The provider list now says self-certified. Ask your software which of Defra’s fourteen tests it does not support.
Wednesday 28 October 2026. The GOV.UK list of digital waste tracking software has changed how it describes itself. In August it said “Defra has confirmed that the software providers below meet the digital waste tracking requirements”. Since 23 October it says the providers “have self-certified”. Same page, same table, one new word, and it moves a job from Defra to you.
Nothing about this is a scandal, and nobody on the list has done anything wrong. But if you chose your software because it was on a government list, the list now tells you what being on it means.
| August | Now | |
|---|---|---|
| Who checked the software | “Defra has confirmed that the software providers below meet the digital waste tracking requirements” | “The software providers listed below have self-certified that their software complies with the digital waste tracking requirements” |
| The fourteen tests | “Software providers must prove that their software can successfully manage 14 scenarios” | “Software providers must demonstrate, through testing, that their software can support the 14 scenarios provided by Defra” |
| What you are told | Nothing about scenarios a product does not support | “They must also make clear to their customers which scenarios their software does not support” |
Who checks the software now?
The provider does. Defra’s testing page tells software firms to “self-certify based on your own assessment”, and then says it plainly: “Defra does not review, validate, mark or approve individual PAT results, this is a self-service process and production credentials are issued on the basis of your own confirmation, not Defra’s assessment”.
There is a reason for it. The list had 121 providers on 21 September. On 28 October the table had 238 rows and 237 different names, counted from the page itself. Nobody was going to mark that many by hand. On 16 October Defra also took some off, “Providers removed that no longer provide the service”, so the list moves in both directions.
What are the fourteen tests?
PAT stands for production approval tests. Defra publishes fourteen scenarios, each a receipt the software must send to Defra’s test service, and each with a result the software firm now checks for itself.
| Scenario | What it proves |
|---|---|
| R01, R02, R03, R04, R05, R07 | A basic receipt: one item, several items, by road, with and without disposal or recovery codes, several waste codes |
| C01, C02 | No carrier registration number, refused without a reason and accepted with one |
| B01 | A broker or dealer involved |
| P01 | Persistent organic pollutants, several components |
| H01 | Hazardous waste with several hazardous components |
| H02 | Hazardous waste with no consignment note code and no reason, which must be refused |
| H03 | Hazardous waste with no consignment note code but with a reason, which must be accepted |
| X01 | Hazardous and POPs together |
Which ones matter for a breaker?
The hazardous ones. An end of life vehicle that has not been depolluted is 16 01 04*, and the star means hazardous. Nearly every car through your gate arrives that way. So every receipt you send is a hazardous receipt, whatever else it is.
Defra’s guide files the hazardous scenarios as “Advisory” and explains why: a product for a business that never sees hazardous waste does not need them. Then, on H01, it says what that means for everyone else: “If any of your customers handle hazardous waste, even occasionally, resolve the capability gap before requesting production credentials.” Advisory for a skip firm. Not for you.
H03 is the one you use most without knowing it. A hazardous receipt must carry a consignment note code or a reason why there is none. A member of the public bringing their own car needs no consignment note. GOV.UK: “When an undepolluted ELV is transported you must fill in a consignment note unless it is an end of life private vehicle”. So the receipt for that car carries a reason, and H03 is the test that proves the software can send one.
What does “exempt for certain PAT scenarios” mean?
The list now says providers “must also make clear to their customers which scenarios their software does not support”. Four entries on the list say so in brackets next to their product name. That is a provider doing what the page asks, and it is more than most entries tell you. The note does not tell you which scenarios, though. If you are looking at one of those products, that is your first question.
The other 233 say nothing either way. That does not mean they support all fourteen. It means the list does not tell you.
What to ask your software provider
- Which of the fourteen scenarios does your software not support? The list says they must make this clear to you, so it is a question they should expect.
- Did H01, H02 and H03 pass? If you take in cars, these three are not optional for you, whatever the guide calls them.
- When did you last run them? Defra changes its service and its tests. A pass from the summer was a pass on the summer’s rules.
A good supplier answers all three in one email. Defra’s own confirmation statement has them record the reason wherever a scenario does not apply, so you are asking for something they already keep.
What BreakerHQ does
We ran all fourteen against Defra’s test service on 26 October, three days after the change. Twelve sent a receipt and all twelve came back Pass on Defra’s own results check. The other two, C01 and H02, are the receipts that must be refused, and Defra refused both with the reason it documents. Every row is in our record with its tracking ids and date. Ask us for it. We run the tests again after every change to the part of BreakerHQ that talks to Defra.
Every car at the gate goes to Defra as 16 01 04* with its hazard codes and hazardous components, and with its consignment note code or the reason there is none. Depollution moves it to 16 01 06 on the record. One honest limit: we built for vehicle dismantlers, tyre sites and scrap yards. If your site takes in something we have never seen, ask us before you trust us with it.
In August the list said Defra had checked. Now it says the software firms checked themselves. One email from you and you will know what they found.
Sources
- GOV.UK, Report receipt of waste: choose a software provider (updated 23 October 2026, change note "Wording around PAT scenarios and provider list updated"): "have self-certified", "They must also make clear to their customers which scenarios their software does not support", "You should check that the software is suitable for your business". 238 rows and 237 provider names counted from the raw HTML, 28 October 2026 ↗
- The same page on 10 August 2026 (Wayback Machine): "Defra has confirmed that the software providers below meet the digital waste tracking requirements", "Software providers must prove that their software can successfully manage 14 scenarios" ↗
- Defra, Receipt of Waste API Production Approval Tests: the fourteen scenarios, "self-certify based on your own assessment", "Defra does not review, validate, mark or approve individual PAT results". Read 28 October 2026 ↗
- Defra, PAT Self-Service Interpretation Guide: H01, H02 and H03, "Hazardous – Advisory", H01 "If any of your customers handle hazardous waste, even occasionally, resolve the capability gap before requesting production credentials". Read 28 October 2026 ↗
- Environment Agency, Vehicle and oily wastes: how to classify: an end of life vehicle not depolluted is 16 01 04*, hazardous ↗
- GOV.UK, When a motor vehicle is waste: "When an undepolluted ELV is transported you must fill in a consignment note unless it is an end of life private vehicle" ↗