Waste site compliance scores and ratings

By WasteSignal · England, Scotland and Wales

On this page

A waste site’s compliance score or rating can help you investigate environmental performance, but it needs its source, date and meaning attached. A category on an inspection report, an annual compliance band and a corporate credit rating answer different questions.

Start with the site’s regulator and the exact measure being quoted. Confirm the facility, operator, period and scheme, then read the findings behind the label. There is no single uniform rating that makes every waste business in England, Scotland and Wales directly comparable.

This guide explains the national differences and offers practical questions for supplier reviews. It reflects official guidance checked on 12 October 2026. For broader checks, see how to check waste company records and regulatory history.

What is a waste site compliance score?

A compliance score is a measure used within a defined regulatory scheme. Its meaning depends on the applicable rules, activity and period. Before interpreting the number, establish which regulator issued it and what it measures.

For a customer, the score is one source of evidence about a relevant facility. It does not identify the collecting business, establish every current permit condition or guarantee the quality of the proposed service. Those questions need their own checks.

Ask the supplier for the original source rather than a copied number without context. Useful details include the permit or authorisation, operator, assessment date, scheme name and underlying report. If the supplier cannot identify them, treat the number as unverified.

Retain those details beside the score, including where your organisation has assigned a colour or supplier label of its own. Colleagues can then distinguish the official measure from your interpretation and repeat the review.

How does England’s Compliance Classification Scheme work?

The Environment Agency’s waste operations and installations compliance guidance explains its Compliance Classification Scheme, or CCS. The categories reflect major, significant, minor or no impact and carry 60, 31, 4 and 0.1 points respectively.

The guidance includes rules about reasonably foreseeable impact, actual amenity impact, consolidation and suspended scores. For that reason, counting observations in a report does not necessarily reproduce the official score.

Read our Environment Agency CAR guide for help with individual reports. Keep the officer’s explanation alongside the category rather than reducing the finding to a single number.

These English categories are not a criminal court outcome. If a supplier has a CCS finding, describe it as such. Use the enforcement terminology guide when a separate caution, prosecution or conviction is involved.

Is an inspection category the same as an annual band?

No. A finding on one assessment and a site’s annual compliance band concern different levels of information. Keep the report date separate from the year covered by annual information.

The Environment Agency guidance describes annual accumulation of non-compliance scores and bands used in its regulatory charging arrangements. If a supplier quotes a band, ask which permit and year it concerns, rather than assuming it summarises every current activity.

A recent assessment can add information not reflected in the previous year’s band. Equally, a historical band may describe a period before an improvement programme or operator change. Read the sequence instead of choosing only the most reassuring or least reassuring entry.

For your internal file, preserve the exact official label. If your organisation also uses a commercial risk score, mark it clearly as an internal assessment. A procurement score and a regulator’s compliance band should not share an ambiguous field called government rating.

How does Natural Resources Wales assess permit compliance?

Natural Resources Wales explains its approach in how we assess business compliance. It uses CCS to record environmental permit non-compliances and describes four categories relating to potential environmental impact.

The Welsh guidance also describes Operational risk appraisal, or Opra, as part of its risk-based regulatory approach. Keep the terminology tied to the Welsh source rather than assuming an English table supplies the whole explanation.

Use NRW’s public information for the Welsh facility and confirm the permit, operator and period. A company trading in both countries may have records under both regulators, but that does not make every measure interchangeable.

If a supplier provides a Welsh rating with no supporting document, ask for the official reference and explanation. Read the explanation against the intended destination and activity before using the measure in your assessment.

Are Scotland’s EPAS ratings available now?

As checked on 12 October 2026, SEPA’s Environmental Performance Assessment Scheme page says publication of EPAS ratings is anticipated during 2027, once its new digital systems are in place. It promises six months’ notice before publishing ratings and a priority site list.

The page identifies planned ratings of Good, Improvements required and Unacceptable. It also explains that updated major non-compliance criteria and environmental events categorisation apply from 1 January 2026. Those arrangements should not be confused with published EPAS ratings already being available.

Check the current SEPA page when carrying out a later review. An anticipated publication year is not a guaranteed launch date, and this article should not be used to infer that a database exists merely because the calendar has advanced.

In the meantime, use the relevant authorisation information and available compliance documents or enquiry routes. Absence of a published EPAS rating is not itself an adverse finding or a positive rating for a Scottish site.

Can you compare Scotland’s old CAS scores with current information?

SEPA explains that its former Compliance Assessment Scheme, or CAS, covered 2009 to 2019 and should not be directly compared with current compliance categories or the developing EPAS ratings. The underlying rules and meaning differ.

If a supplier supplies a historical CAS result, retain the year and scheme name. Do not relabel it as today’s rating or use it as evidence that the current operator has the same performance. It may provide historical context, but it needs a current evidence check beside it.

A supplier’s website may still display old wording or an undated badge. Ask for the original record and period, then establish what information is available about the present activity. Avoid assuming outdated marketing is proof of an environmental offence; clarify the claim first.

A familiar word such as good can describe different measures in different periods. Keep the meaning attached to the document that actually uses it.

Can English, Welsh and Scottish ratings be ranked together?

Avoid creating a direct league table unless you have a sound, documented method that accounts for the different schemes. Similar words or numbers do not establish equal meanings, periods, activities or assessment coverage.

A safer comparison records each source in its own terms. Identify the relevant site, regulator, measure, period, findings and current unanswered questions. Then explain your organisation’s commercial assessment separately.

For example, two proposed destinations might have different national records. You can still investigate whether each has appropriate current authorisation, how relevant findings were addressed and whether either has a material restriction. Record those findings separately without assigning an invented conversion between the scores.

If a tender requires a particular threshold, check that the wording fits the applicable national evidence. A requirement drafted around one country’s annual band may need a carefully defined equivalent evidence route for suppliers elsewhere.

Does a good rating guarantee the site can take your waste?

No rating replaces checking the authorisation for the actual activity. A site may have a positive historical performance record while being unsuitable for your waste type, proposed handling process or required quantity.

Identify the intended destination and operator, then check the relevant permit or authorisation. Our guide to waste site permit checks helps with that separate task. Read conditions and limits relevant to the proposed service.

Keep permission, performance and commercial capacity separate in your notes. The regulator’s historical assessment does not confirm that space is available next week, that your booking is accepted or that the supplier’s quotation names the right destination.

Ask how the supplier will handle a change of route. A good result for one facility does not transfer to another yard. If an alternative destination is proposed, check its identity and authorisation rather than carrying over the original site’s evidence.

Does a poor score mean the permit has been revoked?

Do not infer revocation from a score alone. Establish the actual current authorisation position and any separate notices. A compliance concern, a financial charge and a legal restriction are different pieces of information.

Ask what action followed the finding and whether the relevant activity is restricted. If the supplier says operations continue, request the evidence needed to understand the current arrangement rather than treating the assurance as a substitute for the official position.

Our guide to suspension, revocation and surrender explains those separate changes. Confirm the affected operator, activity and date. Avoid extending a restriction to every company or site within a wider group without evidence.

A continuing permission also does not erase a relevant finding. You may still need to investigate improvements or service continuity. Keep the current permit check and the performance review connected without allowing either to answer questions outside its scope.

What should you read behind the score?

Look for the underlying report, the conditions assessed, the officer’s reasoning and any required actions. Ask whether the finding relates to your intended waste route and whether later documents show a change.

A score may prompt questions about waste acceptance, storage, drainage, equipment, management procedures or monitoring. The appropriate questions come from the actual finding. Avoid sending every supplier the same generic questionnaire regardless of the issue.

Record the difference between a supplier’s account and an official update. “The operator says the works are complete” is different from “a later assessment records completion of this action”. Both can be retained, but label each accurately.

If the report is unavailable, use the relevant regulator’s information route. A missing document is an information gap to manage. Do not fill it with an assumed pass, failure or explanation of why the score was awarded.

How should you assess changes over time?

Use a dated sequence of comparable records within the same scheme and relevant site history. Confirm whether the operator, permit or assessment basis changed before describing a trend.

For example, an apparent improvement might reflect a completed action, but it might also involve a different period or measure. Ask what the records demonstrate and avoid attributing a cause that the evidence does not establish.

Keep old and new documents with their original references. Where a score is corrected, retain the explanation and ensure colleagues know which version supports the current review. Repeating an outdated number can make a careful initial check misleading later.

For older findings, see how to interpret historical environmental offences. It explains how to separate historical outcomes, subsequent improvements and the present service without either ignoring history or treating it as permanent proof of current conditions.

What if the supplier challenges a score or rating?

A disagreement is different from an official correction. Ask which part is disputed, which review route is being used and whether a decision or amended document has been issued.

The applicable process depends on the regulator and decision. Use the current official guidance and the instructions relevant to the actual document. Do not apply an English CAR procedure automatically to a Welsh or Scottish assessment.

Record the published position available at your checking date alongside the supplier’s explanation. If the result changes, update the review and preserve enough of the history to explain why your conclusion changed.

For a procurement decision, identify whether the unresolved issue affects the proposed service and what further evidence you need. Your organisation can make a proportionate commercial decision without pretending to determine the regulatory appeal itself.

What information should a supplier provide about a rating?

Ask for enough information to reproduce the claim and understand its relevance:

The regulator and scheme name.
The site, operator and permit or authorisation reference.
The exact score, category or band being quoted.
The assessment date or reporting period.
The underlying report or official source.
Relevant actions, later updates and any unresolved challenge.

This is a suggested information request, not a prescribed statutory customer form. The detail should reflect the significance of the claim and your intended service.

If a marketing statement refers to the whole group, ask how it relates to the receiving site. A corporate brand may cover several operators and facilities. Understanding parent companies and subsidiaries helps identify which entity and record should be connected with the quotation.

A worked example: comparing two proposed destinations

Imagine a fictional contractor proposes an English facility and a Scottish alternative. The English pack includes a dated annual band and a later CAR. The Scottish pack includes a historical CAS result and current authorisation details.

The customer does not convert the CAS result into the English band or assume a current EPAS rating exists. It checks the source periods, reviews relevant current documents and asks each operator about unresolved matters affecting the proposed activity.

The final assessment records the national evidence separately. It identifies the appropriate current authorisation, relevant findings, supplier explanations and any gaps. The customer then explains its own decision about the waste route.

Colleagues can follow the decision through the separate national records and the service evidence, without relying on an invented common regulatory score.

How often should compliance information be reviewed?

Set a review point that reflects your service and any unresolved actions. Recheck when the destination, operator or authorisation changes, or when significant new information becomes available.

Assign responsibility for interpreting updates. A saved rating without a checking date can quickly become detached from the arrangement it was meant to support. Keep the record linked to the current site and service.

For new Scottish ratings, check SEPA’s current publication notices and scheme explanation before changing your process. For other records, verify the reporting period rather than assuming every update describes a new inspection.

Use the enforcement history guide for related outcomes and the company information pillar to keep identity, permissions and performance evidence connected. Retain the findings relevant to the service and identify any question that the score or supporting report has not answered.

Waste site compliance scores and ratings explained