be saved, but some workers do not see
themselves as victims or in need of rescue and their perspective needs
greater attention.
• Some groups in society are more vulnerable to exploitation, as in the case of
County Lines, and they remain vulnerable even after they have been saved
from exploitation. More support for vulnerable groups is needed in wider
society.
• Language and cultural differences can be a barrier between workers and the
authorities.
48 Car Wash Code of Practice Project Report: Home Office Modern Slavery Prevention Fund
49

Recommendations from the Workshops

Workshop participants felt that a number of actions were needed. These are
summarised in the bullet points below and have been combined in our
recommendations shared later in this report.

• Education for young people before they leave school to inform them
about their working rights before they enter the workforce – the GLAA
have indicated to us that work on sector skills qualifications was
launched in 2021 to support learners to gain confidence and develop
skills that will help them to prepare, be safe and succeed in employment
and is targeted at 16 – 19 year olds (SEG Awards Level 1 Award in
Workers’ Rights and Labour Exploitation - https://
skillsandeducationgroupawards.co.uk/qualification/level-1-award-in-
workers-rights-and-labour-exploitation/).

• More engagement and awareness-raising with consumers and the wider

public on the hand car wash sector and the challenges within it.

• Multi-agency site visits need to have a clear objective and better

information gathering before the visit.

• Better use and distribution of resources in carrying out multi-agency

visits.

• Having an accreditation mark would help guide customers to choose

compliant hand car washes, instead of the customer having to make that
judgement based on the prices offered.

• Website of accredited hand car washes.

• A property-based approach: contact landlords and utilities companies to

find out who is using the land and paying the rates.

• A licencing scheme could impose conditions: compliance could be

rewarded with money off sign up or renewal costs, and non-compliance
should incur fines.

• There should be a need to find out how workers are recruited and
understand the demographics of the workers e.g., have they worked on a
hand car wash before?
RCWS |Nottingham Trent University 49
50

Reflections

The workshops were effective at facilitating communication between agencies.

The workshops were similar to a focus group and the sample was chosen to
highlight the agency and regulatory perspectives of the hand car wash sector.
The participant sample included key staff members, representatives and
stakeholders and were selected because they possess expertise, knowledge
and experience pertaining to the hand car wash sector. The discussion
therefore was professional in tone and participants expressed themselves
within their professional capacities and the agencies which they represented.

The drawback of the workshop approach relates to the depth of discussion. The
workshops brought together agencies which have different focusses and
awareness of the sector, and this may have contributed to the lack of flow at
times in the conversation. Participant comments were sometimes unrelated to
the one preceding, which meant that certain topics were moved on from quite
quickly when there might have been more to say. This limitation can be
overcome by making follow-up contact with participants to discuss any topics
further if they wish to. Participant responses during the workshops revealed
there are shared perspectives and concerns amongst the various agencies.

The general consensus amongst participants was that they are concerned by
the sector. The reasons for the concern are based on many different fragments
of information that give rise to doubt the legitimacy and legality of some HCWs.
However at present, due to a lack of information and knowledge about HCW
businesses it is difficult to clearly define the problems. In order to gain clarity
and better understanding of the risks within the sector, the participants
expressed support for more attention and investigation into the sector.

A recurring theme in the discussions was the suggestion for taking a multi-
agency approach through inter-agency coordination and joint site visits.
Participants expressed support for the approach and willingness to work
together with other agencies in theory, however this was accompanied by
concerns about the practicality due to issues around time and funding
constraints, limited staff numbers and rules on data and information sharing
between agencies.
50 Car Wash Code of Practice Project Report: Home Office Modern Slavery Prevention Fund
51

To overcome these limitations, participants considered two main alternative

approaches: first, a property-based approach which would involve contacting
landlords and finding out who owns the land and pays for utilities. Second, a
financial approach through HMRC to find out if there is organised unlawful
activity connected to the HCW businesses such as fraud or money laundering.
These approaches would enable the agencies to ascertain if the sector has
connections with organised crime.

In addition to issues of the supply side, participants raised questions about the
demand for HCWs and the potential for public and consumer engagement to
tackle non-compliance in the sector. The participants highlighted that the public
are interested and concerned about what happens in their local communities
and they could be a useful source of information for the agencies when site
visits are not always feasible. The participants emphasised the importance of
safeguarding and the potential benefits of educating and empowering the
public through initiatives, such as the Safe Car Wash App, to recognise and
report issues they witness which could be signs of labour exploitation or modern
slavery.

The final key point raised in the workshops is the voice of the workers. The
participants explained that workers’ situations are often complex for which
there is not a straightforward solution. The role of immigration policy and
immigration status affects the ability for vulnerable workers to report
mistreatment to the authorities, it affects their access to working rights and
affects how effectively agencies can respond to their needs. Participants
highlighted how vital it is to build trust with the workers in order to effectively
communicate and ultimately help them.

RCWS |Nottingham Trent University 51

52

Conclusion
As can be seen from the results, not one car wash achieved full compliance,
either on the first visit, or after the second visit when they would feasibly have
had a chance to collect the relevant data and make improvements as outlined
in the RCWS audit report. On the second visit, several owners or operators
stated that they had no intention of joining the scheme, despite being advised
that there would be no charge for membership as part of the project. The
overriding reason for not joining seems to be so that they do not feel they have
to comply with the provisions of the code requirements, despite many of the
clauses being legal requirements. The persistent non-compliance is of serious
concern and highlights the embedded nature of these business practices which
may well fuel a wider lack of compliance and rule following as indicated by
Keizer (2008)

In terms of compliance rating against individual clauses, having consent to

discharge trade effluent into the sewers produced a zero-compliance rating
across all sites in all three areas. This is despite operators being made aware
of this in the audit report and that it is a criminal offence to discharge without a
consent. Likewise, there is very poor compliance regarding right to work (RTW)
checks, payslips and employment contracts. The highest compliance was in
areas such as accommodation and transport, but these scores are not easily
verifiable without talking to the workers. Higher levels of compliance were
evidenced against workplace facilitates such as provision of a place for workers
to shelter (usually no more than a temporary cabin) and solid waste
disposal. However, in terms of the former, this was not always to a very high
standard and could benefit from improvements. Although there was some
change in compliance rating between visit one and visit two, this was minimal
with the overall compliance against the Code being low across all three areas.

Where an operator or owner was unable to provide details of company

ownership, planning permission or trade effluent consent, these could be
checked through publicly accessible websites and registers. Company
information is available through the Companies House website and planning
information through the relevant local council websites but checking trade
effluent consent proved difficult. By law, water wholesalers are required to keep
a public register of trade effluent consents.
52 Car Wash Code of Practice Project Report: Home Office Modern Slavery Prevention Fund
53

However, for Norfolk and Suffolk, it was difficult to find where this register was
held. Despite repeated calls to Anglian Water, the register could not be found.
Anglian Water later advised the RCWS that there would be a £25 fee to extract
parts of the register for a particular address. For Leicester, Severn Trent Water’s
trade effluent register was publicly accessible on their website, but it was noted
that this did not include any of the car washes visited. Following discussions
with Severn Trent Water it transpired that, where car washes are concerned,
they do not provide full trade effluent consent. Instead, they provide a letter
giving approval to discharge. As this “letter” is not a full trade consent, it does
not appear on the register and, therefore, it cannot be checked by a member of
the public. According to Severn Trent Water, due to GDPR rules, the only way
that a check can be carried out in this case is if the car wash concerned gives
their approval for the details of the letter to be released. This essentially means
that for most car washes in Leicester it cannot be verified if they are allowed to
discharge effluent to the sewers. This inconsistent approach fails to help
provide an informed approach for enforcement agencies or future licensing
bodies. The project team would recommend that discussions with OfWat should
be progressed to understand the discrepancies here.

When checking a site’s planning permission, it was noted that many approvals
had been granted with certain conditions, such as restrictions on opening hours
and drainage. In at least one case, the car wash’s hours did not meet with the
planning conditions. From this, it is apparent that councils do not routinely
check whether a site complies with its approval conditions and, it is assumed,
that compliance checks only occur when a complaint is made about a site.

During the visits the auditors engaged in discussions with operators or owners
regarding their business and, where possible, also with the workers on site. The
detail of these discussions is not part of the metrics, which are quantitative, but
give important insights to car wash operations. A summary of the main issues
from these discussions are given below.

• The hand car wash business is competitive with many of the owners of
more established sites complaining that they are being undercut by other
car washes popping up and trading for a short period and then closing.

RCWS |Nottingham Trent University 53

54

• Owners questioned why other businesses, such as nail bars, restaurants

etc., were not subject to the same level of scrutiny as car washes. This
highlights a challenge for regulators to ensure communication with the
sector does not become perceived as victimisation by owners. Clear
connected approaches should be further developed and utilised
alongside work to model leading practice for business owners.
• There were five instances of workers leaving the business on the arrival of
police and RCWS auditors. This occurred in two sites in Leicester, and
three sites in Suffolk. In one instance, there was a migrant illegally
working on site who was interviewed by police and taken back to his
accommodation. Our conversations with both workers and owners
highlight a lack of concern for workers’ welfare and status. Many
operators expressed the view that workers were disposable assets in
their business model.
• Reported ethnicities recorded during site visits confirmed GLAA sector
summaries with a prevalence for workers whose ethnicity was Romanian,
Bulgarian and Kurdish.
• We noted that ethnic Romanian operated car washes tend to employ
other Romanians and it was noted that there were often clear familial
links.

54 Car Wash Code of Practice Project Report: Home Office Modern Slavery Prevention Fund
55

Nationality Leicester Suffolk Norfolk Total (All

Afghan 1 1
Albanian 2 2 4
Bulgarian 2 3 3 8
Iranian 3 1 1 5
Iraqi 1 1 2
Kosovan 1 1
Kurdish 3 1 1 5
Lithuanian 2 2 4
Malaysian 1 1
Moldovan 1 1
Polish 1 1
Romanian 3 7 5 15
Slovakian 1 1
UK 1 1
Mixed 1 1
N/A 3 3 6
Manager
Afghan 2 2
Albanian 1 1
Polish 1 1
Romanian 1 2 1 4
N/A 6 10 8 24
Owner
Afghan 1 1
Albanian 1 2 3
Kurdish 1 1
Polish 1 1
N/A 9 12 8 29
Table 4: Table showing number of times a nationality was identified at a car wash, by position and region.
*Mixed nationalities were the only information provided at one wash

• The above data was gathered from interviews with operators and
workers. It was easier to identify workers. Worker ethnicity could be
difficult to identify even when present due to language barriers or
leaving the site when the project team arrived.
• Identifying managers and their ethnicity was a difficult task because a
worker may have been entrusted with some responsibility or hold a
specific and separate role. Five different nationalities were recorded
during the visits and there were examples of single-nationality washes
operated by Romanian, Kurdish or Polish individuals.
RCWS |Nottingham Trent University 55
56

• A common theme was that the auditors were told by the owner or
operator that right to work checks, payslips and employment contracts
were dealt with by their accountant. Rarely were the accountant’s
details provided or the evidence supplied on the follow up visit. Where
details of the accountant were provided, there was evidence that
operators within a given area used the same accountant. Inspection
of the evidence supplied by the accountant showed it to be non-
compliant with employment law and generic in nature, not relating to
the business in question. This suggests that the accountant is acting
as a facilitator in non-compliance and/or the contracts were hastily
created to attempt to show compliance to the auditors. It highlights
the need for joint working with HMRC to review and confirm PAYE
status at hand car washes.
• Payment to workers is almost always less than the rates laid out in
minimum wage legislation. Sometimes they are paid if it rains and
sometimes not, with reports of 50% reductions based on site activity
levels commonly shared. We also gathered insights from workers that
indicated many were telephoned on the day and told whether or not to
come to work challenging the assumption that they worked to a
contract. None of the workers spoken to appeared to be aware of their
employment rights, pension entitlement or the minimum wage level
they should be paid. This is not helped by the owners or operators
telling workers that they are paid for a days’ work. When asked about
their contracted hours of work, many workers stated that they were
either working 16 or 20 hours a week, which seems incompatible with
the days they are on site. Most car washes in the regions covered are
open 7 days a week with many being opening between 8am and 9am
till after 7pm with some stating they are open ‘Until late’. Almost all the
car washes reviewed only took cash payments. Out of the 3 regions
covered by the NTU digital search beforehand, only 1 hand car washes
prominently advertised that they accepted card.
• Nearly all operators or owners complained about how difficult it was to
get staff. They said staff join, then leave after a few weeks. Along with

56 Car Wash Code of Practice Project Report: Home Office Modern Slavery Prevention Fund
57

the inherently transient nature of the workers, this may go some way to
explain the reluctance of the operators or owners to carry out right to
work checks, or to give workers employment contracts but it remains
clear that workers are not viewed as valued assets in the business
models operated in the sites.

• Many sites do not have toilets or have toilets that are unclean and
unhygienic.

• Very few sites were able to provide proof that a licensed waste
removal company came to clear their interceptor pits. Solid waste
removal was easier to evidence as trade bins and skips could be seen
on sites but very few sites visited showed high levels of cleanliness or
well managed waste processes.

• Wearing of PPE is inconsistent. Most workers were seen wearing

gloves and some had waterproof boots. However, most workers were
wearing trainers and non-waterproof clothing. Many workers were
visibly wet and some looked uncomfortable.

• Clothing worn by workers could be identified at 63 sites across the

three regions. 46 of the sites had workers in unsuitable clothing for
wet working conditions. A majority of these 46 sites had workers in
trainers with a few in wellies. 17 sites (26%) had some provision of
high visibility clothing, needed to work around moving vehicles but
often still lacked clothing for the wet conditions.

• None of the sites visited have PAT tested any of their electrical
appliances. Some had carried this out before the second visit, after
receiving the audit report, but most did not. In most cases site
electrics appeared sound, but some looked very poor indeed.
• One car wash operator had previously been fined by the pensions
regulator for failing to comply with the requirements to have a
workplace pension in place. This fine appeared to have had no impact
as an example employment contract shown to the auditors made no
reference to workplace pensions.

RCWS |Nottingham Trent University 57

58

• The highest RCWS code score recorded was 13, It is important to note
that the clauses are not weighted and, therefore, consideration needs
to be given to the areas of non-compliance for each site particularly in
relation to the risk posed to workers. Given that all sites recorded low
compliance with the clauses relating to employment practices (5.2
right to work checks. 5.3 contracts, 5.4 pay slips. 5.5 employment
rights) this should be a matter for concern. For a site to gain RCWS
accreditation, all clauses need to be met.

• There were two car washes on located on a public car park operated
by a major car park operator: one in Suffolk and one in Norfolk. In both
these cases, the car washes were run poorly, and it is felt that car park
operator should be taking more note of these non-compliant
businesses operating on their premises.

• There was a feeling from the auditors, which is borne out by the data,
that overall Leicester sites were less compliant than the other two
areas. Each area moved forward on clauses by 6-8% but no area had
more than 34% completion rates against the clauses on the second
visit checks.

58 Car Wash Code of Practice Project Report: Home Office Modern Slavery Prevention Fund
59

Figure 17: RCWC compliance percentage change between visit 1 & 2 for Leicester, Norfolk
and Suffolk

The graph above shows that following Visit 1, levels of compliance improved
overall across the three regions for the majority of the RCWS code clauses, with
Insurance experiencing the largest improvement. Company Reg and Trade
Effluent compliance remained constant between visits. Leicester was the only
region to become less compliant against the clauses Transport and
RCWS |Nottingham Trent University 59
60

Figure 18: Graph shows compliance levels with RCWS clauses between Visit one and two for Leicester

Graph above shows that Leicester maintained compliance levels between Visits 1 and 2 for
Planning, Company Reg, Trade Effluent and Solid Waste Disposal. It experienced
improvement in compliance for the majority of clauses, the greatest change was in
Insurance. Accommodation and Transport experienced decline in compliance.

Figure 19: Graph shows compliance levels with RCWS clauses between visit one and two for Norfolk
60 Car Wash Code of Practice Project Report: Home Office Modern Slavery Prevention Fund
61

Figure 19 shows that sites maintained levels of compliance against seven of

the clauses. Norfolk experienced improvement for the majority of clauses, the
strongest improvement was in Right to Work Check, Payslips and
Employment Rights. Norfolk experienced no decline in compliance level

Figure 20: Graph shows compliance levels with RCWS clauses between Visit one and two for Suffolk

Figure 20 shows that Suffolk maintained levels of compliance for 8 of the

clauses. Levels of compliance improved for the majority of the clauses, most
notably for Insurance, and no clauses experienced a decline.

• An analysis of the reports via the Safe Car Wash App since the
billboard campaign was instigated show that Norfolk registered 31
reports, Suffolk 22 and Leicester 5. Looking at the corresponding
period in the previous year, only Leicester registered a single report
through the app with the total number of reports for the year
remaining low across all three areas with Leicester registering 3,
Suffolk 7 and Norfolk 8. The results for 2022 show a significant
uptick in the number of reports via the Safe Car Wash App in the
areas covered in the project.

RCWS |Nottingham Trent University 61

62

Recommendations
1. A shared and agreed approach to eradicate non-compliant activity
and unlawful actions needs to be developed, implemented by all
agencies and organisations working within the system. This needs
to be based on a common understanding of what constitutes
compliance and who is responsible for regulation/enforcement of
the difference facets that impact hand car washes. This project has
highlighted the depth of non-compliance and the lack of unified
approaches in three areas of the UK. Despite our extensive
engagement in this sector, we were reminded that the embedded
nature of non-compliance is a clear and obvious failure of our
society to regulate business and support workers and consumers.
The lack of rule following and the visible nature of non-compliance
to regulators and citizens is a clear sign that this type of activity is
tolerated. Reflecting on Keizer et al’s work (2008) we should be
concerned of the wider ramifications of this on society.

2. The current system of labour market regulation is fragmented, and

this enables non-compliance to continue throughout the HCW
sector. Various agencies regulate their respective components of
the sector but what is needed is a holistic and unified multi-agency
approach. Such an outcome could be one positive result of a
movement towards a Single Enforcement Body for labour market
regulation. Evidence from our sector wide workshops highlights
valuable multi-agency working approaches but a lack of shared
strategic objectives and agreed data sharing processes hinders
further joined up and targeted work in the sector with many
participants indicating that fragmentation of perspectives and
organisational needs limited the ability to see the car wash as a
whole business. We already observe a sector that fails to be
compliant and this will not change without concerted efforts by all
parties responsible for tackling the multiple failures documented in
this report and through the RCWS Code.

62 Car Wash Code of Practice Project Report: Home Office Modern Slavery Prevention Fund
63

3. Multi-agency action requires effective use of participants’ resources to

disrupt and tackle non-compliance in a targeted way. Many of the
elements of compliance are binary; for example, whether a trade effluent
consent is in place or not or whether the car wash is registered for
business rates. However, other elements are not binary. For example,
compliance with PPE regulations where the business may fall short, or the
presence of workplace facilities that may, at times, be in an unhygienic
condition or require other improvements. Focusing on the binary
elements of compliance and applying a continuous pressure on these
elements, will bring about a rapid and measurable rate of change. For
businesses that comply, as opposed to exiting the market, this will likely
have the effect of bringing about further improvements as the continuous
pressure applied by regulators then focuses on other elements of
compliance. Failure to continue this approach will only cement the belief
by operators that they can continue to disregard their legal, moral and
ethical requirements and will lead to further abuses of workers, consumer
rights and environmental standards.

4. The use of effective multiagency reporting and monitoring of at-risk sites

needs to be considered in a longer-term process that ensures regulatory
non-compliance across the full spectrum of rules and legal obligations are
tackled together. Workshop participants highlighted that data and
intelligence on sites was never stored centrally meaning different
agencies hold different parts of the jigsaw restricting the ability of
everyone to see the whole picture. Through this project we did not engage
with anyone who indicated that they were being forced to work on site.
Workshop participants highlighted that those at risk of modern slavery
were unlikely to engage with organisations or individuals who made short
or one-off engagements with longer term relational engagement needed.
Joined up and long-term engagement is recommended.

5. The RCWS code provides a useful check list of legal minimum

requirements for hand car washes operating in the UK. The code should
be used to raise standards of compliance across the whole HCW sector
through education. This approach will not, on its own, tackle the
RCWS |Nottingham Trent University 63
64

embedded nature of non-compliance in the sector as proved by our prior

research (Pickford et al, 2022). We believe that the RCWS code should be
used as a checklist for any new business entering the market with a
licensing model used to prevent businesses that don’t follow these legal
minimums barred from setting up. Further local or regional level
enforcement of existing businesses is also required to improve standards
and remove unlawful actions.

6. In-depth engagement with hand car wash workers across the UK to raise
their awareness of their employment and pension rights. The almost
complete lack of employment information and awareness (purposeful or
not) requires work to ensure that staff are aware of their rights and have
agency to affect change. We have seen the challenges owners face in
keeping workers but suggest that they tackle this lack of employee
longevity not by treating them as cheap assets but as valuable and critical
components of their business by providing them with employment
contracts, legal minimums in terms of wages alongside sick and holiday
pay and by ensuring PPE and welfare facilities are fit for purpose.

7. Community engagement in the form of publicity campaigns may offer a

valuable route to educating consumers to the risks of non-compliant hand
car washes and results from the billboard and bus stop adverts has seen
an increase in local reports to the Safe Car Wash app. However, it must
be stressed that none of the sites visited through this project met the
legal threshold for a legitimate law-abiding business so we must ensure
consumers have a valid legitimate offer otherwise we fail to provide them
with a clear choice. Campaigns such as NCA’s Ethical Consumer
campaign clearly articulate the dangers but must consider the alternative
option for consumers. The workshop aspect of this project has highlighted
the value of partnership working and information sharing. This project
recommends the establishment of hand car wash agenda items for all
Community Safety Partnerships across the UK to facilitate multi-agency
awareness and engagement with a sector in need of reform using the
RCWS Code as the basis for engagement with the sector and to
determine the risk profile of sites.

64 Car Wash Code of Practice Project Report: Home Office Modern Slavery Prevention Fund
65

8. The ODLME should continue to explore and promote the use of local or
regional licensing for this sector with government helping to produce a
sector that is fair for all businesses and provides safe businesses for
consumers and workers. Any licensing regime should be based on the
RCWS Code and Co-badged with the RCWS. This project has highlighted
the extensive nature of dangerous practices across a range of factors
that should not be allowed to be the sectoral norm.

These recommendations should be considered alongside wider work and

interlinked recommendations undertaken by WIP including the four authority
evaluation of intervention models with the GLAA and RCWS (Pickford et al
2022) and with our Arts and Humanities Research Council funded project on
the informal economy and Covid-19 (Hunter et al 2022) to support a joined up
system-level approach to tackling unlawful actions and supporting those
exploited within the UK.

RCWS |Nottingham Trent University 65

66

Annexes
Site scores
The scores show that Leicester had on average a lower standard of sites.
Leicester had the highest WIP score average with 7.36 and the worst RCWS
score average of 5.18, with Norwich coming second with 5.67. Leicester also
had the highest standard deviation of 4.17 for the RCWs scores and 0.74 for
WIP scoring. Leicester therefore not only had the lowest score, but the largest
range of scores with four sites risk scored at 8 or above. It also had the highest
individual WIP score given. Whilst four sites in Leicester scored no more than 2
on the RCWS code review it also had one site each scoring 12 and 13 which
were the highest compliance scores across the visits. Suffolk performed slightly
worse than Norwich in the WIP scoring (6.86 vs 6.73 respectively) but slightly
better on RCWS Scoring 6.55 vs 5.67). These average scores highlight a
general area trend of high risk and poor compliance but further details of
individual site scores can be found below alongside the RCWS narrative
reports.

Score Averages Leicester Norwich Suffolk

WIP Average 7.36 6.73 6.86

WIP SD 0.74 0.65 0.55

RCWS Average 5.18 5.67 6.55

RCWS SD 4.17 3.5 3.01

Table 5: Average risk and compliance scores across each area

66 Car Wash Code of Practice Project Report: Home Office Modern Slavery Prevention Fund
67

Figure 21: Graph shows WIP score frequency for Leicester, Norfolk and Suffolk

Figure 21 show that the scores range from 6 to 8.5. Norfolk received the most scores of 6
making it the least problematic region for the sector. One site in Leicester scored 8.5
making it the most concerning of the regions. Norfolk and Suffolk peak sharply at scores of
7, whereas Leicester’s scores are more evenly spread across the range from 6 to 8.5. The
WIP does not score any HCW site better than a 4 because based on research it is thought
that there is a strong likelihood of wage theft across the sector.

Figure 22: Graph shows WIP scores frequency for all sites
RCWS |Nottingham Trent University 67
68

Figure 23: Graph shows RCWS score frequency for Leicester, Norfolk and Suffolk

Figure 24: Graph shows RCWS scores frequency for all sites

Figures 23 and 24 show that the scores range from 1 to 13. A score of 6 is the
most common when the regional scores are combined. Leicester and Suffolk have
one site each which scored 13 out of 18 which is the highest that any of the sites
achieved. Suffolk and Norfolk have peaks of scores for 4, 6 and 7, whereas
Leicester scores more evenly across the range. Overall, scores cluster around the
lowest end of the scale with far fewer achieving higher than a score of 7.
68 Car Wash Code of Practice Project Report: Home Office Modern Slavery Prevention Fund
69

Home Office Project Audit Questionnaire

Area:

Trading Name of
Car Wash:

Address:

Operator Details
What is the full name of the operator?
Contact telephone
Contact email

How long has the current operator been running

the site?

How many workers does the operator have

working for him?

How many workers have been observed working

on the site?

Planning (RCWS Clause 1.1)

Ask the operator to confirm the

address of the site

Has the operator got planning permission? Yes/No/Don’t know

Trading Standards (RCWS Clause 1.2)

Yes/No
Is the operator’s full name and correspondence address displayed
for customers? (if yes, please
take photo)
Yes/No
Is there a price list?
(if yes, please
take photo)

Is the price list clear and transparent? Yes/No

How can customers pay? Cash/Card/Either

Can the operator provide a receipt if required? Yes/No

RCWS |Nottingham Trent University 69

70

Insurance (RCWS Clause 2.2)

Yes
Have you seen any workers moving customers vehicles?
/No

Yes
Does the operator claim to have insurance?
/No

What type of insurance? Employer’s liability

Public liability Motor

Yes/
Are insurance certificates displayed for customers to see?
No

Site Risk Assessment (RCWS Clause 3.1)

(please take a photo/photos of the site showing the main working area, chemical
storage, drainage, buildings etc.)

Yes/
Does the site have an electrical supply?
No

Are there any concerns over:

Sockets: Yes/No
Electrical visual inspection
Wiring: Yes/No
Cables: Yes/No

Yes/
Are there any trip hazards?
No

Yes/
Is the site orderly and well maintained?
No

What chemicals are being used on the site?

Where are chemicals being stored?

PPE (RCWS Clause 3.2)

Yes/No (if Yes,

Does the operator supply what is
clothing/PPE for workers supplied?)

(if Yes, is there a charge? Yes/No)

70 Car Wash Code of Practice Project Report: Home Office Modern Slavery Prevention Fund
71

Gloves: Yes/No
Waterproof footwear: Yes/No
Protective footwear: Yes/No
Are the workers wearing:
Waterproof trousers: Yes/No
Waterproof top: Yes/No
Hi viz: Yes/No

First Aid, Accidents and Ill Health (RCWS Clause 3.3)

Yes/No
Is there a first aid kit on the
premises? If yes, is it accessible, well stocked and in date? Yes/
No

Is there an accident book on the premises? Yes/No

Trade Effluent Consent (RCWS Clause 4.2)

Which retailer supplies water

to the site?
Which retailer provides sewage
services?

Does the site have a water meter? Yes/No

Does the operator have a trade effluent consent? Yes/No

Disposal of Waste Material (RCWS Clause 4.3)

Is there evidence of business waste collection by the local

council or approved provider? Yes/No

Safeguarding Workers (RCWS Clause 5.1)

Mon – Fri:
What are the daily operating hours for
the site? Sat:
Sun:

How many breaks do the workers get?

How frequent and how long are the breaks?

RCWS |Nottingham Trent University 71

72

Legal Right to Work (RCWS Clause 5.2)

Can the operator provide evidence that they Yes/No

undertake legal right to work checks on all (note below if these documents
workers? are available on site)

Are any workers awaiting decisions on immigration status? Yes/No

What nationality are

the workers?

Are any of the workers under 18? Yes/No

Terms of Engagement – contracts (RCWS Clause 5.3 and 5.5)

Can the operator show you an employment contract? Yes/No

Name of Worker?: Yes/No

Address of Worker?: Yes/No
Age of Worker?: Yes/No
Hourly rate of pay?: Yes/No
Minimum Contracted Hours?: Yes/No
If a contract is shown, does it state:
Frequency of Payment?: Yes/No
Holiday pay?: Yes/No
Reference to pensions: Yes/No

Payment of Workers and Record Keeping (RCWS Clause 5.4)

Yes/No
Can the operator show you a payslip for a worker? (if yes, note the
PAYE number):

If a payslip is shown, is it itemised for deductions? Yes/No

Cash/Bank
How are workers paid?
Transfer
How frequently are workers paid?

Is there an hour log for each worker? Yes/No

Do the workers get paid if not working due to inclement weather? Yes/No

72 Car Wash Code of Practice Project Report: Home Office Modern Slavery Prevention Fund
73

Provision of Accommodation (RCWS Clause 5.6)

Is there evidence of workers sleeping on site? Yes/No

Yes/No
if Yes:

is this optional?:
Yes/No
Does the operator provide is this an HMO?:
accommodation for the workers?
Yes/No
how much is charged per week?:
is it registered with the council?: Yes/No

Provision of Transport (RCWS Clause 5.7)

Yes/No
If Yes:

is this optional?:
Does the operator provide transport for the workers?
Yes/No
what is the cost?

RCWS |Nottingham Trent University 73

74

References
Baldock, R., James, P., Smallbone, D. and Vickers, I., 2006. ‘Influences on small
-firm compliance-related behaviour: the case of workplace health and
safety’. Environment and planning C: government and policy, 24 (6), pp.827-
846.

Berliner, D. and Prakash, A., 2015.’ “Bluewashing” the Firm? Voluntary

Regulations, Program Design, and Member Compliance with the United Nations
Global Compact.’ Policy Studies Journal, 43 (1), pp.115-138.

Clark, I. and Colling, T., 2018. ‘Work in Britain’s Informal Economy: Learning
from Road-Side Hand Car Washes’ British Journal of Industrial Relations, 56 (2),
pp 320-341.

Clark, I., Hunter, J., Pickford, R and Fearnall-Williams, H. 2022 ‘How do licensing
regimes limit worker interests? Evidence from informal employment in Britain’.
Economic and Industrial Democracy. 43(1), pp. 431-449.

Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act (1969) available at Employers’

Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 (legislation.gov.uk) accessed on
24/07/2022

Felson, M., & Boba, R. 2010. Crime and everyday life. SAGE Publications, Inc.,
https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483349299

Felson, M. and Clarke, R.V., 1998. Opportunity makes the thief. Police research
series, paper, 98 (1-36), p.10.

Gangmaster and Labour Abuse Authority(GLAA), Industry Profile - Car Washes,

2022, Accessed on 24/07/2022. https://www.gla.gov.uk/who-we-are/modern-
slavery/industry-profile-car-washes-2020/ accessed 09/09/2022

Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 available at Health and Safety at Work
etc. Act 1974 (legislation.gov.uk) accessed on 24/07/2022

Hollis, M.E., Felson, M. and Welsh, B.C., 2013. ‘The capable guardian in routine
activities theory: A theoretical and conceptual reappraisal.’, Crime Prevention
and Community Safety, 15(1), pp.65-79.

74 Car Wash Code of Practice Project Report: Home Office Modern Slavery Prevention Fund
75

Hunter, J., Clark, I., Pickford, R., Barratt, J., Sharma, N. 2022, Non-compliance,
informal working and the Covid-19 pandemic: Implications for modern slavery in
the UK, A research report for the Modern Slavery Policy and Evidence Centre,
Nottingham Trent University

Immigration Act 2016. Available at Immigration Act 2016 (legislation.gov.uk)

accessed on 24/07/2022

Keizer, K., Lindenberg, S. and Steg, L., 2008. The spreading of

disorder. Science, 322(5908), pp.1681-1685.

Pickford, R., Sharma, N., Barratt, J., Clark, I., Hunter, J. 2022, Can hand car
washes be improved? An Intervention Evaluation with the Gangmaster and
Labour Abuse Authority and Responsible Car Wash Scheme, Nottingham Trent
University

Potoski, M. and Prakash, A., 2005. ‘Green clubs and voluntary governance: ISO
14001 and firms' regulatory compliance.’, American Journal of Political
Science, 49(2), pp.235-248.

RCWS 2020 RCWS Code of Practice. Available at https://rcws.org.uk/code-of-

practice/ accessed on 22/07/2022

Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Available at Town and Country Planning
Act 1990 (legislation.gov.uk) accessed on 24/07/2022

Vidovic, M., Khanna, N. and Delgado, M.S. 2013. ‘Third party certification and
the effectiveness of voluntary pollution abatement programs: Evidence from
Responsible Care.’

Walsh, D., Pajón, L., Lawson, K., Hafeez, K., Heath, M., Court, N. 2022,
‘Increased Risks of Labor Exploitation in the UK following Brexit and the Covid-
19 Pandemic: Perspectives of the Agri-food and Construction Sectors’, Journal
of Human Trafficking

RCWS |Nottingham Trent University 75

 76

Contact Rich Pickford for further information on this report: [email protected]

Copyright © NTU 2022 October 2022

76 Car Wash Code of Practice Project Report: Home Office Modern Slavery Prevention Fund