This is Louise. She really works here!
HACKER SAFE certified sites prevent over 99.9% of hacker crime.
Topskips questions?

Skip Hire Blog

Order Today: 2:59am 17th May 2012
credit cards We accept Paypal We accept all major credit cards

Skip prices – who do you trust?

Continuing from yesterday’s post, my advice would be to steer clear of people advertising ‘cheapest skip prices ever!’. These more often or not may charge a rock bottom amount, but the experience may well leave you wondering if you’d paid an extra £20 or so, then the job may have been carried out with more finesse, less stress and done exactly how YOU wanted it to.

When choosing your skip hire company, go for the one who impresses you the most, who is realistic with what they can do, who will go the extra mile and who have all the right certifications.

Remember, if your waste is flytipped by a dodgy skip driver or a rogue trader, then you are the one who is fined, and this can be in the thousands of pounds, not to mention a rise in council tax and a possible court appearance.

November 11, 2009 at 12:18 pm | Environmental News, Skip Hire UK | No comment

Tags: , , ,

Trackback URL for this post:
http://www.topskips.com/skip-hire-blog/skip-prices-who-do-you-trust.html/trackback

Fridge Recycling Using Skip Hire

“Can you throw a fridge in a skip?”

A gentleman from Essex asked me this today and the answer was a resolute ‘Kind of!’.

Fridge recycling can be done using skips, but it will cost you.

Why is this? Well, because fridges contain CFC gases, they need to be treated carefully, and disposed of in a specific manner. Normal waste in skips are usually sorted at the Material Recycling Facility and then put into waste streams to be recycled. However, fridges are classed as hazardous waste and need to be treated in accordance to EA regulations.

Fridges can be taken away with the skip, but this comes at an extra charge. This charge covers the extra haulage and special treatment.

If you’ve been lumbered with an old fridge that you need to get rid of, speak to one of the gang at Topskips on 0844 60 77 10.

October 29, 2009 at 5:32 pm | Environmental News, Home and Garden Improvements | No comment

Tags: , , ,

Trackback URL for this post:
http://www.topskips.com/skip-hire-blog/disposing-of-a-fridges-in-skips.html/trackback

TO THE EA AND BEYOND…..

By Marco Muia, aka “Enviroman”:
Is it a bird, is it a plane, no its Enviroman, fighting for truth, justice and struggling with a 6′ banner for the Skip’s stand at the Recycling and Waste Management (RWM) show at the NEC last week. Sadly I had to drive there as my cape was at the dry cleaners.
So another show is over and despite offering a bottle of malt last month for the best name for a National Skip Hire Association I had no takers, apart from the cheeky suggestion of the Irish Recycling Association which doesn’t abbreviate well. So come on get your thinking caps on!
The RWM exhibition was busier than ever this year with an estimated 7,100 visitors, 420 exhibitors and a total attendance of 9,000 showing that the recycling industry is a large beast indeed, confirming that a voice is definitely required for the skip industry. During the show I spoke to over 150 visitors regarding waste related matters and was asked a multitude of questions, luckily some hastily copied Skip articles were at hand to be given out and I was reliably informed that the EA has now ‘gone public’ with their position statement on WEEE which was discussed in Issue 13. Many waste operators are still unaware of the exemptions they can benefit from so I will concentrate on them next month.
EA Consultation on 2007-8 charges.
This month the Environment Agency issued their consultation on the proposed fees and charges schemes for 2007-8, including waste management licensing, PPC etc. The skip industry has a limited representation out of the 290 organisations and individuals on the consultee list (which includes 127 trade associations). If the British Egg Industry Council, National Association of Funeral Directors and British Trout Association can be bothered to comment on charges that affect their members I dare say someone should comment on behalf of the skip industry, given that the industry makes a significant contribution the Agency’s coffers every year.
To make life easy the Agency have prepared a comments form to fill in which directs consultees to a narrow range of issues but does not invite wider comment (which is encouraged but should be sent to the Agency’s National Customer Contact Centre). I have repeated the main questions relating to proposed changes, as follows, with suggested comments and urge you all to read the consultation document and make additional comments which will be sent to the Agency:
Q. “As a result of our efficiency savings, we have been able to keep the baseline increases down to 2.3%. Do you have any comments or queries about the increases for such charges?”
A. “A complete revision of the waste charging scheme is required to remove the many anomalies, such as the excessive application fees for smaller sites and the charging of many recycling sites as disposal operations because they do not recycle 100%. Get rid of the existing tables and standardise charges – it costs the Agency no more to licence a site with a throughput of <5,000 tonnes than a site with a throughput of <25,000 tonnes.”
Q. “We would welcome your comments on our proposal to increase charges by a further 1.5% on top of the 2.3% baseline increase, to recover the costs of additional IT services and fund a programme to fundamentally modernise our approach to waste regulation and compliance work.”
A. “Strongly object. Existing subsistence fees should cover the costs. The current charging scheme requires a radical overhaul as many charges bear no relation to the level of work involved in dealing with the applications or regulating the sites.”
Q. “We would welcome your comments on our proposal to introduce a reduction of 10% to WML subsistence charges where a site is partially regulated by PPC and WML, a similar activity is being undertaken under both regimes, and the operator is the same person for both regimes.”
A. “10% seems to be a favourite discount for waste charges – why not reduce the charges further by ensuring that one key officer regulates the site to avoid duplication, 10% is an insult.”
Q. “We would welcome your comments on our proposal to introduce two new tiers of modification charges, a zero charge for administrative only changes, and a low-level charge of £1,200 for simple modifications. This arrangement would similarly apply to Environment Agency-initiated modifications.”
A. “EA initiated modifications should not be charged for – if a licence requires modification because it is deficient in any way the regulator should foot the bill because the applicant will at some time have had to pay an application fee, unless the site was licensed under COPA in which case the EA has a duty to review licences periodically. Simple modifications need to be well defined.”
Q. “We would welcome your comments on our proposal to introduce a capped fixed subsistence charge of £3,000 where construction has not yet started on a WML installation.”
A. “If construction has not started there should be no charge – a non-operational business should not be faced with excessive fixed charges which have no relation to the regulatory cost. £3,000 would be better spent on site infrastructure. A licence holder can notify the EA when works start, which (apart from landfill) requires little regulatory input.”
Q. “We would welcome your comments on our proposal to introduce a lower fixed surrender charge of £2,800 for closed inert and redundant landfills.”
A. “A charge reduction should equally apply to all transfer stations to reflect the level of regulatory work involved.”
Q. “We would welcome your comments on our proposal to continue to increase the range of fixed licences that benefit from a reduction of 10% in the application charges. How about reducing exemption charges?”
A. “The 10% reduction is laughable. The reduction should be increased proportionately i.e. there is significantly less work involved in issuing a fixed licence which should justify a reduction of at least 50%.”
Q. “We would welcome your comments on our proposal to extend the types of hazardous waste that benefit from lower subsistence charge to include hazardous Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment.”
A. “All WEEE should benefit from lower charges.”
The deadline is 8 December 2006 and I will be responding as a consultee but would also like to able to state how many skip firms support a strong response to the consultation. I know this is a boring subject but I have yet to meet an operator that says “Aren’t EA fees good value for money?” so make your comments known. The consultation documents are available from Alan Day at the EA on 01454 624003.

Marco Muia BSc (Hons) MSc MCIWM specialises in all aspects of waste regulation consultancy and is a WAMITAB accredited assessor for the COTCs in waste transfer, treatment and inert landfill. He also holds the level 4 COTCs for Hazardous Waste Treatment and Transfer. You can contact Marco via The Skip Magazine

October 24, 2006 at 11:55 am | Environmental News | No comment

Trackback URL for this post:
http://www.topskips.com/skip-hire-blog/to_the_ea_and_beyond.html/trackback

Let’s Get Together! See you at the Show!

By Marco Muia, aka “Enviroman!”
It is about time I thanked Mark Attwood and the team at The Skip for letting me have a monthly waffle about all things waste. Seriously though, the issues I have covered so far are not fictitious ‘frequently asked questions’ which feature on many web sites but relate to problems faced by a great many waste operators on a daily basis. Yes you skip chicks and hunks out there! I shall continue to give my slant on the waste business from a consultant’s, operator’s and ex-regulator’s viewpoint as long as the questions continue to be asked, so keep them coming.
But asking questions in isolation is not the best way to tackle a problem and the recent interest in the creation of a National Skip Hire Association could signal a change in the way individual companies in the skip industry work for mutual benefit in the UK. Instead of complaining bitterly about how the Environment Agency “pick on us and let him down the road off easy” why not take your gripe to national level, after all the Agency and other regulators have a duty to be consistent. In fact many senior people and officers on the ground in those bodies express concern about the lack of harmonisation in regulation despite the hundreds of trees that are sacrificed to produce regulatory guidance, most of which is not widely read.
The time for harmonisation has never been more pressing. The increase in the number of recycling sites since the landfill tax came in almost 10 years ago has been impressive and the existing and emerging recycling markets it has driven are astounding. The range of recycled materials very often causes problems because their existence was not always envisaged when the laws were drafted. But laws and guidance are not set in stone and are often varied by consultation outcomes or legal precedent in the courts. We do need more coherent thinking on waste but should not complain about new legislation unless we have expressed our concerns during the consultation period or taken the issue to the Agency’s Process Section for a response, for example. That doesn’t mean that having a voice is all about politics but more notice will be taken of the views of 1,000s of skip firms than one stroppy chap tucked away in the back of an industrial site.
I echo Mark Attwood’s comments last month about the benefits of National Skip Hire Association which could promote a national brand which sets standards for a quality, local service. However, the standard of service will still be affected by the way your recycling sites are regulated and consistency of regulation is a must have. The media concentrates on kerbside collection and recycling rates for household waste and generally turns its attention to the skip industry when something bad happens. It is your industry and no-one else will promote it.
How many of you out there are interested in running a skip association? Surely such a large industry could fund at least one full time equivalent post to push the boat out on environmental and other matters, even if that person only responds to consultations and promotes good practice in the industry. The skip industry may be considered to be a thorn in their side by many regulatory officers but the support for change and effective regulation which encourages recycling is widespread amongst both gamekeepers and the poachers. Your call!
Enough of the serious stuff. If an association is formed what should we call it? Can anyone come up with an amusing acronym for a National Skip Hire Association , such as
Skip Hire Industry Training Service (work it out)
The Recycling And Skip Hire Association (TRASHA)
I know mine are rubbish so I’m offering a bottle of malt at the show for the best suggestion, the sillier the better. Come to our stand at the RWM Exhibition at the NEC in September with your suggestions and fill out a questionnaire to state your concerns, hopes and aims for the future of the industry and you could end up merry! The questions raised will hopefully form the backbone of this column for the next 12 months.
Recycling and Waste Management Exhibition – 12 to 14 September 2006 – NEC, Birmingham
If you’re attending this years show to look at the latest kit take time out to visit The Skip (stand 116) and Oaktree Environmental (stand 1008) to catch up on the latest issues affecting the industry. I have complied a list below of some of the many issues I discuss every day and will be offering free advice on them and many more at the RWM Show. Many operators out there do not have the time or inclination to wade through the mass of guidance so I would again ask you to tell us what you want to know about before I run out of ideas and start writing utter nonsense.
1. EP OPRA scores. Bring along your EP OPRA score and current subsistence fee bill and have it checked for free. You could be paying the Agency too much. No offence intended Mr. Agency but that thousand pounds they save could be spent on site improvements!
2. Pick up a free briefing note on exemptions which can greatly benefit waste transfer and treatment site operators.
3. Landfill tax is often misunderstood – find out the truth at the show.
4. Fixed licences – are they worth having? Have you applied for one yet and how quickly have they been issued?
5. The definition of waste. Which waste streams would you like to see designated as product?
6. In issue 6 I reviewed the duty of care and advised on the content of transfer notes. Bring along a copy of your transfer notes and I will give them a free health check to see if they are compliant or not!
7. Agricultural waste – what are the benefits to the skip industry?
8. Soil recycling – when is it not waste? What problems have you had when selling recycled soils?
9. The aggregates protocol – how much sampling should you do to comply?
10. COTC Training – The North West Regional Assessment Centre is sharing stand 1008 and will be on hand to answer your questions.
Marco Muia BSc (Hons) MSc MCIWM specialises in all aspects of waste regulation consultancy and is a WAMITAB accredited assessor for the COTCs in waste transfer, treatment and inert landfill. He also holds the level 4 COTCs for Hazardous Waste Treatment and Transfer. You can contact Marco via The Skip

September 1, 2006 at 12:03 pm | Environmental News | No comment

Trackback URL for this post:
http://www.topskips.com/skip-hire-blog/lets_get_together_see_you_at_t.html/trackback

« Previous Page

TopSkips.com, PAL Hire T/as Topskips.com Head Office Address: Metropolitan House, Station Road, Cheadle Hulme, Stockport, Cheshire, SK8 7GA, UK.


Copyright © Topskips 2003/12 - All Rights Reserved - National (UK & Ireland) Skip Hire