TC09599 - [2025] UKFTT 00918 (TC)

We treat Mrs Jones’s evidence with caution. In places Mrs Jones stated as fact something that was disputed by other evidence, and that it would appear she could have no definite knowledge of. However, there are also areas of Mrs Jones’s witness evidence that we prefer, in areas where it contradicts (hearsay) evidence by HMRC.

Mrs Jones stated that the works carried out at Bage Farm were at the request of the landowner. There were two ponds that were causing problems as lambs from the farm kept getting stuck in them, and the farmer wanted them filled in.

The material used to infill the ponds originated from the Heineken brewery in Hereford. Mrs Jones described this as ‘neutral material’ and as ‘soil and stones’. Mrs Jones confirmed she did not personally see the waste being disposed of at the site.

Mrs Jones stated in her witness statement that ‘the site of the ponds was infested by a notifiable invasive species, namely Crassula. I attach the reports of expert Mr Baker as exhibit MJ1. The reports confirm that Crassula was present at the site well before JJCE attendance’.

Mrs Jones stated that ‘JJCE made offers in mitigation to both the Environment Agency and the Herefordshire County Council such as would have paid for the removal of the materials from the site, creation of alternative ponds away from the site of the Crassula’ but that these offers were not accepted.

Mrs Jones confirmed that she was not in possession of the ‘stop notice’ that she had been told had been issued to the landowner in relation to the site, due to the presence of the Crassula, but she was aware of it.

Mrs Jones disputes the calculation of the tonnage of the waste disposed of at the site. She stated that the calculation of 410 loads of 15 tonnes ‘is in no way accurate and no evidence has ever been served to date to confirm that each load represented a full or accurate 15 tones’. Furthermore she stated that ‘the methods used to calculate the volume of waste ‘did not take into account materials that were reused or recycled at the site and made no distinction between the different tonnages of the various materials excavated and provided for no evidence of weight as JJCE Ltd were not charging for soil removal on a weight basis.’

She also said that ‘many of the waste notes are incomplete or duplicated and are therefore unreliable as a source of evidence’.

Mrs Jones estimated that the cost to JJCE of removing the waste, had they been allowed to do so, would have been approximately £60,000, being £6,000 for the digging and removal and £54,000 of landfill tax. We were not provided with how she calculated this amount.

Mrs Jones stated that her estimate of the tonnage of the waste disposed at the farm was around 4000 tonnes. This is lower than the estimate made by HMRC, but well in excess of the legal limit of 1000 tonnes allowed under the U1 permit that the company holds.

Mrs Jones accepted that her statements to the Crown Court in the criminal proceedings around the amount of waste had not been true.

It was put to Mrs Jones that the waste deposited at the site was not only soil, but also contained metal and plastic. She denied this.

In addition she stated that if the waste had become contaminated by someone else placing waste there, then had JJCE been able to remove the waste, JJCE would have further processed the waste, removing any contaminants and leaving the vast majority of the waste as ‘inert’.

Mrs Jones gave further evidence after the evidence of Mr Graham (below). Mr Graham had stated that the farmer was, HMRC believed, unaware of the disposal of the waste and had a broken leg at the time of the disposal.

Mrs Jones was unaware of any injury to the farmer, and was certain that he was aware of (and had indeed asked for) the disposal of the waste at the site.