A representative from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) reported that 484 businesses have been impacted, equating to 11% of the total producers involved in the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme.
The affected businesses are those that opted for direct debit payments and established their debit arrangements before November 24.
The fees collected from producers are allocated to cover the costs incurred by PackUk, the scheme’s administrator for EPR.
A DEFRA spokesperson stated, “We are aware of a technical issue that has resulted in some direct debit payments under the Extended Producer Responsibility scheme being collected more than once by an external financial services supplier.”
“We recognize the inconvenience this has caused. Our teams are working hard to resolve the issue and refund affected businesses as soon as possible.”
According to the regulations, companies that import or supply packaging hold responsibility for managing the costs associated with packaging waste. While both small and large producers must report their packaging data, only larger producers are currently subject to fees.
The EPR scheme has faced criticism from trade associations, which label it as “poorly designed,” arguing that it fails to effectively support the circular economy.
This recent issue has intensified scrutiny regarding the legislation and its execution.
Josh Pitman, Managing Director of sustainable packaging firm Priory Direct, voiced concern, stating: “It is an unfortunate blunder, particularly given the mixed reactions to EPR fees in recent months and the sizeable amount that many businesses are paying. While they have been handling the situation transparently, being charged multiple times does not instill confidence that the new system is working.”
His company has fielded between five and ten inquiries each day from customers who struggle to understand EPR and the necessary actions they need to take.
“However, there appears to be a lack of clear, helpful guidance and limited proactive engagement with affected businesses from government, aside from some overly exclusive and expensive events featuring official spokespeople,” he added.
“Knowledge of how to navigate EPR is being firewalled by companies looking to profit from guiding larger clients through the change when, for it to make the most impactful change, the government should be providing clearer, more-open-access guidance on how to use this legislation to make a positive improvement to the impact of their business. Otherwise, there is a real risk that business will simply absorb the fees rather than do what EPR is designed to achieve, which is to spur a switch towards more environmentally friendly packaging.”
Encirc, a glass bottle manufacturer for the drinks industry, has urged the government to pause the scheme, believing it imposes disproportionate costs on British glass manufacturers.
An Encirc spokesperson commented: “This is yet another reason why the Government should hit the pause button on this flawed packaging tax which is hitting glass manufacturing and consumers at a challenging time. Unfortunately, the policy was pushed through, and therefore these harmful teething problems were to be expected.”
This news arrives as it is revealed that companies will incur millions in additional charges to offset fees from other businesses that have not met their obligations.
