Free healthcheck

Does your business need Mentor?

View the Free Healthcheck page

Free trial

(no credit card required)

Includes newsletter and ask the expert

View the Free Trial page (no credit card required)

Free eLearning

New and improved Free eLearning modules

Free elearning available

Contact Us

Contact Us to find out more about Mentor

Contact Mentor

Environmental Update (August 2009)

Suspended Custodial Sentence for Skip Company Director

A Birmingham skip hire company and its director have been sentenced for carrying out an illegal waste operation. The charges were brought by the Environment Agency (EA) under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007. Both the company and director pleaded guilty to six charges at an earlier date; three against the company and three against the director.

The Company Director received a four month suspended custodial sentence for each charge, to run concurrently. He also received 150 hours unpaid work, disqualification from being a company director for five years and ordered to pay costs of £3,000 and a victim surcharge. It was estimated that they saved in the region of £8,500 by running an illegal operation without an environmental permit.

During a visit to the land occupied by the Company, the EA had witnessed the illegal deposit of various skips of waste including builders waste, household waste and wood. The company was ordered to remove all waste from the site as they were operating without an environmental permit. However, a further site visit revealed that the offences were continuing despite the earlier investigation and warnings. During the inspection, general waste was seen covering the ground, along with nine full skips of waste and a further two skips branded with the Company details. Further inspections, at a later date, revealed that the offences were again found to be continuing; similar waste seen in previous inspections had been deposited.

In interviews for each set of offences the Company Director stated the company had been in financial difficulties. He claimed that the waste was taken to the site to be segregated in order to reduce disposal costs and that he was struggling to keep the company afloat. He had deliberately decided to continue to operate without a permit, despite the earlier warnings.

In mitigation, the Court was told that no noxious substances had been deposited so as to pollute the environment, there was an effort to reduce costs to make the business more viable which had failed and the Company Director was heavily in debt. It was also explained that all the company assets had been sold and the business had now ceased to trade.