A spokesman for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) said that 484 businesses have been affected – which is 11% of total producers involved in the scheme.
Businesses impacted are only those who opted to pay via direct debit and set up their debit payment prior to the 24 November.
The fees paid by producers cover the costs of PackUk, the scheme administrator for EPR.
A Defra spokesperson said: “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 recognise the inconvenience this has caused. Our teams are working hard to resolve the issue and refund affected businesses as soon as possible.”
Under the regulations companies that import or supply packaging are responsible for the costs of managing that packaging waste. Both small and large producers must report their packaging data but currently only large producers need to pay fees.
The controversial EPR scheme has come under fire from trade associations who are calling it “poorly designed” and say it’s failing to support the circular economy.
This latest controversy has brought further criticism of the legislation and implementation.
Josh Pitman, managing director of sustainable packaging firm Priory Direct, said: “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. Whilst they have been handling the situation transparently, being charged multiple times does not instil confidence that the new system is working.”
His firm has been dealing with between five and 10 queries daily from customers who don’t understand EPR and what they need to do.
“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,” said Pitman.
“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.”
Glass bottle manufacturer for the drinks industry Encirc has already urged the Government to halt the scheme as it believes that British glass manufacturers are being hit by disproportionate costs.
An Encirc spokesperson said: “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.”
The news comes as it was revealed that companies would be charged millions on top of what they owe to cover other businesses that have not paid their fees.
