Pensnett man dumped out of council tip after van measures up two inches over limit

Dudley News: Ian Macaulay was told he could not use a Dudley Council site because his van was two inches too long Ian Macaulay was told he could not use a Dudley Council site because his van was two inches too long

A PENSNETT man discovered size does matter after he fell foul of council tip regulations by two inches.

Ian Macaulay had made an appointment to take hedge cuttings from his son’s house to the Stourbridge Civic Amenity site using a borrowed transit van.

When he arrived at the Birmingham Street site, on April 30, eager officials measured his vehicle and found it shaped up at 18 feet two inches – slightly more than the regulation 18 foot maximum.

Mr Macaulay, aged 73, said: “We were told 18 feet would be ok when we made the appointment. When they measured it and it was 18 feet two they said we would have to drive though – I said ‘you must be joking’.

“He said he would check and then said it was 18 foot six, we said ‘has it grown four inches then?’

“The next day we checked and it is 18 foot six with the tow bar, I accept there have to be rules but we were just trying to clear a garden.

“They just kept saying no – I thought they were taking the mickey.”

The put out pensioner, from Tansey Green Road, took his complaint up with senior council officials and was told “rules are rules” despite his Transit van being just a fraction over the permitted length.

The council is standing by their regulations and claim their systems for larger vehicles are fair for everyone.

John Millar, Dudley director of urban environment, said: “The system is also more open than many other councils as we provide a booking service for people to make an unlimited amount of appointments, where people are clearly advised of the restrictions on the vehicles entering the site.

“When it comes to the 18 feet long limit, we have to draw the line somewhere to ensure the site is safe for other people and the tip can cater for all residents' waste and recycling.

“Mr Macaulay's vehicle measured 18-and-a-half feet which is longer than the permitted length which would have been made clear at the time of booking."

Comments (3)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:21pm Mon 12 May 14

parkuser says...

Surely if the councils want the help of their residents.i.e free labour on sorting the rubbish, free transport for the rubbish to the tip This can only be achieved by making it easier for the residents to get rid of their rubbish rather than tip it down some country lane where it either stays and rots for a long time causing a smell and eyesore or the council send out a team and a vehicle costing at least ten times the amount of allowing it at the collection points.
It then has to be transported to the site and council employees have to sort it costing even more, WHEN ARE THE COUNCILS GOING TO SEE SENSE
Surely if the councils want the help of their residents.i.e free labour on sorting the rubbish, free transport for the rubbish to the tip This can only be achieved by making it easier for the residents to get rid of their rubbish rather than tip it down some country lane where it either stays and rots for a long time causing a smell and eyesore or the council send out a team and a vehicle costing at least ten times the amount of allowing it at the collection points. It then has to be transported to the site and council employees have to sort it costing even more, WHEN ARE THE COUNCILS GOING TO SEE SENSE parkuser
  • Score: 2

1:32pm Wed 14 May 14

Gornal Gremlin says...

Madness and Red tape as usual...

You can always rely on DMBC!


I love the quote "systems for larger vehicles are fair for everyone."
does not "everyone" imply that they should be fair to Mr Macaulay ?

Maybe Mr Macaulay should have gone on a colder day, as we all know things contract in the cold and maybe his van would be a few inches shorter!
Madness and Red tape as usual... You can always rely on DMBC! I love the quote "systems for larger vehicles are fair for everyone." does not "everyone" imply that they should be fair to Mr Macaulay ? Maybe Mr Macaulay should have gone on a colder day, as we all know things contract in the cold and maybe his van would be a few inches shorter! Gornal Gremlin
  • Score: -1

5:13pm Thu 15 May 14

North Boy says...

The rules state the limit is 18 feet. If a vehicle that was 18 foot 1 inch in, because it is just over the limit, then that would become the new acceptable limit. Now that 18 foot 1 inch is the limit, why don't we let in 18 foot 2 inches as that is just over. Carry on with this logic and the limit is suddenly a lot over 18 foot.

It's Sorites Paradox of the bald man. The same logic that applies to the legal age of consent - why can't a 15 year and 364 day old person legally have sex when they can the next day. Same with speeding - if the speed limit is 30mph, then is 31 mph acceptable because it is close to the speedlimt? There is no easily defined logic so a limit is set!
The rules state the limit is 18 feet. If a vehicle that was 18 foot 1 inch in, because it is just over the limit, then that would become the new acceptable limit. Now that 18 foot 1 inch is the limit, why don't we let in 18 foot 2 inches as that is just over. Carry on with this logic and the limit is suddenly a lot over 18 foot. It's Sorites Paradox of the bald man. The same logic that applies to the legal age of consent - why can't a 15 year and 364 day old person legally have sex when they can the next day. Same with speeding - if the speed limit is 30mph, then is 31 mph acceptable because it is close to the speedlimt? There is no easily defined logic so a limit is set! North Boy
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree