Official Statistics

Section 70 Weights and Measures report 2024 to 2025

Updated 14 August 2025

1) Introduction

Under Section 70 of the Weights and Measures Act 1985, Local Weights and Measures Authorities (LWMAs) in Great Britain have a statutory duty to report to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade on the level of enforcement activity undertaken over a 12-month period.

This report presents data submitted by LWMAs covering activities undertaken between 1 April 2024 and 31 March 2025, with comparative commentary back to the 2017–2018 reporting year. It outlines where the majority of regulatory activity took place and highlights key concerns raised by LWMAs. These insights are intended to support the prioritisation of weights and measures regulatory and enforcement work. The accompanying data tables also include a more limited set of historical data reaching as far back as 2012–2013.

The data provides an overview of inspection and enforcement activity across Great Britain. However, it should not be used to compare individual LWMAs, as differences in resourcing and prioritisation policies may influence the nature and volume of activity reported.

Inspections covered a range of weighing and measuring equipment types, including automatic weighing instruments (AWI), non-automatic weighing instruments (NAWI), liquid fuel measuring instruments (LFMI), liquid fuel tanker meter measuring systems (LFTMMS), and intoxicating liquor measuring instruments (ILMI).

1.1) Returns received

A total of 189 returns were received for the reporting year 2024–2025, representing 99% of those requested.

View the ODS file containing the full dataset.

Some LWMAs submit combined returns, so the total number of returns requested may vary from year to year. To account for fluctuations in the return rate, averages or percentage-based figures have been used where possible. Notes on the data analysis methodology are provided in Section 6 Annexes.

1.2) Key points

1.2.1) Weights and measures activity

The overall number of inspections increased by 49% in 2024–2025 compared to 2023–2024, driven primarily by a 104% increase in ILMI inspections. It marks a continued recovery from the decline observed during the 2020–2021 and 2021–2022 periods, which were affected by COVID-19 restrictions.

In 2024–2025, there were 764 local weights and measures inspectors, a 2% decrease from the previous year, and a decrease of 14% compared to 2017–2018.

1.2.2) Compliance of weighing and measuring equipment

The equipment types with the highest rates of verification mark removal in 2024–2025 were AWI, weighbridges and NAWI>30kg<5T, of these, weighbridges and NAWI were included in the top 3 technical concerns reported by LWMAs.

1.2.3) Measuring metrological compliance in transactions

The overall proportion of businesses found to be compliant at first inspection remained stable at 63% in 2024–2025 compared to 64% in 2023–2024. Meanwhile, the proportion of businesses assisted into compliance increased from 16% to 19%.

2) Compliance of weighing and measuring equipment

2.1) Number of inspections

Figure 1. Number of pieces of equipment inspected each year, 2017–2018 to 2024–2025

Figure 1 shows that the number of inspections fell sharply in 2020–2021 and 2021–2022 due to the restrictions implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic. Since then, overall inspection activity has increased.

In 2024–2025, the overall number of inspections increased by 49% compared to 2023–2024, driven primarily by a 104% increase in ILMI inspections, which also showed the greatest change since 2017–2018, with an increase of 53%. 

Equipment inspections for most groups remain below pre-pandemic figures, specifically those recorded in 2017–2018, with the exception of AWI and ILMI, which have surpassed pre-pandemic figures.

2.2) Outcomes of inspections

Figure 2 shows the percentage of reported non-compliant equipment for which a 28-day notice was issued. ^{[footnote 1]} Figure 3 shows the percentage of equipment for which the verification mark was removed. It is important to note that a single piece of equipment may be subject to more than one enforcement outcome. For example, as outlined in the guidance accompanying the returns form, a piece of equipment may initially receive a 28-day notice and subsequently have its verification mark removed if the issue is not resolved.

Figure 2. Percentage of equipment inspected which had 28 days’ notice issued in 2023–2024 and 2024–2025

Overall, most equipment types experienced an increase in the issuance of 28-day notices in 2024–2025. The exceptions were AWI and LFTMMS, which showed a decrease.

It is important to note that certain equipment types, such as AWIs and LFTMMS, are more susceptible to fluctuations in these figures because of the relatively small number of instruments inspected.

Figure 3. Percentage of equipment inspected which had the verification mark removed in 2023–2024 and 2024–2025

Figure 3 shows that AWI, weighbridges, and NAWI>30kg<5T had the highest rates of verification mark removal in 2024–2025.

It is important to note that these higher rates may be influenced by the relatively low number of inspections conducted for some equipment types, such as AWIs and LFTMMS, which makes the percentages more susceptible to fluctuation.

There were no inspections resulting in prosecutions or cautions in 2024–2025.

3) Measuring metrological compliance in transactions

Figure 4. Average number of businesses that were visited in a year across LWMAs in 2023–2024 and 2024–2025

A similar pattern of activity was observed in 2024–2025 to 2023–2024. The most frequently visited type of business continued to be retail outlets, accounting for 82% of all businesses visited. In contrast, importers of packaged goods and medical institutions were the least visited.

On average, LWMAs visited more retail outlets than in the previous year. The number of visits to other business types remained largely consistent between the two years.

Figure 5. Business compliance (%) with proportion compliant without assistance and proportion assisted into compliance in 2024–2025

Figure 5 shows the total proportions of compliance for each business type in 2024–2025^{[footnote 2]}. Each bar is divided into two segments. The lower segment represents businesses that were already compliant at the time of inspection. The upper segment shows those that were assisted into compliance^{[footnote 3]}.

Across all businesses, the total proportion of compliance, combining those found compliant at first inspection and those assisted into compliance, was 82% in 2024–2025. This is a small increase from 2023–2024, when 80% of businesses were compliant.

The overall proportion of businesses found to be compliant at first inspection remained stable at 63% in 2024–2025 compared to 64% in 2023–2024. Meanwhile, the proportion of businesses assisted into compliance increased from 16% to 19%.

Medical institutions showed the lowest proportion of compliance in both years (59% in 2023–2024, and 70% in 2024–2025). However, low numbers inspected will magnify any changes. There was an increase in the proportion of compliance for most business types in 2024–2025, with the exception of packaging plants. Retail outlets had the second lowest proportion of compliance (79%). This corresponds with the top 3 concerns reported by LWMAs (see Section 5), as NAWIs, commonly used in retail outlets, were among the most frequently cited concerns.

A low level of compliance may reflect the intelligence-led model ^{[footnote 4]} that authorities are following. The highest proportions of compliance were shown by businesses selling bulk by weight or volume and packaging plants (97% and 95%, respectively).

4) Staffing

Figure 6. Total number of local weights and measures inspectors, FTEs, and CTSI Legal Metrology Module students, 2017–2018 to 2024–2025

In 2024–2025, there were 764 local weights and measures inspectors and 209 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff. The overall trend ^{[footnote 5]}since 2019–2020 has remained relatively stable. However, compared to 2017–2018, the total number of inspectors has decreased by 14%, and the number of FTE staff engaged in weights and measures work has declined by 10%.

It should be noted that the dip in staffing figures reported for 2018–2019 is attributed to a lower response rate that year, resulting in incomplete data from LWMAs.

In 2024–2025, 94 officers were studying for the Chartered Trading Standards Institute (CTSI) Legal Metrology Module. This is down from 104 in the previous year but still reflects an increase of 224% since 2017–2018.

Compared with 2023–2024, this represents a decrease of 2% in the number of inspectors, an increase of 1% in FTE staff, and a decrease of 10% in staff studying for CTSI Metrology.

View the ODS file containing the full dataset.

Table 1. Average number of local weights and measures inspectors and FTE staff by local authority type, 2020–2021 to 2024–2025

Type	2020–21	2021–22	2022–23	2023–24	2024–25
County Council	9.7 inspectors, 2.1 FTE	9.9 inspectors, 2.0 FTE	8.8 inspectors, 1.6 FTE	9.0 inspectors, 1.8 FTE	7.6 inspectors, 1.6 FTE
London Borough	1.7 inspectors, 0.5 FTE	2.0 inspectors, 0.7 FTE	1.9 inspectors, 0.8 FTE	1.7 inspectors, 0.6 FTE	1.7 inspectors, 0.5 FTE
Metropolitan District	3.2 inspectors, 0.7 FTE	3.3 inspectors, 0.5 FTE	3.1 inspectors, 0.6 FTE	3.1 inspectors, 0.6 FTE	3.2 inspectors, 0.8 FTE
Scottish Unitary	3.8 inspectors, 1.7 FTE	4.1 inspectors, 1.7 FTE	4.0 inspectors, 1.6 FTE	4.2 inspectors, 2.0 FTE	4.2 inspectors, 2.0 FTE
Unitary Authority	3.9 inspectors, 0.9 FTE	3.6 inspectors, 0.9 FTE	3.9 inspectors, 0.8 FTE	4.1 inspectors, 0.7 FTE	3.4 inspectors, 0.7 FTE
Welsh Unitary	4.2 inspectors, 1.3 FTE	4.1 inspectors, 1.2 FTE	3.9 inspectors, 1.1 FTE	4.0 inspectors, 1.4 FTE	4.6 inspectors, 1.5 FTE

Source: OPSS data collection.

Staffing levels across most local authority types remained broadly stable over the five-year period from 2020–2021 through to 2024–2025. County Councils saw a decline in both inspector numbers and FTEs in 2024–2025. In contrast, Welsh Unitary Authorities recorded their highest levels of inspectors and FTEs in 2024–25. These patterns reflect differing local priorities and resource allocations across Great Britain.

Staffing and resources are also discussed in the ‘Top 3 concerns’ section. Figure 6 and Table 1 may help contextualise the issues raised there.

5) Top 3 concerns

In 2024–2025, the majority (86%) of returns provided information in this section. The concerns reported for 2024–2025 are presented alongside those from 2020–2021, 2021–2022, 2022–2023 and 2023–2024 for comparison. Not all concerns related specifically to pieces of equipment or inspections, so the concerns raised the most have been separated into strategic and technical concerns.

5.1) Top 3 strategic concerns

Table 2. Top 3 strategic concerns reported by LWMAs, 2020–2021 to 2024–2025

2020–21	2021–22	2022–23	2023–24	2024–25
Staffing (24%)	Staffing (59%)	Staffing (59%)	Staffing (74%)	Staffing (62%)
Covid 19 (20%)	Legal metrology not prioritised (57%)	Legal metrology not prioritised (48%)	Legal metrology not prioritised (30%)	Legal metrology not prioritised (47%)
Legal metrology not prioritised (9%)	Lack of targeting and intelligence (17%)	Lack of targeting and intelligence (21%)	Lack of targeting and intelligence (13%)	Lack of targeting and intelligence (10%)

Source: OPSS data collection.

Staffing

Challenges raised by LWMAs in relation to staffing, capability and training represent the most common cause of concern (62%). These included:

• staff shortages
• recruitment and retention challenges, particularly for new inspectors
• inadequate succession planning, with a growing number of experienced officers approaching retirement age
• competency gaps, due to a growing mismatch between numbers and level of experience of joiners and leavers, and insufficient training
• limited training available to trainees and new recruits, particularly due to financial constraints

Legal metrology not prioritised

Just under half of the LWMAs (47%) reported that in 2024–2025 they were unable to deliver sufficient levels of market surveillance and enforcement due to financial constraints and limited direction from central government.

‘Legal metrology not prioritised’ was mentioned both within the context of LWMAs and wider, including central government. Some returns mentioned the lack of a central government steer or direction on legal metrology with no minimum target for the amount of metrology work to be undertaken by LWMAs. This was aligned with staffing challenges in some returns so the top concerns may have overlapping themes.

Lack of targeting and intelligence

A minority of LWMAs (10%) signalled a lack of available data and intelligence about weights and measures contraventions and Legal Metrology related risks, which significantly limited their ability to take informed operational decisions and make an effective and efficient contribution in the legal metrology space. Also referenced was a lack of consumer reporting and intelligence.

5.2) Top 3 technical concerns

Table 3. Top 3 technical concerns reported by LWMAs, 2020–2021 to 2024–2025

2020–21	2021–22	2022–23	2023–24	2024–25
NAWI (8%)	NAWI (14%)	NAWI (16%)	NAWI (6%)	Testing equipment (21%)
Weighbridges (6%)	Weighbridges (12%)	Weighbridges (13%)	Weighbridges (26%)	NAWI compliance (19%)
ILMI (6%)	ILMI (10%)	ILMI (8%)	ILMI (6%)	Weighbridges (8%)

Source: OPSS data collection.

The top 3 technical categories changed this year for the first time since 2017–2018 as issues relating to the ILMI no longer constituted one of the top 3 concerns reported by the LWMAs.

Testing equipment

21% of LWMAs raised concerns in relation to testing equipment. These included:

• inadequate or insufficient testing equipment, particularly in relation to liquid fuel tanker meter measuring systems
• inadequate facilities
• obsolete software
• unaffordable cost of maintaining sufficient testing capacity in the future

Non-automatic weighing instruments (NAWI)

About the same portion of LWMAs (19%) reported that, when they were able to conduct inspections, they found some NAWI not compliant, unmarked, unstamped, or inaccurate.

Weighbridges

Compared to previous years, the percentage of LWMAs raising concerns about weighbridges has dropped significantly, particularly compared to 2023–2024. In 2024–2025, 8% of LWMAs expressed concerns about their capacity to test weighbridges due to lack of specialist equipment, particularly due to inadequate financial resources.

6) Annexes

Annex A: Section 70 process

The following information was requested from LWMAs:

Measuring compliance of weighing and measuring equipment

For the following types of equipment:

• liquid fuel dispensers (LFMI)
• liquid fuel tanker meter measuring systems (LFTMMS)
• weighbridges and scales over 5 tonnes (Weighbridges)
• non-automatic weighing instruments under 30 kg (NAWI <30 kg)
• non-automatic weighing instruments over 30 kg and under 5 tonnes (NAWI >30 kg <5 t)
• automatic weighing instruments (AWI)
• intoxicating liquor measuring instruments (ILMI)

The data collected included:

• number of pieces of equipment inspected
• number of pieces of equipment verified
• number found to be incorrect, with a 28-day notice issued
• number found to be incorrect, with the verification mark removed
• number resulting in prosecution or caution
• number found outside the limits of error

Non-compliance of a weighing or measuring instrument may result from:

• failure to follow the required conformity assessment procedures (e.g. the instrument bears incorrect conformity markings), or
• failure to meet essential requirements relating to risk (e.g. the measurement error exceeds the permissible range)

Measuring metrological compliance in transactions

For each of the following types of businesses:

• packaging plants
• importers of packaged goods
• businesses selling bulk products by weight or volume
• retail outlets
• medical institutions

The following data was collected:

• number of businesses visited
• number of businesses found to be compliant at initial inspection
• number of businesses assisted into compliance by the LWMA

Staffing

The data collected included:

• number of inspectors of weights and measures
• number of full-time equivalent (FTE) staff engaged in weights and measures work
• number of staff registered and actively studying for the Charted Trading Standards Institute (CTSI) Legal Metrology module

Top concerns

The data collected included:

• the top 3 areas of concern identified by each LWMA

Annex B: Notes on the data

The full dataset of individual returns submitted by LWMAs is published alongside this report as open data.

Caution should be exercised when comparing data in this report with previous years, due to changes in geographical definitions. Additionally, data from earlier years (particularly 2020–2022) may have been affected by the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Where numerical data is presented, the rate of returns may influence the figures. Returns received may reflect areas with greater resources and higher levels of activity, which could skew data. Please note that anomalies in individual LWMA submissions may result in calculated percentages exceeding 100%.

Annex C: Acronyms and initialisms

• AWI: Automatic Weighing Instrument
• CTSI: Chartered Trading Standards Institute
• FTE: Full-time Equivalent
• ILMI: Intoxicating Liquor Measuring Instrument
• LFMI: Liquid Fuel Measuring Instrument
• LFTMMS: Liquid Fuel Tanker Meter Measuring System
• LWMA: Local Weights and Measures Authority
• NAWI: Non-automatic Weighing Instrument
• TSI: Trading Standards Institute

7) More about these statistics

More information about the Section 70 Weights and Measures report and revisions to these statistics can be found in the accompanying Methodology and Quality report

Our statistical practice is regulated by the Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR), which sets the standards of trustworthiness, quality, and value in the Code of Practice for Statistics that all producers of official statistics are expected to follow.

We welcome feedback on how we meet these standards. You can contact us directly, or reach out to OSR by emailing regulation@statistics.gov.uk or visiting the OSR website.

Responsible statistician: Hannah Palmer

Public enquiries: OPSSanalysis@businessandtrade.gov.uk

Footnotes

1. Where measuring equipment does not fully comply with the requirements of the Regulation, but the nature or extent of the non-compliance does not, in the inspector’s opinion, warrant immediate obliteration of the verification mark, the inspector shall issue a notice to the proprietor or person responsible for the equipment. This notice will require that the equipment be corrected within a specified period not exceeding 28 days. If the correction is not made within that period, the inspector shall then obliterate the verification mark. ↩

2. Rates of compliance are expressed as a percentage of businesses visited. While the figures presented can indicate where non-compliance may be occurring, they should not be interpreted as definitive non-compliance rates. ↩

3. Percentages may exceed 100 percent, as it is possible for a business to be assisted into compliance without being physically visited. For example, this may occur through a phone call. ↩

4. Trading Standards services operate using an intelligence-led approach, where enforcement decisions are informed by the analysis of data from multiple sources, including complaints and a business’s compliance history. In addition to targeted enforcement, Trading Standards officers may also conduct routine inspections, for example in line with an annual programme of inspections. ↩

5. While Figure 6 is useful for monitoring year-on-year trends, it may not reflect differences in staffing structures between different types of local authorities. Table 1 has been included to provide additional context on this variation. ↩