Man sentenced for running an unlicensed scrap business

An investigation carried out by City of York Council has uncovered and successfully prosecuted a serious case of the illegal trade of scrap metal.

Appearing on Friday 18 October 2019 at York Magistrates, Craig Miles (of Roche Avenue, York) was ordered to pay £1,230, for collecting, transporting and selling scrap metal without holding the necessary licenses.

Mr Miles was stopped by North Yorkshire Police in December 2018, after being spotted by police a number of times during November and December 2018.

He was found to be carrying scrap metal and his vehicle was seized due to lack of business insurance.

Mr Miles was also charged for not keeping the required records for both selling and collecting scrap metal, as well as failing to provide City of York Council with the correct paperwork.

Mr Miles was found guilty and ordered to pay a fine of £600, costs of £600 and a court surcharge of £30. He was also disqualified from driving for six months. 

Cllr Denise Craghill, Executive Member for Housing and Safer Neighbourhoods at City of York Council, said: “The majority of licenced scrap metal carriers in York act within the law, however, there is a penalty of up to £5,000 for those who fail to obtain a scrap metal licence and fail to keep accurate records of the metal they receive and dispose of.

“We hope the sentences send a strong message that the collection, storage or sale of commercial and domestic scrap metal must be correctly licensed, and that the council will continue to investigate and prosecute businesses that operate illegally.”

The council urges York residents to ensure any waste of scrap metal they request removal of that the collector has the appropriated licences to take their waste away.

Residents have a duty of care to ensure their waste is disposed of correctly. To obtain or renew a scrap metal licence, visit: https://www.york.gov.uk/info/20169/business_licences/1023/scrap_metal_dealer_licence or contact Licensing services at licensing@york.gov.uk

Consultation with Council tenants in York

Disappointing report from the York Council.

Its over 12 months since the York Residents’ Federation were forced to fold. They were the victims of an over officious approach by some Council staff. Their independent input never seemed to be welcomed by senior Councillors or officials.

As with any voluntary body, those involved needed to feel that their contribution is valued. Too often it clearly wasn’t by the York Council.

Some Councillors to their credit saw this as a backward step and the LibDem manifesto at the May local elections gave a pledge to revive citywide consultation arrangements.

A report on the subject of tenant consultation has now been published and will be considered by one of the Councils scrutiny committees next week. The report can be found by clicking here

Sadly there is little new in the report. It has apparently not even been run past the several successful residents associations which exist in the City

The Council needs to take consultation and tenant involvement much more seriously.

Council Plan

The York Council are set to adopt a new “Council Plan” on Thursday. Although a significant document, it is likely to attract little comment. This is partly because much of its content is anodyne and partly because it is linked to impenetrable bureaucratic processes and documentation Only 353 residents responded to the initial consultation on the document.

Council Plans are rarely a “good read”

This plan though does have one major setback. It fails to react to the decline in street level public service standards that have been seen in recent months.

The KPIs suggested are essentially those that have been carried over from previous plans. They have the merit of a good historic database making trends easier to judge and they are generally easy to collect, but they offer little for those seeking “smart” targets.

Nor has the Council addressed the issue of service level agreements. This exercise presented an opportunity to update and reissue what used to be known as “Customer Contracts” but it seems that taxpayers will remain largely in ignorance of what their payments are buying.

There are a range of day to day services which residents depend on. They therefore legitimately might expect to have access to stats which, for example, tell them

  • How many potholes are reported and how quickly they are fixed?
  • How much litter there is on our streets?
  • How many streets are 98% clear of weed growth?
  • How many reports there have been of obstructions to public paths and how quickly those obstructions are removed?
  • How many bins are not emptied as scheduled each week?
  • How reliable local bus services are?
  • How many streetlights are working?
  • Satisfaction with Council estates (communal areas)?
  • Time taken to resolve issue reports by different channels (on line, email, telephone, personal visit)?

All would give residents a clearer picture of Council performance than some of those suggested.