1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194 
Cold response t fridge shipment
Page 15
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A NORTHAMPTON haulage contractor has been fined £8,000 by Welsh Magistrates for delivering fridges on behalf of a refuse disposal firm to a company without a suitable waste management licence.
Can Brothers (Farmers) also pleaded guilty to failing to ensure the waste they supplied was being disposed of correctly.
Llandrindod Wells Magistrates heard how the Environment Agency (EA) granted Knightonbased Industrial Plastics Recyclers (1PR) a Waste Management Licence for it to process waste foam and plastic from fridges in August 2002. The licence came into force in December the following year, but site inspections by EA officers in November 2002 indicated that 6.000 whole fridges had already been brought to the site and stored. Sundorne Products (I_ loes) were the original hok the fridges and Can Brothe delivered some of them.
Sundorne's company di said he had contacted [PR if it could accept fridges an been told that they could.
The company's mar director admitted he ha checked through IPR's licence and Carr Brothers' tor admitted it had not sel licence, nor asked questions the waste.
Sundorne Products was £10,000 after magistrates to account that Can Brothers on what it was told by Sun EA officer John Batemar "Companies delivering have a duty of care to ensui the company receiving the authorised to do so. Both pal this case failed to do so."