search.noResults

search.searching

note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
ADVERTISING FEATURE


Save on tax with Impact’s Zigzag Classifi cation Unit


WHEN a new Loss on Ignition (LOI) testing regime was announced, waste managers were generally sceptical and many feared the development would create extra work and cost more.


Experts feared the infrequency of checks and a lack of consistency between samples, and uncertainty over who would be administering the tests, could leave the proposed system open to abuse.


The Environmental Services Association (ESA) embraced the proposals to regulate landfi ll tax through standardised LOI testing.


Every week, waste managers come to our testing facility in Leicester in search of ways to further separate waste and ensure valuable materials are recovered. By using air separation technology, we can increase revenue and minimise disposal costs.


Most have seen a reduction in their LOI, making them liable for the lower tax amount. However, some waste managers haven’t found this solution and are paying more landfi ll tax unnecessarily.


The transition period for the 15% threshold is over, so we decided to take a look at how industry operators have been aff ected, and what they are doing to mitigate against higher taxes.


Our study managed to capture input from waste managers, who responded to 14 questions relating to LOI regulations.


Despite being compulsory for operators to have a sample of waste tested to ensure they are paying the correct amount of landfi ll tax, 30% of businesses have not yet had waste ‘fi nes’ laboratory tested.


80% of waste operators have been hit hard by increased tax since loss on ignition (LOI) regulations were introduced in 2015. These organisations have paid up to an extra 70% in landfi ll tax since the 2015 changes. The study showed the new tax threshold has changed


LOI TESTING SOLUTION LANDFILL DIVERSION


the way waste operators choose to recycle to save money, as 65% stated they are fi nding alternative waste management solutions.


This revealed 62% of waste managers would like clearer information about the tax threshold for waste fi nes, to enable them to pay the right amount and look at new ways to reduce tax liability.


Waste management companies are feeling the pinch of the recent LOI regulations and are looking for ways to reduce their tax exposure.


This urged Impact to develop current recycling solutions to help waste operators reduce landfi ll tax exposure and ensure LOI levels are below 10%... the Impact Zigzag Classifi cation Unit (ZCU) was born.


Impact wanted to fi nd a way to make the testing process simple, quick and cost-eff ective, to provide the easiest way of introducing the ZCU to waste operators to resolve the separation and landfi ll tax quandary.


The testing facility at Impact has been designed so potential customers can bring a sizeable sample along and see realistic results for themselves - off ering a ‘try before you buy’ option.


Paul Lock, MD at Hadley’s Recycling and Waste Management, said:


“We are so pleased with the reduced LOI rate of 6% we get from our material. It’s all down to the effi cient separation of Impact’s ZCU. I would highly recommend this system to all waste operators.”


WASTE SEPARATION 6%


VALUABLE MATERIAL RECOVERY GLASS


METAL PLASTIC GYPSUM TRY BEFORE YOU BUY... 0116 2448855 | sales@impactairsystems.com | www.impactairsystems.com @SkipHireMag SHM July, 2017 63 FINES


LOI rate with the Impact ZCU


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68