A Malmesbury builder has been charged with placing a skip on a public road without permission from the highways authority, following the death of a motorcyclist last year.
Adrian Carey appeared before magistrates in Chippenham last month, where the court heard of the tragic collision in which Carl Denley was killed.
Mr Denley, a 29-year-old carpenter, was travelling along Lodge Road in Chippenham on his way to work when his Triumph motorcycle collided with the skip. Paramedics arrived promptly, but Mr Denley was pronounced dead at the scene.
The skip, belonging to Porter Metals and Skip Hire of Chippenham, had been hired by Mr Carey and placed on the main road through the estate, behind the property at which he was working.
All skip hire companies are obliged to obtain a licence from the relevant local authority, permitting them to place a skip on a public highway. This is intended to ensure skips are placed safely and can be seen easily by fellow road users.
There is no excuse for flouting the law, but if such permits were priced rationally and fairly, this law would surely stand a better chance of being more readily adhered to.

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

The February edition is blessed with our usual Enviroman, Garbage Guru and Nigel the Health & Safety expert features.
We also look at Skip Permit problems,- if you have not signed our petition on Skip permits you can do so here Skip Permit Petition
And we look at Insurance in the industry and predict the future of Insurance in the waste industry – if you would like to know more then please contact us.
Oh and this month’s Skip Hunk is a real character too!
If you’d like a regular copy then you need to subscribe – which you can do online by clicking the Paypal button below…

This post to the site is where you can leave a comment in order to sign up to our petition to the government and local authorities of the UK to get things sorted regarding skip permits, lights and interpretations of the Road Traffic Act 1980. The more of you that sign, the louder our voice will be.
The inspiration for this petition is this letter we got from Chris at East Lancs Skip Hire in late December. We’re publishing it in February’s edition, but here it is:
“Dear Mark,
As you may be aware this is not a new issue. Back in the eighties, the late Mr John Field, the founder of our company, ran the “Skip and Tip Owners Association” giving a lot of free advice as well as defending the occasional court case.
Looking at the “Highway Act” and the ”Table for Charges”, they use phrases like “the person making the application” and “the person requiring the permit” .This in my opinion is the customer, builder or householder not the skip operator. They are trying to make themselves a very easy life and make us unpaid tax collectors.
As for the amount of charge in our area, the charge varies from zero to £22.50 which is a wide variation and at £22.50 is excessive. A more reasonable amount would be say a £1.00 if a charge at all is to be made .After all they are only allowed to charge for “considering the matter” and covering any legitimate expenses .Only 1% of people are willing to get a permit and pay exorbitant fees as they consider the charge another stealth tax. But 100% would get permits if they were no charge or a reasonable charge of say a £1.00.
Regarding the matter of lighting and coning, to say the “owner” is liable is unreasonable and impossible to work as in our case we have 1200 skips .How could we go round and check them every night? We are currently in a legal dispute with Lancashire County Council which may have to go to the High Court for Judicial Review. We are also in the process of responding to a Department Of Transport consultation on the “Draft Regulations for Local Authority Permit Schemes”. Our solicitor would like to know if other skip operators agree with our opinions.
Regards
Christopher Peano, Managing Director
East Lancs Skip Hire Ltd”
..and this is what I am saying to Chris in the mag…
“The Skip says: Thank you for this letter Christopher – (if anyone has read this and wants their voice heard in this response to the Department Of Transport consultation on the “Draft Regulations for Local Authority Permit Schemes”, please send them into The Skip ASAP at the usual address. We’ll pass them on to Christopher and publish your opinions) – I couldn’t agree with you more, it really does amaze me how a simple act can be interpreted so differently across the country. As I think I said in a previous issue, skip permit charges are really a tax on the poor (especially people who don’t have enough private property to place skips on).
It’s about time government and local authorities – who bleat on endlessly about the environment and recycling – got a consensus that skip permit charges are making skips prohibitively expensive and therefore encouraging flytipping. The whole lights issue makes me laugh as well. It’s hopelessly out of date and just plain stupid to expect all skips to be lighted and checked every day. The Act implies this is all about road safety, but cars don’t have to have lights on when they’re parked at night do they? As long as the skip has reflective strips on it, how is it more dangerous on the road than a car? So, here’s an idea: we’re going to use our website to set up a PETITION. Just go to www.theskip.net and search for “petition”. You can then read what we are petitioning for (single permit prices, no lights requirements, clarity over hirer responsibilities etc.) and then LEAVE A COMMENT (it’s dead easy to do). In your comment, your name and company name will be seen as a signature to the petition – even better would be to leave your tales of council/Road Traffic Act woe for all to see. This petition can then be used by Chris’ solicitor and we’ll update you as we get any news.”
So, if you have any experiences with your local authority and their interpretations of the Act and you want to share them with everyone else, just click on the “Comments” link at the bottom right of this post.