Mud-club
Chat & Social => The Bar - General Chat => Topic started by: V8MoneyPit on October 26, 2006, 13:42:16
-
This ruling could have serious knock on effects to those with donor vehicles or future projects in their gardens.....
http://www.minimag.co.uk/page/minimag?entry=could_you_be_forced_to
-
Typical Britain. :roll:
-
The bit that 'gets me' is the fact that the judge said a restored car is OK, but not before it's restored..... err, excuse me, but please explain how anyone can restore a car without it being unrestored at some point.
I suspect it would be OK if the vehicle is stored on a sealed surface because that is the relevant part of the act. No contaminent is allowed to have access to the soil. It's why so many breakers yards have shut down. They would have to concrete their entire site.
-
park it on a BIG plastic sheet???
-
What about the driveway? That's on concrete and tarmac in many cases. Would that be allowed?
-
Just had a long conversation with the Environmental Agency helpline and then passed to local office as they intmated that "different areas may be stricter"....!!! :shock:
The story so far is that if the vehicle is considered to be at the end of it's life (they stated SORN'd unitl I pointed out that SORn status does not necessarily mean end of life!) then it is classed as waste. Another definition they tried to apply was "not roadworthy" till I pointed out that and MOPT fail is not roadworthy but similarly is not "end of life". Last attempt was "If the insurance company had written it off"... at which point I didn' bother pointing out that is commercial choice based on the cost of repair not the feasibility of repair.
Anyway... they are off to discuss with their waste management team the issue of donor vehicles on a private premise (as opposed to commercial).
I'll update you as and when they manage to provide some definitive answers. :roll:
I did point out when she used that phrase that it would be nice to have some definition when people are being prosecuted!
Skibum
-
Well done that man!
It'll be interesting to see what comes back. But as a case in law, it does potentially set a worrying precendent. Although the exact facts of this particular case are not explained fully in the article.
-
There's a guy on the outskirts of Wakefield who ought to be worried by that.
Last time I went past, he had (about) 14 Rover P4's on the drive in various states of dis-repair
-
So if your not allowed to store waste without a license. Then what you suppose to do with the compost the recommend you use waste food for, or the cans, bottles and papers your suppose to collect and take to the recycling centre?
Sounds more like a money making scam/scheme than just general common sense.
-
So if your not allowed to store waste without a license. Then what you suppose to do with the compost the recommend you use waste food for, or the cans, bottles and papers your suppose to collect and take to the recycling centre?
Sounds more like a money making scam/scheme than just general common sense.
I understand the main problem is related to waste products getting into the soil like oil or petrol. Hence the sealed surface point.
Where it does set a precedent is for disgruntled neighbours to complain to the Environment Agency to get an old car removed from someone elses property.
-
I ran a car to the scrap metal merchants today. They gave me £31.80 for it. How can the car be regarded as "waste" when the scrap metal merchant obviously regards it as a commodity?
-
what a total load of b****cks ....these pratts really are pushing the boundary of sanity...
-
Like most of the above I think this is just an invasion of my rights. If it's on my land and not hurting anyone then it's my business, no one elses. neighbours you say, when did staring into someone elses garden and not liking what you see become ok? This bludy country, I don't know......
-
It sounds like a typical law/legislation type thing (you can tell i don't study law), there are only so much (or little) resources avalible to police it.
The result is if you have 1 or 2 'scrap' cars that are not noticeablely causing a problem it shouldn't make a difference, hopefully.
-
You are quite right, of course. But once something passes through the courts, it can set a precedent.
And as for neighbours..... well, I think many of us will have experienced 'interesting' neighbours at some point in our lives.
The problem is the definition of 'waste' in the act being used. The *only* issue is that of toxic waste contaminating the soil. I'm sure you would support a ruling if a company was dumping waste oil into the soil even if it was on it's own land. This is the same thing, just on a smaller scale. The problem is where the line is drawn. Most roadworthy Land Rovers could be classed as waste if simply dropping oil on the ground was illegal :lol:
Of course, in that perfectly sane state of California, it is illegal to drip oil on the ground. Even a sealed road.
-
So anyone with a trailer or a caravan needs to watch out if an mot failure is waste as trailers dont have mot's!
What would happen if a donor landy is on a trailer? the landy may drip oil but the trailer would be road legal!? Would the whole trailer get towed away or would they hi-ab the donor landy away?
Would love to see how you can restore a car that is in good nick and not *waste*
This country is just stupid and if only so many stupid laws and people would go away. :twisted: