New Carrier authorisation format in Scotland.

[AWDMcIntyre]

The carrier.registrationNumber field description in the Receipt API spec lists the recognised Scottish formats as current WCR/R/1234567 and previous SCO/, SEA/, SNO/, SWE/, WCR/. This no longer reflects the current SEPA position.

SEPA has migrated waste carrier/broker/dealer registrations onto the Environmental Authorisations (Scotland) Regulations 2018 (EASR) framework. Registrations issued under EASR now use the format EAS/R/9999999 (e.g. EAS/R/6100732), replacing the older WCR/R/9999999 references.
This is a live change — I hold a registration reissued under EASR under the new format

The field is correctly typed as a nullable string with no enforced pattern, so this doesn't currently cause submission failures — the issue is purely that the descriptive guidance is out of date. Flagging it for two reasons:

Those in Scotland reading the spec will see their current registration format described as unrecognised, which is confusing.
If a validation pattern is ever derived from this description, EAS/R/ registrations would be rejected until the list is updated.

[ChrisNicholson30]

WCR/R/ registrations submit fine against DEFRA today, for the exact same reason EAS/R/ does — the API enforces no pattern on carrier.registrationNumber. So neither the old nor the new format "fails the system" at the DEFRA level. An operator with a WCR/R/1234567 number sails through.

Based on my testing.

[AWDMcIntyre]

Cheers Chris

Tbh noticed the acceptance list surfaced to top of the discussions board and eas is accounted for. Also noticed another site license I deal with that has SEPA2017 in the number. That would probably have been my next question. All sorted now.

[ChrisNicholson30]

Excellent.

[stuartpollicott]

Can you please double check your response @ChrisNicholson30 as this is incorrect and you are pattern checking - API enforces no pattern on carrier.registrationNumber

{
"validation": {
"errors": [
{
"key": "carrier.registrationNumber",
"errorType": "InvalidFormat",
"message": ""carrier.registrationNumber" must be in a valid England, SEPA, NRW or NI format"
}
]
}
}

[stuartpollicott]

It would be more ideal if you were ready to check against a master database and provide a validation endpoint for us to implement at source systems, at the moment we are duplicating your validation rules which aren't correct against many carriers.licenses we hold.

[ChrisNicholson30]

@stuartpollicott you are correct, I do apologise. I have now updated my system, I was to believe it enforces a pattern. Many Thanks...