This website uses non-intrusive cookies to improve your user experience. You can visit our cookie privacy page for more information.

Enforcement of Pesticide legislation

SIM 01/2011/03


1. This document gives guidance on the enforcement of pesticides legislation and the application of the Enforcement Management Model (EMM) to potential offences involving pesticides.


2. This guidance provides HSE/LA staff with a framework to assist in making enforcement decisions in relation to potential offences involving pesticides.

3. The definition of pesticides includes plant protection products (most agricultural pesticides) and biocides (including disinfectants, wood and other preservatives, biocidal paints, surface cleaners, rodenticides, anti-fouling products and pest control products, etc).

4. Given the wide range of biocide products and the industries in which they may be used, this guidance will be relevant to inspectors of all disciplines.


5. HSE/LA staff should follow the guidance in this document when deciding on enforcement action in relation to offences involving pesticides.

Background: Legislation

6. The previous regulatory framework for pesticides in Great Britain (GB) has now been replaced by two harmonised approval systems which separately address plant protection products and biocides.

7. Both systems are intended to protect the health of human beings, creatures and plants and to safeguard the environment.  This means that this is one area of work where HSE has a direct responsibility for dealing with risks to the environment.

8. The legislation requires plant protection and biocide products to be approved, authorised or permitted (“approved”).  Further requirements relate to their sale, purchase, storage and use.

Plant protection products

9. The primary legislation is Regulation EC 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council which deals with the placing on the market and general use of plant protection products.  Although directly applicable in the United Kingdom (UK), it has been supplemented in GB by the Plant Protection Products Regulations 2011 (PPPR 2011), which set out powers of enforcement, offences and penalties.

10. In parallel with the above, Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and Council deals with broader use-related issues, such as certification requirements, storage and inspection of equipment. It has been implemented in GB by the Plant Protection Products (Sustainable Use) Regulations 2012 (PPP(SU)R 2012).

11.Both the PPPR 2011 and the PPP(SU)R 2012 should be considered together when dealing with offences relating to plant protection products.

Biocidal products

12. The primary legislation is Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council implemented in GB by the Biocidal Products Regulations 2001 (BPR).

13. The BPR are enforced as though they are a relevant statutory provision of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (HSWA) (Regulation 38 and Schedule 11 of BPR defines the application of HSWA, including powers, offences, etc). Therefore, for products approved under BPR, HSWAshould be used for enforcement purposes.

14. However, for a number of reasons, not all biocides are approved under BPR. Some biocidal products remain approved under the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986 (as amended) (COPR), while others have been issued with a Certificate of Exemption (CoE) under BPR while they go through an authorisation/registration process which can take up to two years.

15. A CoE is issued under the BPR, but the conditions contained within the CoE are likely to reference approval conditions established in COPR. This allows the product to stay on the market and be used subject to the same conditions relating to its supply, storage and use as applied under COPR. However, any failure to comply with the conditions of the CoE (e.g. COPR conditions) is a breach of BPR and again, HSWA should be used for enforcement purposes.

16. For biocide products that remain approved under COPR and which are not subject to a CoE, the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 (FEPA) should be used for enforcement purposes.

Relevant legislation

17. It is important, particularly for biocidal products, that Inspectors check the product’s approval status to determine which legislation applies and in cases of doubt should contact Chemicals Regulation Directorate’s (CRD) Information Service (see para 84 for contact details).

18. The HSWA, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (MHSWR), the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (as amended) (COSHH) and Regulation (EC No. 1907/2006) concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) may also apply in relation to the risks to human health from the storage and use of pesticides.  Inspectors should select the most appropriate legislation when considering enforcement action.

19. REACH is a European regulation which applies to substances manufactured or imported into the EU in quantities of one tonne or more per year.  Almost every business in the UK will have a duty under REACH as a manufacturer, importer, distributor, supplier or downstream user. However, the extent of the duties it imposes will vary significantly, depending on the duty-holder's activities.

20. REACH requires any manufacturer or importer of a substance in quantities of one or more tonnes per year to register that substance with the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). Registration involves submitting a dossier of information to ECHA on the substance's properties, uses and risk management measures. It also puts duties on suppliers and users of chemicals, primarily to ensure that the information gained through registration is passed down the supply chain, and effectively applied to control risks. Further information about REACH, its enforcement, and the interaction between REACH and COSHH can be found on the REACH intranet site.

Enforcement Responsibilities

Enforcement functions – who does what

21. HSE carries out enforcement functions under PPPR 2011, PPP(SU)R 2012 and FEPA/COPR in England and Wales.  These functions are conferred on HSE by way of Agency Agreements with the Secretary of State and with the Welsh Ministers.

22. The Agency Agreements do not confer functions in relation to enforcement in Scotland or Northern Ireland. In Scotland, these are carried out by the Scottish Government Rural Affairs, Environment and Services Directorates.

23. The above regulations (PPPR 2011, PPP(SU)R 2012 and FEPA/COPR) are not relevant statutory provisions under HSWA. However, the Agency Agreements state that where HSE is the enforcing authority for health and safety legislation by virtue of Regulation 3 of the Health and Safety (Enforcing Authority) Regulations 1998, it will also enforce pesticides legislation.  Similarly where the local authority is the enforcing authority for health and safety legislation under the 1998 regulations, they will also enforce pesticides legislation.

24. For biocides authorised under BPR, enforcement powers are exercisable by HSE throughout GB as if the regulations were health and safety regulations under HSWA.

Enforcement Responsibilities within HSE – FOD and HID

25. In practice, the majority of complaints referred to HSE relate to concerns about the storage and use of pesticides and will fall to either Field Operations Directorate (FOD) or Hazardous Installations Directorate (HID) depending on the type of premises.

26. For plant protection products, the majority of complaints will relate to storage and use on farms or the activities of commercial contractors; usually drift from spraying operations and therefore fall to FOD.

27. For biocides, the complaints will mainly relate to the storage and use of disinfectants, wood and other preservatives, pest control products (e.g. rodenticides, vertebrate repellents), anti-fouling products, biocidal paints, surface cleaners, etc. Given the wide range of products and the industries in which they may be used, these complaints are likely to fall to FOD, HID or other inspectoral divisions.

28. All incidents resulting in the pollution of watercourses should be referred to the Environment Agency but all cases of spraying near to watercourses, irrespective of any damage to aquatic life, should also be investigated by FOD.

Enforcement Responsibilities within HSE – Chemicals Regulation Directorate (CRD)

29. Within HSE, CRD manages the approvals regime for plant protection products and is responsible for managing enforcement cases that arise from complaints about:

Complainants should be referred to the CRD Information Service, who will respond to calls from all parts of the UK.

FOD’s National Pesticides Enforcement Team (NPET) may be involved in any subsequent investigation/follow up.

30. CRD is also responsible for coordinating the investigation of all cases of alleged poisoning of wildlife under the Wildlife Incident Investigation Scheme (WIIS) including cases that arise from the approved use, misuse or abuse of pesticides.  The scheme is not restricted to wild animals and birds but also covers bees, livestock and domestic animals.  The Regulatory Improvement and Specialist Services Team in Natural England and, in some cases FOD’s NPET will assist CRD with these investigations.  All suspected cases of illegal poisoning should be reported to Natural England.  Similar schemes operate in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland but do not involve HSE.

31. CRD also manages the approvals regime for biocides. The majority of complaints about advertisement, sale or supply of biocides are referred to local authorities, although HSE will be the enforcing authority in certain cases. 

Enforcement Responsibilities – Local authorities

32. LAs are responsible for enforcement (in premises for which they are the enforcing authority) that arise from complaints about:

Enforcement Responsibilities – Others

33. A number of other agencies are authorised to enforce pesticides legislation, including Natural England and the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR).

34. HSE/LAs do not have enforcement responsibility for activity relating to a person in the course of an undertaking for which the ORR is made the enforcing authority by regulation 3(1) of the Health and Safety (Enforcing Authority for Railways and other Guided Transport Systems) Regulations 2006 (read together with any agreement made pursuant to section 2 of, and paragraph 7 of Schedule 3 to, the Railways Act 2005).

35. The Environment Agency (EA) (in England and Wales) and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) deal with all reports of water pollution, including those resulting in the distress or death of fish.  In all other cases of alleged or potential environmental damage resulting from pesticide storage or use, the notifier should be informed that HSE will liaise with either the EA or SEPA, as appropriate.

36. In cases of doubt, inspectors and complaints officers should consult CRD’s Information Service.

Powers of Authorised Officers

37. Inspectors are authorised to exercise powers under the relevant pesticides legislation and are provided with a certificate of authorisation (e.g. a warrant) which will set out their powers.  HSE authorises Inspectors under:

pursuant to its Agency Agreements with the Secretary of State and the Welsh Ministers.

38. Authorised persons have the powers under PPPR 2011 and PPP(SU)R 2012 to:

39. The power to seize or dispose of pesticides or anything treated with a pesticide has also been delegated to HSE but not to authorised FOD Inspectors. Appendix 1 provides details on the protocol FOD inspectors must follow before taking any steps to seize or dispose of pesticides. This protocol does not apply to CRD or LA inspectors.

40. The above powers vary slightly to those under FEPA and are significantly different to those under s20 HSWA – both of which may be used for biocide-related enforcement. Inspectors should familiarise themselves with the relevant legislation before taking action. Where there is any doubt, they should contact CRD’s Information Service or the Sector.

41. Most offences under PPPR 2011, PPP(SU)R 2012 and FEPA are triable either way. Offences in PPPR 2011 and PPP(SU)R 2012 that are only triable summarily are:

Prosecution is initiated and pursued in the same way as under HSWA.  However for offences liable to summary conviction only, inspectors should ensure that proceedings are brought within six months of the date of the alleged offence.

42. Under PPPR 2011 and PPP(SU)R 2012 authorised persons have the right of audience in Magistrates Courts in England and Wales. This is a different to FEPA, where inspectors do not have the right of audience and Solicitor Agents should be appointed to conduct proceedings. 

Enforcement notices

43. There is one type of Enforcement Notice for each of the three sets of non-HSWA legislation relating to pesticides (PPPR 2011, PPP(SU)R 2011 and FEPA).

44. Inspectors should note that ‘improvement type’ Enforcement Notices are not restricted to a 21 day minimum period following service during which there is a right of appeal, as there is no appeal process in PPPR 2011/PPP(SU)R 2012/FEPA. However recipients do have the right to seek a Judicial Review of an inspector’s decisions and actions.

45. Failure to comply with a Notice is an offence and is a summary offence.

46. For biocides authorised under BPR, then an appropriate HSWA notice should be issued.

Enforcement of pesticide legislation

Product Conditions of Approval

47. Pesticides can only be placed on the market, stored or used in GB if they have been approved for these or other, more specific purposes e.g. research.  The approval process is managed by CRD in respect of both plant protection products and biocides.

48. As part of the approval process, conditions are laid down for every pesticide product and each is given a unique approval number.  These conditions are known as the product’s ‘Conditions of Approval’ and should be printed on the product label in the ‘Important Information Box’, or for BPR/COPR-approved biocides in the ‘Statutory Conditions of Use’ box.

49. Failure to comply with any of these conditions or to place on the market, use or store an unapproved product is an offence.

50. A database of approved plant protection products can be found on the CRD plant protection website or by contacting CRD’s Information Service.  Similarly, details of approved biocides can be found on the HSE biocides website or by contacting the Biocides Helpdesk.

Product Labels

51. The information in the ‘Important Information Box’ will include:

52. Inspectors should note that pesticide products are now subject to the provisions of the Chemicals (Hazard, Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 2009 (CHIP4).

Sustainable Use Requirements (plant protection products only)

53. In addition to the product’s conditions of approval, there are also a number of specific requirements in PPP(SU)R 2012 which must be complied with by those seeking to use, store, sell or purchase any plant protection product (PPP). Failure to comply with any of these requirements is also an offence.

54. These measures are intended to ensure that those who work with PPPs are competent for the job, that their equipment is fit for purpose, that they have the necessary information, and take the necessary precautions, to minimise the risks. The regulations require that:

55. A table of the potential offences likely to be dealt with by inspectors in relation to pesticides is included at Appendix 2.

Application of the EMM

56. HSE’s Enforcement Management Model (EMM) is a framework which helps inspectors make enforcement decisions in line with HSE’s Enforcement Policy Statement (EPS). The EPS sets out the principles inspectors should apply when determining what enforcement action to take in response to breaches of health and safety legislation.

57. The original EMM was drafted to deal with risks to safety.  Application of the EMM to general health issues and specifically to the health risks from chemicals has been further addressed in OC130/5 “EMM General Guidance on Application to Health Risks” and OC273/19 “EMM Application to Chemical Risks“.

58. The EMM allows inspectors to be flexible and to consider other factors such as the duty-holder and strategic factors. Factors not covered within the EMM can still be considered and should be recorded in the management review. The ability to override or adapt the EMM is part of its effectiveness. The EMM is a simple two-dimensional linear model designed to aid consistency and so cannot truly capture all the nuances and complexities of discretionary decision-making in all circumstances. It is crucial that inspectors’ discretion is not confined to the boundaries of the model.

59. Inspectors should apply this guidance:

60. Where inspection or investigation highlights problems with both risk-based and compliance/administrative elements or permissioning through the conditions of authorisation of the product, inspectors should decide on action principally in relation to the control of risk.  However, all the factors will need to be considered in reaching a final enforcement decision.

Human Health and COSHH

61. Given the wide variety of types of pesticide products and their various additional chemical co-formulants (constituents) it is difficult to give generic guidance relating to human health risk.

62. The pesticide regimes are based on a system of product approval or authorisation.  As part of the approval process, applications are subjected to a rigorous evaluation covering a range of matters including risk to operators (users), bystanders (members of the public) and the environment.

63. Given this evaluation, the regimes are predicated on the assumption that an approved product, stored or used in accordance with the specified Conditions of Approval and the general requirements of PPP(SU)R 2012 (for storage, use, aerial application. etc) applicable to the activity should not pose significant risk to the health of human beings, creatures or plants (other than the target species) or to the environment.

64. Whilst the generic risks to human health from a product will have been assessed and guidance on control measures generated by the approvals process, the particular circumstances under which a pesticide is to be used still need to be considered as part of a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to health under COSHH.  Compliance with the Conditions of Approval and other requirements should not be accepted as proof of adequate control but together with other relevant information such as that contained in Safety Data Sheets (SDS) will inform the COSHH assessment which should address the risk from the specific way(s) in which the product is being handled and used.

65. Inspectors should note that the product label will contain much of the information required to assess the quality of a COSHH assessment.  In practice, the approval and the directions for use on the product label are based on an evaluation of the product formulation as a whole and not on individual components.

66. Determination of enforcement action for risks to human health associated with pesticides is the same as for risks from any other substance hazardous to health. The COSHH assessment in conjunction with the advice given in OCs 130/5 and 273/19 will lead to a judgement on the actual risk to health.

67. Generally, the risk to human health from the storage or use of pesticides will be minor.  However, in some cases the risk may be significant and in exceptional cases serious.

68. Inspectors should refer to the EMM to assess the risk gap (Table 2.1) and then determine the initial enforcement expectation (Table 5.1) in the usual way. 

Compliance and administrative arrangements

69. Compliance and Administrative Arrangements are those legal requirements which are not in themselves risk based i.e. do not directly result in the control of risk.  These arrangements are generally defined by law or supporting approved Codes of Practice.  Examples of potential offences of this type include supplying, storing or using an unapproved pesticide, and exceeding the Maximum Residue Level (MRL).  European Community (EC) Statutory MRLs are trading standards set under EC Regulation 396/2005 and listed in Annexes to that Regulation.  Where these EC MRLs are set everyone involved in the marketing of food or feed within the EU must comply with them. MRLs only apply to commodities once they are placed on the market, i.e. they do not apply to crops in the field.  Where a plant protection product active substance is not listed under regulation 396/2005 a default MRL level of 0.01 mg/kg applies.

70. The presence of residues of an active substance of a plant protection product below the MRL, even where that active substance is not approved in the UK is not a breach of the regulations governing MRLs and such commodities may be legally placed on the market, although such residues may evidence illegal use under pesticides regulations.  Where an MRL breach is sufficiently serious and the residue in the commodity poses a risk to human health HSE will co-operate with the Department of Heath to ensure affected commodities are removed from the market place.  Enforcement powers in relation to MRLs are established in Schedule 1 of the Pesticides (Maximum Residues Levels) Regulations 2008 SI No 2570 and inspectors may be warranted under Regulation 8(2) to exercise these powers which are similar to those contained in PPPR 2011.

71. Professional users of plant protection products are required under Article 67 of Regulation 1107/2009 to keep records, for at least 3 years, of the plant protection products they use.  The records must as a minimum contain the name (including authorisation number) of the plant protection product, the time and the dose of application, the area and the crop where the plant protection product was used.  Failure to keep such records is an offence under PPPR 2011 Regulation 23.

72. In practice these issues should be handled in exactly the same way under pesticide legislation as under other health and safety law.  Inspectors should refer for guidance to the EMM Step 4 and, in particular, to Table 4 ‘Compliance and Administrative Arrangements’ and Table 5.2 ‘Compliance with Administrative Arrangements: Initial Enforcement Expectation’ to determine the initial enforcement expectation.

Permissioning arrangements

73. In the case of illegal marketing of pesticides by those who hold an authorisation it would be appropriate to apply the permissioning section of the EMM. 


74. The defined standard for an activity involving an approved pesticide product is that it should be used in strict accordance with the product’s Conditions of Approval and the appropriate requirements set out in PPP(SU)R 2012.  Additionally there is guidance on the use of pesticides in the Codes of Practice which may be published by the relevant Competent Authority.

75. Established and interpretative standards include HSE guidance HSG251 ‘Fumigation – Health and safety guidance for employers and technicians carrying out fumigation operations’, Agriculture Information Sheet (AIS)16 ‘Guidance on storing pesticides for farmers and other professional users’ and AIS22 ‘Gassing of rabbits and vertebrate pests’.

76. In practice, if duty holders are complying with relevant guidance, the residual risk from the storage and/or use of pesticides should lie within the Nil/Negligible range of the EMM.

Environmental issues

77. Generally, inspectors are neither expert nor experienced in environmental toxicology, assessing environmental risk or in determining the appropriate enforcement level for environmental protection matters.  HSE’s EMM cannot be applied directly and fully to environmental risks because the ‘consequence’ definitions in the EMM are based on the effects on humans.

78. Decisions on environmental issues should therefore be based on the instructions in the EMM for dealing with Compliance and Administrative Arrangements. However, the principles of proportionality to risk and to the extent of any breach that are contained in the EPS and the EMM, are applicable generally to all our enforcement activities, including those in the environmental area.

79. Enforcement decisions may be made at any stage of the investigation but the decision to prosecute will rest with CRD.  Enforcement decisions should be based on risk levels and compliance with the benchmark standards (referred to in paragraphs above) with advice on risks to wildlife being sought from Natural England and/or CRD.  In these cases, it is also appropriate to take into account the intent to cause harm and to classify incidents in terms of the approved use, the misuse or the abuse of pesticides.

80. In the case of spraying pesticides near to watercourses, the initial enforcement action should be determined by assessing the level of compliance with the DEFRA guidance ‘LERAP: Horizontal Boom Sprayers’ and ‘LERAP: Broadcast Air-assisted Sprayers’.  These are defined/established standards for the protection of water courses in connection with the application of pesticides to arable crops and orchards/hops respectively.  Reference should also be made to the advice in the DEFRA Code of Practice in any case in which water may have been contaminated.  However, Inspectors should be aware that some pesticides have specific approval for treating aquatic weeds.

The final enforcement decision

81. Inspectors should first consider duty holder factors that may vary the initial enforcement expectation and then the strategic factors, which may influence the final enforcement conclusion in line with Section 5 of the EMM in order to reach a final enforcement decision.

82. Inspectors should complete Form EMM1 in all cases. For environmental incidents, Sections 2 and 3 will not be relevant.

Contact details

83. Below is a list of contact details for helpdesks, websites and databases which have been referred to in this guidance:

Chemicals Regulation Directorate (CRD)

CRD Information Service

Tel. 01904 455775 or email

Biocides Helpdesk

Tel. 0151 951 4669 or email

Pesticides databases

Biocides database (BPR approved)

Biocides database (COPR approved)

Natural England (single contact point for all UK wildlife/poisoning incidents)

Incident reporting centre

Tel. 0800 321 600

Environment Agency

Incident reporting centre

Tel. 0800 807 060

84. This guidance had been produced jointly by CRD and the Agriculture Sector. FOD Inspectors should direct any enquiries on this guidance to either the Agriculture Sector (email or to CRD (email

Appendix 1 – Protocol for the seizure/disposal of plant protection products or biocides

Schedule 1 of PPPR 2011, Schedule 3 of PPP(SU)R 2012 and regulation 7 of COPR state that under specified circumstances, authorised persons/Ministers may seize or dispose of a plant protection product or COPR approved biocide and, where it is an illegal import, require it to be removed from GB.

The powers to seize, dispose or remove a pesticide or plant protection product from GB (described above) can be used by HSE inspectors only on a case-by-case basis on specific application to the Executive.

The following procedure for applying for delegation of the powers to seize, dispose of or remove from the UK has been agreed with the HSE Secretariat.

Wherever practicable, the request should be made by a Band 0.  It is acknowledged that there may be exceptional circumstances e.g. where time is critical and no Band 0 is available, in which an application from a Band 1 will be considered.

The application should consist of:

Any request for further advice, guidance or help in developing an application should be referred to the Agriculture Sector.

Appendix 2 – Examples of potential offences

Part 1 – Plant Protection Products, authorised under PPPR 2011

Potential offence (this list is not exhaustive) Breach / Offence

Use – Use of unapproved products

Breach: PPPR Regulation 9
Offence: PPPR Regulation 23(a)

Use – Any failure to comply with the conditions of authorisation or specified on the product label in relation to use

Breach: PPPR Regulation 12
Offence: PPPR Regulation 23(a)

Use - Any failure to ensure that all reasonable precautions are taken to protect human health and the environment

Breach: PPP(SU)R Regulation 10(1)(a)
Offence: PPP(SU)R Regulation 24(c)

Use - Failure to keep product to target

Breach: PPP(SU)R Regulation 10(1)(b)
Offence: PPP(SU)R Regulation 24(c)

Use – Failure to comply with Reg 10(1)(c) which requires persons using a PPP in ‘listed places’ to ensure the amount and frequency of use are as low as reasonably practicable.

Breach: PPP(SU)R Regulation 10(1)(c)
Offence: PPP(SU)R Regulation 24(c)

Use – IF the PPP represents a risk to the aquatic environment/drinking water and there is more than one authorised product THEN the person must use or cause to use the least dangerous product. Failure to do so is an offence.

Breach: PPP(SU)R Regulation 10(3)
Offence: PPP(SU)R Regulation 24(c)

Use – Aerial spraying – Any failure to comply with Reg 15 (permit authorisation and permit conditions).

Breach: PPP(SU)R Regulation 15
Offence: PPP(SU)R Regulation 24(h)

Record keeping – Failure by user to keep records of products used for a period of at least 3 years.

Breach: PPPR Regulation 19
Offence: PPPR Regulation 23(a)

Record keeping – Failure of producers, distributors, etc to keep records of products placed on the market/sold for a period of at least 5 years.

Breach: PPPR Regulation 19
Offence: PPPR Regulation 23(a)

Training/certification – using a PPP without a training certificate and not under supervision.

Breach: PPP(SU)R Regulation 8(1)
Offence: PPP(SU)R Regulation 24(a)

Training/certification – causing or permitting someone who does not hold a training certificate or is not under supervision to use a PPP.

Breach: PPP(SU)R Regulation 8(2)
Offence: PPP(SU)R Regulation 24(a)

Storage - Unapproved products.

Breach: PPP(SU)R Regulation 17(6)
Offence: PPP(SU)R Regulation 24(j)

Storage - Inadequate pesticide store.

Breach: PPP(SU)R Regulation 17(5)
Offence: PPP(SU)R Regulation 24(j)

Handling and Storage - Any failure to ensure that all reasonable precautions are taken to protect human health and the environment when storing handling, diluting, mixing, disposing of, cleaning equipment, etc (see Reg 17 for full list).

Breach: PPP(SU)R Regulation 17(1)
Offence: PPP(SU)R Regulation 24(j)

Handling and Storage – Failure to comply with Reg 17(3) or 17(4) relating to mixing two or more PPPs.

Breach: PPP(SU)R Regulation 17(3) or 17(4)
Offence: PPP(SU)R Regulation 24(j)

Part 2 – Biocide products, authorised under BPR or which operate under a Certificate of Exemption

Potential offence (this list is not exhaustive) Breach / Offence

Use - Use of unapproved biocides.

Breach: BPR Regulation 8(2)(a)
Offence: HSWA Section 33(1)(c)

Use - Any failure to comply with the conditions of authorisation or specified on the product label in relation to use.

Breach: BPR Regulation 8(2)(b)
Offence: HSWA Section 33(1)(c)

Use – Any failure to use a biocidal product in a manner which involves rational application to limit the use to the minimum necessary for effective control or the target organisms.

Breach: BPR Regulation 8(2)(b)
Offence: HSWA Section 33(1)(c)

Part 3 – Biocide products, authorised under COPR

Potential offence (this list is not exhaustive) Breach / Offence

Use - Use of unapproved biocides.

Breach: COPR Regulation 4(5)(a)
Offence: FEPA Section 16(12)(a)

Use - Any failure to comply with the conditions of authorisation or specified on the product label in relation to use.

Breach: COPR Regulation 4(5)(b)(i)
Offence: FEPA Section 16(12)(a)

Use - Any failure to ensure that all reasonable precautions are taken to protect human health and the environment.

Breach: COPR Regulation 4(5)(b)(ii)
Offence: FEPA Section 16(12)(a)

Training/competence - use by person who is not trained or competent.

Breach: COPR Regulation 4(5)(b)(ii)
Offence: FEPA Section 16(12)(a)

Storage - Unapproved products.

Breach: COPR Regulation 4(4)(a)
Offence: FEPA Section 16(12)(a)

Updated 2012-07-18