And, it also addresses what arrangements a scheme is expected to make if it plans to collect WEEE on behalf of another scheme.
Explaining the purpose of the letter, the government said that it had received “a number of queries” relating to schemes' obligation to have a “viable plan” to collect WEEE and in relation to the judicial review ruling, which backed the government's decision not to take enforcement action against over- and under-collecting schemes (see letsrecycle.com story).
The case was originally bought by the REPIC compliance scheme over claims that it had been forced to pay “ransom prices” by rival schemes in order to buy the evidence it needed to meet its members' WEEE recycling obligations (see letsrecycle.com story).
Trading
With regards trading, the letter reiterates the government's position that “some trading of evidence notes is permissible to correct unforeseen minor shortfalls or excesses”, and that this should take place “at the margins”.
However, it warns that “significant deliberately planned shortfalls or excesses of WEEE with no collection arrangements in place as outlined above will indicate that a scheme's plans are not viable.
“The extent to which schemes' trading activity is acceptable in practice will be assessed by the Agencies on a case by case basis. Any trading that indicates a scheme's collection plan may no longer be viable will be investigated by the Agencies,” it adds.
It stresses that if schemes make arrangements relying solely on either planned or spot evidence trading, these will “necessarily” involve “deliberate” over- or under- collection and, as a result, the operational plans for the schemes involved will be deemed unviable.
Collection arrangements
While schemes are not allowed to rely on evidence trading, the judicial review confirmed that they could collect WEEE on behalf of each other to meet their obligations.
As a result, the letter explains what information the EA and SEPA – who have the task of approving and re-approving compliance schemes – expect to see in schemes' operational plans if they do plan to use a third party collection arrangement.
This includes the amount of WEEE per category, the names of the schemes involved and written confirmation from those schemes that they agree to take part in the arrangements, and the letter stresses that “collection arrangements must be finalised before WEEE is collected by a scheme on behalf of another scheme”.
However, it adds that the Agencies will not comment or influence on that “format” of the arrangements that “sit behind” the information provided by the schemes on their dealings with each other, noting that they are “a commercial matter to be agreed between the schemes directly”.
It also states that they will not interfere when it comes to the treatment route chosen for WEEE collected under these arrangements, and that it a “matter of negotiation” between the schemes involved.
Local authorities
The letter also clarifies how schemes who are collecting WEEE from civic amenity sites on behalf of each other should report data on levels of WEEE collected and how it's treated to the councils involved – as they are required to under the WEEE Code of Practice.
The letter suggests that the responsibility for reporting data back to councils should lie with the scheme collected from the WEEE from the CA site (know as a designated collection facility, or DCF, under the WEEE Regulations).
However, it adds that the final decision as to who reports to the council lies with the scheme, and “is a matter to be agreed between the schemes as part of these third party collection arrangements”.
Subscribe for free