Review of Interpretation of WEEE arising from Private households as defined in the WEEE Directive
11th, July 2014
(2012/19/EU)
1. Scheme Response
Given the options outlined in the review, the only solution we can see is for BiS to come clean and reclassify B2B in late 2014 and pass the liability to those who placed it in 2014. In support of this option we would recommend the introduction of a hardship fund by the government (possibly funded from revenues created via those PCS seemingly leaning towards a (-D option) compliance fee strategy in meeting their financial obligations in 2014) for those companies and/or schemes, which for reasons beyond their control, cannot meet the extra financial liability arising as a result of this enforced change, examples:
Company A is a B2B organisation in 2013 and is now a B2C in 2015 with liabilities from 2014 un budgeted for in 2015. They are having hardship as they don't place EEE of that type anymore so can never recover the money from the polluters
Company B is a B2B organisation in 2013 and is now a B2C in 2015 with liabilities from 2014 un budgeted for in 2015. They are an IT provider who had a huge one off order in 2014 yet in 2015 they project little our no product sales as their core business is managed service not EEE supply.
A PCS suffers hardship due to member company failure
Many more examples could be considered for the hardship (erroneous guidance) fund derived from (-D) income
The alternative option of placing a liability on B2C producers from 2014 onwards would be in our opinion outrageous, given it is BiS's mistake here ,and I am sure challenged by at least two major high street retail members in our schemes. Regardless, we do not see the need for any further delay in communicating the solution against the difficult message to B2B producers who now fall into B2C due to dual use definitions which, is clearly stated in the UK WEEE Regulations (2013) today and has been known about for sometime.
Please hereafter find an explanation of why we consider this to be wholly brought about by BiS and its management of the Red Tape Challenge and Redrafting of the guidelines to the UK WEEE Regulations (2013) including the next major issue about to be realised by producers and the one seriously unfair case realised by one member to date.
2. Scheme and Member Observations
In mid 2013 AVC Weeeco recognised the importance of the changes that would need to take place brought by the redrafting of the UK WEEE Regulations (which we had recognised in 2012) and we noted that the draft Regulations (2013) and now the Regulations passed by parliament truly reflected the changes we have all known about for some years.
It is with great disappointment that it has taken so long for BiS to finally recognise its misreading of the re drafted WEEE Directive despite our repeatedly highlighting this issue and, on one occasion in Mid 2013, taking a senior representative from Tesco to meet with your senior officers at Victoria place to highlight our concerns.
Our concerns have always been around:
The Draft UK WEEE Regulations (2013), now law, have always been a true representation of the WEEE Directive redraft, in that, regardless dual use items should be recorded and treated as B2C, and BiS have issued guidance and briefed directly in conflict with the UK WEEE Regulations for reasons unknown to AVC Weeeco.
Despite taking our concerns direct to BiS officers via meetings in Victoria place, seeking clarification one to one when attending briefings and stakeholder group meetings, BiS have maintained that they have and will continue to introduce guidance to counter the wording in the UK WEEE Regulations (2013) further delaying the acceptance process for change in UK dual use definitions
Despite taking our concerns to the EA by asking the question 'why are the EA asking my scheme to allow members to record dual use WEEE as B2B in 2014 when clearly, if the guidance where challenged, they and possibly us would be liable for:
The illegal recording of EEE placed in the first instance
The potential financial liability that the company will be amassing against sales made since Jan 2014
The whole basis of the BiS red tape challenge was saving money and red tape, we don't see how this is achieved by erroneous guidance which then brings a financial liability to businesses who have not been communicated too.
Consequences of those concerns not being listened to:
BiS finally having to put in place emergency measures to rectify something that has been recognised by many for several years
Option One - B2B Members who have placed EEE which is made up of dual use items will have potential financial liability in 2015 for sales since 1 Jan 2014 without the opportunity of budgeting their businesses to account for compliance obligations bringing:
Risk of company failures
Extra risk to PCS via the potential failure of their members having to pay liabilities not previously budgeted
Extra risk to PCS due to disputes with B2B members who eventually begin to realise the financial liabilities amassed from 2014
B2B Members will have a liability post Jan 2016 regardless, however no urgency to communicate this issue direct to produce has been seen by us
Option Two - B2C Members will potentially pick up the extra cost in 2015 against an assessment of dual use placed in 2014 without the opportunity of budgeting their businesses to account for compliance obligations bringing:
Risk of company failures
Extra risk to PCS via the potential failure of their members having to pay liabilities not previously budgeted
Extra risk to PCS due to disputes with B2C members who eventually begin to realise the extra financial liabilities amassed from 2014
Further delays are taking place impacting on paras 1-3 above due to somehow consulting a small group of stakeholders without communicating direct to the producers.
We also have repeatedly highlighted another issue which is the fundamentally flawed mathematics of assessing the obligation of a scheme in 2014 based upon 'previous year EEE placed'. We have always maintained that the only way to ensure fairness and reduce company failure is to keep compliance obligation realtime against liability. We have recommend, along with our members, quarterly in arrears obligation allowing 'in financial year' budgeting for businesses. This is the next issue BiS will face as a result of the poor implementation of the WEEE Re Draft into UK Law and maybe this is the perfect time to deal with this too before its too late. A good working example:
A scheme member of AVC Weeeco's scheme has placed significant tonnes of Cat 13 in 2013 However, in 2014 it has pulled from this market place. So if the producer has met their obligation in funding its responsibilities in 2013 therefore how can it have a financial liability in 2014 equal to that of 2013, given their withdrawal from the marketplace in this WEEE stream in 2014? They are paying the polluters responsibilities twice!
A recommended solution here would be to offer compensation to those adversely affected by utilising the (-D) revenues from 2014 as suggested earlier.
I suspect I know the answer, similarly to when I questioned BiS officers previously, there will be winners and losers under the new UK Regulations in 2014, which then become a level playing field post 1 Jan 2015, and we, for some reason, don't understand the impacts of these changes as well as BiS. Can this be really a responsible and sound way in which to introduce amended regulations?
Send this page to a friend or contact us for further information
