United Kingdom

Haulier ordered to pay close to £ 10,000 for illegal waste activities

The shipping company and its directors were ordered to pay £ 9,923 to move waste in and out of an illegal waste site in Fineshade, Northamptonshire.

BRC Haulage Ltd of Cygnet Park in Hampton, Peterborough and Robert Canavan, director of BRC Haulage Ltd, pleaded a number of charges to the Northampton Administrative Court on June 9, 2021. Violation of waste care obligations by failing to create a waste transfer memo to document the nature of waste leaving the site.

The illegal waste site they used at Moncton Siding in Fineshade near Kobe has no environmental permit and is operated by Stephen Luck, a serial waste criminal who was imprisoned for 18 months in January 2021.
Lack of environmental permits meant that waste was stored on bare land, endangering land and water resources, including adjacent Fine Shade Woods.

Environment Agency lawyer Sarah Dan told the court that a waste transfer memo was needed to ensure that the waste was treated safely and properly. BRC Haulage Ltd had many years of experience and knew that such a document was needed, but did not take steps to record the movement of waste in and out of the Monkton Sidings site.

She also explained how to save costs and fees by preventing the Environment Agency from effectively regulating the site and depositing waste on unauthorized sites.

Barrister Mauro Masseri defended BRC Haulage Ltd and Robert Canavan, saying the defendants apologized for their breach. He told the court that they worked with the Environment Agency to admit the crime early on.

After sentenced the defendant, the justice of the peace realized that this was a reckless crime. BRC Haulage Ltd said it had funded the company £ 5,000, worked in a regulated industry, and had been in business for enough time to understand that Stephen Lack was not a legitimate operator. I was struck. The company was ordered to pay the Environment Agency’s cost of 4,128 pounds.

Robert Canavan, director of Peterborough’s Park Road, was fined £ 768 and ordered to pay an additional £ 77 victim.

Yvonne Daily, Director of the Environment Agency, said:

Illegal waste sites like Moncton Siding are having a negative impact on our environment, our countryside, our communities and our legitimate businesses.

When choosing a waste carrier, it is recommended that the general public perform their own due diligence check before there is a commercial contract agreement.

Please confirm the registration of the garbage collector online Or call 03708506506.

Earlier this year, the Environment Agency and partners launched a joint unit for waste crimes aimed at stopping serious and systematic crimes in the UK waste industry.Find out more about Initiative..

More information

Fees: Illegal Deposits – BRC HAULAGE LTD August 29, 2019, Sections 33 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (A) and (6) 2019 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 On August 31, Article 33 (Environmental Protection Act 1990 1) (a) and (6) on September 16, 2019, a large amount of mixed waste was deposited on or on the land of Monkton Siding. It was. Sections 33 (1) (a) and (6) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990

Illegal Deposit – ROBERT CANAVAN August 29, 2019 BRC Haulage Ltd has deposited managed waste, that is, mixed waste on or on land in Moncton Siding. The environmental permit permitting such deposits was not valid and the breach was due to your consent.Or, contrary to Articles 33 (1) (a) and (6) and Article 157 (1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, neglect to be a director of BRC Haulage Ltd.

On August 31, 2019, BRC Haulage Ltd deposited managed waste, that is, mixed waste on or on land in Moncton Siding. The environmental permit permitting such deposits was not valid and the breach was due to your consent, consent, or negligence as a director.Section 33 (1) (a) and (6) and Section 157 (1) of BRC Haulage Ltd, which violates the Environmental Protection Act 1990

On September 16, 2019, BRC Haulage Ltd deposited managed waste, that is, mixed waste on or on land in Moncton Siding. The environmental permit permitting such deposits was not valid and the breach was due to the consent, acquiescence, or negligence of the director.Section 33 (1) (a) and (6) and Section 157 (1) of BRC Haulage Ltd, which violates the Environmental Protection Act 1990

Duty of Care – BRC HAULAGE LTD August 29, 2019, you fail to comply with the duty of care imposed by Article 34 (1) (c) (ii) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and carry controlled waste. It was a person. That is, large amounts of waste soil and hardcore can take reasonable steps in the situation to ensure that there was a written description of the waste for others to do when transferring the waste. could not. Avoid violations of Article 33, which is contrary to Article 34 (1) (c) (ii) and (6) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

On August 30, 2019, you failed to comply with the duty of care imposed by Section 34 (1) (c) (ii) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. In other words, he was the person who carried the controlled waste, that is, a large amount of waste. And hardcore does not take reasonable steps in the situation to ensure that there was a written description of the waste that would allow others to avoid violations of Article 33 when transferring the waste. It was. Sections 34 (1) (c) (ii) and (6) Environmental Protection Act 1990.

On August 31, 2019, you failed to comply with the duty of care imposed by Section 34 (1) (c) (ii) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. In other words, he was the person who carried the controlled waste, that is, a large amount of waste. And hardcore does not take reasonable steps in the situation to ensure that there was a written description of the waste that would allow others to avoid violations of Article 33 when transferring the waste. It was. Sections 34 (1) (c) (ii) and (6) Environmental Protection Act 1990.

On September 2, 2019, you failed to comply with the duty of care imposed by Section 34 (1) (c) (ii) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. In other words, he was the person who carried the controlled waste, that is, a large amount of waste. And hardcore does not take reasonable steps in the situation to ensure that there was a written description of the waste that would allow others to avoid violations of Article 33 when transferring the waste. It was. Sections 34 (1) (c) (ii) and (6) Environmental Protection Act 1990.

Duty of Care – ROBERT CANAVAN Around August 29, 2019, BRC Haulage Ltd failed to comply with the duty of care imposed by Article 34 (1) (c) (ii) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Carrying controlled waste, i.e. large amounts of waste soil and hardcore, but taking reasonable steps in situations to ensure that the waste can be explained in writing during the transfer of the waste. Others failing to avoid violations of Article 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and such failures, contrary to Article 34 (1) (c) (ii), are directors of BRC Haulage Ltd. It was due to your consent, acquiescence, or your negligence as. (6) and Section 157 (1) Environmental Protection Act 1990

Around August 30, 2019, BRC Haulage Ltd failed to comply with the duty of care imposed by Sections 34 (1) (c) (ii) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The amount of waste soil and hardcore should be reasonable in the context of ensuring that there was a written description of the waste so that others could avoid breach during the transfer of the waste. Could not be Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and such failures, contrary to Section 34 (1) (c) (ii) and (6) and Section 157, your as a director of BRC Haulage Ltd. It was due to consent, acquiescence, or negligence. (1) Environmental Protection Act 1990

Around August 31, 2019, BRC Haulage Ltd failed to comply with the duty of care imposed by Sections 34 (1) (c) (ii) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The amount of waste soil and hardcore should be reasonable in the context of ensuring that there was a written description of the waste so that others could avoid breach during the transfer of the waste. Could not be Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and such failures, contrary to Section 34 (1) (c) (ii) and (6) and Section 157, your as a director of BRC Haulage Ltd. It was due to consent, acquiescence, or negligence. (1) Environmental Protection Act 1990

Around September 2, 2019, BRC Haulage Ltd failed to comply with the duty of care imposed by Sections 34 (1) (c) (ii) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The amount of waste soil and hardcore should be reasonable in the context of ensuring that there was a written description of the waste so that others could avoid breach during the transfer of the waste. Could not be Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and such failures, contrary to Section 34 (1) (c) (ii) and (6) and Section 157, your as a director of BRC Haulage Ltd. It was due to consent, acquiescence, or negligence. (1) Environmental Protection Act 1990

Haulier ordered to pay close to £ 10,000 for illegal waste activities

SourceHaulier ordered to pay close to £ 10,000 for illegal waste activities

Back to top button