What waste supplier check evidence should you keep?

By WasteSignal · England, Scotland and Wales

On this page

Keep enough evidence for another person to understand the supplier arrangement you reviewed, the sources you checked and the reason for your decision. Label saved records with the business they concern and the question they helped you check, so colleagues can follow the review later.

There is no single government-prescribed supplier review pack that suits every business waste arrangement. The practical record suggested here supports your checks and later enquiries. It should remain distinguishable from the transfer, consignment and register documents required for actual waste movements.

This guide is for businesses in England, Scotland and Wales. Use it alongside waste duty of care and record keeping and the relevant national guidance. If you are starting the review itself, checking a waste supplier explains the wider process.

What should the review record explain first?

Begin with the proposed arrangement. Identify your business or site, the waste stream, the supplier’s role and the destinations in scope. State why the review was carried out and the date. This prevents a narrow check being mistaken for approval of everything a supplier does.

For example, a review of a carrier collecting office waste from one premises does not automatically assess a separate hazardous waste service or a different receiving site. Put those boundaries near the beginning rather than leaving them implicit in the documents attached at the end.

Record who performed the review and who made the business decision. The same person may do both, but the distinction helps when technical information comes from one colleague and commercial approval comes from another.

The England and Wales duty of care code describes reasonable steps in the waste chain. Your record should show the steps relevant to the actual circumstances, rather than imply that a standard checklist guarantees every aspect of compliance.

How should you record the supplier’s identity?

Keep the legal name, trading name where relevant and identifiers that help distinguish the business. A company number can be useful for a limited company. A carrier registration reference and site authorisation reference answer different questions and should not be substituted for the company identity.

Record the names used on the quotation, contract, invoices and collection documents if they differ. Explain how you matched them or what remains unresolved. Similar branding and a shared address are useful clues, but are not conclusive proof that two records describe the same legal person.

Companies House information provides company details and filings. Use the relevant information with appropriate care. A company appearing as active is not itself proof of financial strength, environmental authorisation or suitability for a particular collection service.

If the supplier is a sole trader or another organisation without a Companies House company number, record the appropriate identity evidence instead of forcing a false company match. See waste suppliers not on Companies House for that distinction.

Which carrier registration evidence is worth retaining?

Record the official source used, the registration reference, the name shown and the relevant status or category information. Add the date you checked it and explain how it connects to the actual collecting party. Save that explanation with the certificate so colleagues can see which collecting party you checked.

If the supplier supplies a certificate, compare it with the appropriate current source where available. Keep any discrepancy and the follow-up. The certificate may be helpful, but the review should not assume it answers whether the actual carrier’s registration is current and appropriate for the arrangement.

Use checking a waste carrier registration for the checking process. Your retained note should identify what you verified and what you did not, especially if a broker, subcontractor or group company is involved.

When a later renewal or status change arises, add a dated review rather than altering the original evidence to make it look current. Historical evidence explains the earlier decision; a fresh check supports a current one.

What site and permit evidence should you keep?

Identify the physical destination, its operator and the relevant authorisation. Keep the documents or source references used to assess the proposed waste and activity. A search result showing a site exists may not establish that its permission covers the material or operation you are arranging.

The Environment Agency’s public-register guidance explains how to access environmental information in England. Use the appropriate national regulator for Scottish and Welsh activities and follow the source’s instructions where documents are not immediately available online.

Record which version of a permit or other authorisation you considered. Where variations or operator changes affect your question, connect those records with the main document. Avoid treating an application as though it were a granted permission or an older document as a complete current position.

Read current waste permit documents and checking a waste destination. The useful retained evidence concerns the actual receiving arrangement, rather than whichever facility appears first in the supplier’s promotional material.

Are screenshots sufficient evidence on their own?

A screenshot can preserve what a page displayed when you checked it. Include enough context to identify the source, record and relevant fields. Save the URL and access date separately if they are not visible. A tightly cropped image may be difficult to interpret later.

Prefer an available official document download where it better preserves the information you need, while retaining its source reference. Check whether it includes the conditions, schedules or explanatory pages relevant to the decision. A cover page alone may omit the important limitations.

Respect source terms and access restrictions when retaining material. This guide recommends an understandable record; it does not authorise unrestricted copying, bulk collection or redistribution. Choose a method appropriate to the source and your business’s legitimate purpose.

Do not treat a screenshot as proof that the underlying record could never change or contain an error. It supports what you observed. Keep your observation distinguishable from subsequent confirmation and from the conclusions you drew from it.

Which dates should you distinguish?

Record the review date and the date you accessed each source. Add the document publication, effective or event dates where they are relevant and available. These may differ substantially and help explain why a record appeared when it did.

For example, discovering an older enforcement publication during today’s review does not mean the incident happened today. Likewise, a recently uploaded document may describe an earlier operator or period. Use the source’s wording and avoid inventing a missing date.

SEPA’s public-register help explains availability and update limitations in its register. Retain relevant source limitations in your review where they affect the conclusion. A screen checked today is not necessarily a guarantee that every underlying change is already reflected.

If you cannot establish an important effective date, make that a specific open question. State what it affects and how you intend to resolve it. Leave the date marked as unconfirmed until you have an answer, and keep the response with the source record.

How do you separate facts from interpretation?

Write the source statement first, with its reference. Then explain your interpretation and any additional confirmation. For example, a register may show an operator name; a supplier may separately confirm that this is the proposed receiving business. Keep both contributions visible.

Avoid describing a source record as verified merely because it has been downloaded. Verification can mean different things to different readers. Explain the actual action: matched the reference, compared the name, read the conditions or received clarification about the operating arrangement.

Where records appear inconsistent, preserve the uncertainty. Do not choose the version that makes approval easiest without explaining the decision. Link relevant correspondence and state whether the answer resolved the particular mismatch or only provided a further lead.

This is especially useful for company and regulatory information. A historic record might concern a previous operator or a different group entity. Keep the identity and dates clear before using it in a conclusion about the supplier you are considering now.

What should you keep from supplier conversations?

Retain relevant written answers or a dated note of a conversation, identifying the person, role and question. If an important answer was given by telephone, seek written clarification where appropriate. Record the answer accurately without extending it beyond what the person actually confirmed.

Ask specific questions. Which business will collect? Which first destination is proposed? What happens if the usual site cannot accept the material? A useful answer identifies the actual arrangement rather than merely assuring you that the company takes compliance seriously.

Treat supplier confirmation as a source with its own limits. It may clarify the intended route but should not automatically replace an official authorisation check. Equally, an official record may not explain the contractual or operational detail that only the supplier can provide.

Connect the answer with the affected arrangement and decision. If it is later superseded, retain the earlier communication with the period it concerns. An inbox containing years of unlinked replies makes it harder to know which answer applied to a particular collection.

How should you record missing information?

Describe the missing item precisely. A statement such as permit unclear is less useful than explaining that the proposed receiving address has not yet been connected with the authorisation reference supplied. Identify the consequence for your assessment and the next question to ask.

Record unsuccessful searches with enough detail to understand their scope. Include the source, search identifiers and relevant limitations. A search returning no match does not necessarily prove that no record exists or that the supplier lacks authorisation.

Use unmatched supplier records for handling identity gaps. Check alternative spellings, identifiers and source coverage before drawing a conclusion, and seek clarification where the unresolved issue matters to the proposed activity.

Give each open question an owner and a next step. Record the outcome when it is resolved. Do not hide uncertainty in a separate appendix if the main recommendation depends on it; the decision-maker should see what remains outstanding.

What should the approval decision say?

State the arrangement approved, any conditions and the basis for the decision. A practical record might identify a named collecting party, particular destinations and specified waste streams. Make it clear when approval depends on confirming a detail before the first collection.

Avoid an unlimited statement that the supplier is fully compliant. Your review covers particular evidence and circumstances at a particular time. Explain the limits so a colleague does not apply the decision to a new service or site without further consideration.

Use waste supplier approval records for developing that decision process. Keep the underlying evidence accessible, but make the recommendation understandable without requiring every reader to reconstruct the whole review from attachments.

If the decision is to pause or reject an arrangement, record the factual reasons accurately. Distinguish an unresolved identity question from a confirmed permission issue or a commercial preference. This helps future reviewers understand whether new information changes the position.

How do supplier review records connect to collection paperwork?

Link the supplier review to the movements or service period it supports. Keep individual transfer or consignment documents identifiable by their own references. A review pack should not be presented as a replacement for the records required at handover.

For English hazardous waste producers, the Environment Agency’s guidance specifies register records including consignment notes and returns. Scotland and Wales have their own relevant procedures. Keep those national documentation duties separate from your suggested internal review format.

If the actual collector or destination differs from the reviewed arrangement, preserve the change and the resulting checks. The original approval is still relevant history, but it may not answer the question about the new collection.

Read building a waste audit trail for connecting supplier evidence with movement records. Connect the review with the relevant collections, while keeping any evidence of a particular load’s outcome attached to that load.

How long should you keep supplier-check evidence?

Do not apply a universal seven-year rule to every supplier review document. Establish the purpose of the record, the relevant legal obligations, contractual or permit requirements and your justified internal policy. Waste transfer and hazardous records have specific requirements that do not automatically extend to every screenshot.

Use waste record retention periods for the document-specific distinctions. Where a review supports a series of collections, consider how colleagues will understand those records after the original contract ends. Keep an appropriate basis for the retention decision.

Protect personal and commercially sensitive information. Restrict access to those who need it and avoid collecting unnecessary details simply because they are publicly visible. Public availability does not make indefinite retention or unrestricted internal circulation necessary.

Keep unresolved disputes, investigations or other live matters under appropriate review before routine deletion. If the position is complex, obtain suitable advice. Document the reason for an extension rather than silently retaining every file forever or deleting it on an arbitrary anniversary.

How should the evidence be prepared for the next review?

Use consistent identifiers and a clear version history. Preserve the original review, then record what changed and when. Distinguish a changed supplier arrangement from new information about an unchanged arrangement; both can matter, but they raise different questions.

Set a review approach proportionate to the service and relevant change triggers. There is no universal government rule requiring every producer to repeat a full supplier review at one fixed interval. Changes in carrier, destination, waste stream or authorisation may justify attention sooner than a routine date.

Keep the next action visible and assign responsibility. If a colleague leaves, the file should still explain which questions were open and why. Avoid making one person’s memory the only connection between the approval, its supporting sources and later collections.

Finally, ask someone unfamiliar with the review to read it. They should be able to identify the supplier, scope, evidence, limitations and decision. Improve the points they cannot follow. Check that the file explains how the evidence supports the decision and where uncertainty remains. Adding more attachments will not answer an open question unless someone reviews what they show.

Use our waste supplier monitoring checklist to prepare the next review and our guide to investigating supplier alerts when new information needs a decision.

What evidence should you keep from waste supplier checks?