22/09/2005 - A company which
sells packaging via catalogue in the UK has
been fined a total of £4,500 after admitting
failing its environmental duty to recycle.
Aid-Pack Systems Ltd who operate at Marston
Gate, Ridgmont, Bedfordshire pleaded guilty
to six charges under the Producer Responsibility
Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations
1997 and was ordered to pay £1,443 costs
to the Environment Agency. Each offence carried
a £1000 fine.
The company admitted three charges for each
of two years (2003 and 2004): 1)Failing to
register; (2) Failing to recover and recycle
packaging waste; and (3) Failing to certify
that the requirements had been met.
General Manager John Taylor told investigating
Environment Agency officers that the matter
had not been raised with French parent company
Raja as Aid-Pack ‘was not very well organised
at that time’ and he was unsure whether the
company had registered or joined a compliance
scheme.
Bedford Magistrates Court were told that
the company saved £1,718 by not registering
for the two years and £887.76 by not
recycling during that period.
Packaging regulations exist to make sure
that businesses with an annual turnover of
more than £2m and which handle more
than 50 tonnes of packaging per year, recover
and recycle a percentage of any packaging
they handle.
This applies to businesses which import,
manufacture, convert, pack fill or sell packaging
material; supply material to another stage
in the chain or to a final user; and own packaging
material.
Aid-Pack had a turnover of £6.1 million
in 2002, £6.3 million in 2003 and £7.2
million in 2004, handling 779 tonnes of packaging
materials in 2002 and 498 tonnes in 2003 including
paper, steel and plastic.
The aim of the regulations is to achieve
a more sustainable approach to dealing with
packaging materials by ensuring that businesses
take responsibility for the packaging used
in their operations which, in turn, reduces
the amount produced and the material going
into landfill.
Businesses are not required to physically
recover and recycle the packaging themselves
but they are required to register with either
the Environment Agency directly or join a
Compliance Scheme which registers with the
Agency on behalf of its members. The company
failed to do either.
The court was told it has since joined a
scheme.
After the hearing environment team leader
Mike Sargeant said: ‘‘It is disappointing
to see that there are still companies out
there who are oblivious to these regulations.
It is essential that managers of companies
fulfil their environmental obligations.’
Charges:
1. On or after 7 April 2003 you the defendant
as a producer under Regulation 3(2) of the
Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging
Waste) Regulations 1997 for the year 2003
failed to register in respect of 2003 as required
by Regulation 5 of those Regulations.
Contrary to Regulation 34(1)(a) and (5) of
the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging
Waste) Regulations 1997 and Section 95 of
the Environment Act 1995.
2. Between 1 January 2003 and 31 December
you the defendant as a producer under Regulation
3(2) of the Producer Responsibility Obligations
(Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 for the
year 2003 failed to take reasonable steps
to recover and recycle packaging waste (in
these Regulations referred to as the "recovery
and recycling obligations") in relation
to each of the classes of producer to which
the producer belongs, calculated as provided
in Schedule 2 as required by Regulation 3(5)(b)(i)
of those Regulations.
Contrary to Regulation 34(1)(b) and (5) of
the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging
Waste) Regulations 1997 and Section 95 of
the Environment Act 1995.
3. On or after 31 January 2004 you the defendant
as a producer under Regulation 3(2) of the
Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging
Waste) Regulations 1997 for the year 2003
failed to furnish a certificate of compliance
in respect of the recovery and recycling obligations
in accordance with Regulation 23 of those
Regulations.
Contrary to Regulation 34(1)(c) and (5) of
the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging
Waste) Regulations 1997 and Section 95 of
the Environment Act 1995.
4. On or after 7 April 2004 you the defendant
as a producer under Regulation 3(2) of the
Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging
Waste) Regulations 1997 for the year 2004
failed to register in respect of 2004 as required
by Regulation 5 of those Regulations.
Contrary to Regulation 34(1)(a) and (5) of
the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging
Waste) Regulations 1997 and Section 95 of
the Environment Act 1995.
5. Between 1 January 2004 and 31 December
you the defendant as a producer under Regulation
3(2) of the Producer Responsibility Obligations
(Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 for the
year 2004 failed to take reasonable steps
to recover and recycle packaging waste (in
these Regulations referred to as the "recovery
and recycling obligations") in relation
to each of the classes of producer to which
the producer belongs, calculated as provided
in Schedule 2 as required by Regulation 3(5)(b)(i)
of those Regulations.
Contrary to Regulation 34(1)(b) and (5) of
the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging
Waste) Regulations 1997 and Section 95 of
the Environment Act 1995.
6. On or after 31 January you the defendant
as a producer under Regulation 3(2) of the
Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging
Waste) Regulations 1997 for the year 2004
failed to furnish a certificate of compliance
in respect of the recovery and recycling obligations
in accordance with Regulation 23 of those
Regulations.
Contrary to Regulation 34(1)(c) and (5) of
the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging
Waste) Regulations 1997 and Section 95 of
the Environment Act 1995.
