Letter – Skip Permits & The Highways Act

Dear Mark,
Continuing the subject raised by Christopher Peano in your last issue of The Skip, and the points raised in your reply, the following comments are made from my knowledge of the Highways Act relating to skips.
Firstly I should start by explaining that our understanding and application of the act has been put to the test by way of Legal Action taken by the Crown Regina against our Company as a result of a skip fatality on 13th of January 1989. We were subsequently cleared & vindicated and this is now case law. There is also another point of case law that we are aware of which is Lambeth London Borough council V Saunders Transport Limited 13th march 1974.
I won’t go into the details of our accident too much but a 17 year old motorcyclist was killed instantly when he collided with one of our unlit skips. The proceedings were firmly focused at our company despite having notified the prosecution that we had discharged our obligations under the highways act to the builder who hired the skip (I will explain this very important function later).
A crucial mistake made by the police and the prosecution meant that they only brought proceedings against ourselves and they missed the opportunity despite our advices to bring charges against the builder within 6 months of the accident (we wrote to them clearly stating that we were not the owner of the skip). When the case eventually came to court we where cleared but sadly there was no one else who could be held to account for this tragic accident. The implications meant that the family of this boy had very little chance of bringing any civil proceedings against anyone and just to make sure the door was firmly closed the builder sent himself bust just in case. We were awarded costs and the case was dismissed.
So how did we ensure we where acting within the law I hear you ask? – We made sure all our paper work was compliant with the Highways Act. I will explain:
The highways act has a provision for the skip owner (usually the skip carrier) to discharge the ownership of the skip to the hirer. It is the “owner” who is responsible under the Highways Act and for the permit and its conditions, most of which stipulate lamps, cones and lighting of the lamps. Some council permits also require compliance with the builders skip marking regulations 1984.
The Highways Act provides a framework for this and defines a skip “owner” as such:-
“owner” in relation to a builders skip which is subject of a hiring agreement being an agreement for a hiring of not less than one month, or a hire purchase agreement, means the person in possession of the skip under that agreement.
Put simply, all YOUR company hire agreements should be no less than one month if you’re going to put any skip on the highway and your terms should be signed and stipulate this fact VERY clearly. You should also stipulate that the hirer is the “owner” in accordance with the Highways Act and they have sole responsibility for the provision of lamps, cones and lighting. You may also want to consider making the hirer responsible for the builders skip marking requirements as well but this has no mention in the Highways Act or indeed the builders skip marking regulations 1984. Furthermore, if you supply the lamps and cones or markers on the skip make sure you supply enough of them and they are fit for purpose or you may be held to account for supplying or hiring faulty goods that where responsible for someone’s injury or death. (Great this skip hire job isn’t it?!)
In my opinion the Highways Act should be considered to be a good piece of legislation. Someone used a bit of common sense and realised that the skip company can’t go around checking on the lamps cones etc and the hirer is best placed to perform this task a framework is built in to the regulations for us to do this. Any overhaul of the regulations could see the provision removed and this could be a bad thing so whilst amendments may be needed just remember you very rarely get what you want with government.
My advices should be coming clearer. Make sure you get it right EVERYTIME because if you don’t and someone runs into one of your skips you could lose everything. Your home, your business, the lot and with corporate manslaughter on its way you could even find yourself in nick (if they can find room for you that is!). Just imagine the size of the claim from the dependants if the major breadwinner of a household with four kids was killed. The same fate awaits Bob the builder, home owner or indeed anyone who hires a skip and becomes the “owner“. In short it’s you or them!!!
Turning to the subject of permits and charging, we have taken issue with Bury council over this matter for several years and despite the assistance of the Road Haulage Associations waste management section we have made little progress.
Our efforts have focused on Bury Council’s policy regarding skip permits there are a number of matters that we have addressed or challenged, particularly with regards to our ability to ensure that they recognise that the hirer becomes the “owner” of the skip for the purpose of the Highways Act and also the issue for costs which the Council can only bring against the “owner” e.g Such costs are not just limited to the permit but could also be associated with the removal of an unsafe skip or the cost as a result of non compliance with the permit etc. You could quite easily find yourself paying these costs especially if you arranged the permit in the first place even if your agreement with your customer states that they are responsible. How long would it then take you to recover these costs from your customer I don’t think Bob the builder is going to pay up easily do you?
Technically no council has any control over the hire agreements as it is a private arrangement, however, Bury Council limits any Highways permission to 28 days, which conflicts with the spirit of the Highways Act and our agreements. They have also restricted or blocked third party skip permit applications direct from the builder or householder thus ensuring that they only give the permit to the skip company (crafty bastards). In short, what the Council are trying to do is ensure as far as possible that we as the skip company remain the “owners” and as such they have limited exposure and an easier access route should they have to claim for any costs and they know most of us are insured. The application forms in Bury used to be hand written by the skip company with a section for the applicant (normally us) and a section for the “owner” (normally the customer), this all changed several years ago when the penny dropped and they now refuse and refer any private applicant back to the skip company. We believe this practice is illegal and we intend to challenge Bury Council in the future.
The fundamental problem is Bury Council are attempting to diminish our legal position when we make use of the provision to discharge ownership. They do this by restricting the permit period to 28 days, this does not sync up with our hire agreements which are for more than one month and so there are two documents that conflict (are you still with me?).
This is a dangerous position because the skip company (and in Bury we have no choice) are responsible for first obtaining and then renewing the permit for the “owner” who maybe someone else and if you forget to obtain or renew the permit you could be implicated in any accident claims or costs the council charge for removing the skip.
We have also taken them to task on the legality of charging for skip permits and they maintain without qualification that they are legally entitled to do so. We have therefore explained that in levying such a charge they have entered into a legal contract and we expect more than a quick look on a street map and rubber stamp on a form we never see. They also felt a little uncomfortable when we explained to them that now they have funding they have money to ensure that they monitor any permits they issue and they should be removing any illegal skips from the road as the highways act stipulates. A few readers may raise their eyebrows at this comment but don’t we ALL want a level playing field.
The fact remains that there are thousands of skips out on the roads of the U.K everyday that are sited illegally and if you’re the “owner” your backside is on the line.
Peter Allen
Director, ISM Waste Recycling Co Ltd, Ramsbottom, Lancs.
The Skip Says:- Thanks for your letter, Peter. Some really interesting points raised and something for everyone to have a think about. The Skip magazine’s SKIP PERMITS PETITION can be found online.
Anyone who feels passionate about this topic should get involved. Leave a comment and let your voice be heard.
This letter and response originally appeared in Issue 20 of The Skip magazine