The rules that favour water companies
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions
At the beginning of April we revealed how people like Alan Ashmore from Newark had been paying his water company for 25 years for a service he wasn't getting - draining away the surface water from his property into public sewers. It's a service which shows up on most household bills as 'surface water drainage'.
His water company, Severn Trent Water, had given him a refund for just one year's worth of charges. All the water companies in England and Wales are allowed to do the same, because the regulations allow them to do so. But we've found that's not the only way in which the rules favour the water companies.
Jalaj Gothi from North West London is convinced his water bills from Three Valleys Water are double what they should be.
He can't understand why as he does everything he can to keep a track of the water he uses. He has an egg timer on the wall of his bathroom to ensure he never showers for longer than four minutes, and he measures out how much water his child uses in the bath with a bucket. He also checks his meter every weekend to ensure that there are no surprises in his water usage.
Despite this, his bills show his small family uses the same water each year as five adults. Engineers from Three Valleys Water couldn't get to the bottom of it, so he was told that the only other thing to do to help resolve the issue was to have a logger fitted to his water meter. He would have to pay for it, and he was quoted a charge of £200.
No regulation
Jalaj thinks this is unfair, since the water company should sort this out themselves without him having to pay. However, there's no regulation regarding water meter loggers, so companies are able to charge what they like. Most charge about £70, so the figure quoted to Jalaj was almost three times that amount.
Alistair and Alison Lawson have also had problems with their water company, Scottish Water. In December a Scottish Water sewer overflowed, and for 24 hours, tonnes of raw sewage was pumped right across their land.
Alison is training to be in the Scottish dressage team and last year had a competition-standard dressage arena built in the back garden. The arena was flooded and 300 tonnes of sewage had to be taken away.
Though Scottish Water cleared away the solid sewage from their land, the Lawsons had to pay for the clean-up and re-laying of the dressage arena themselves. It cost them £52,000.
They feel angry that Scottish Water haven't taken responsibility for all the money they've had to pay out. Scottish Water did admit that the sewage came from their sewer, but said they don't have to inspect all their apparatus regularly so this was an "unforeseen incident".
In cases like this, water companies are not obliged to pay out compensation. They're only liable where water pipes overflow because they've more control over what goes into those pipes.
MP David Taylor believes that the water regulators, like Ofwat, don't do enough to keep water companies in check, meaning customers often have to pay out. He said he believes that the response from water companies is often inadequate for consumers and that Ofwat are "too close" to the water companies.
Three Valleys Water's response
"Three Valleys Water would like to apologise to Mr Gothi for any inconvenience experienced while trying to resolve issues relating to his water bill. During the past week, we have visited Mr Gothi again to carry out further investigations into possible leaks at his property and to install a logger device on his water meter to track water usage throughout the day. This has been done at no cost to our customer.
"Our investigations have indicated no leaks at the property and no joint supply with neighbours. Results of the water use tracking will be available within two weeks and these will enable us to understand patterns of water use and advise the customer accordingly. As a matter of course, the company alerts customers when it thinks their water usage is higher than it should be and provides information about how to check for leaks and how to conduct a household water-audit to estimate average use.
"Three Valleys Water's charge for a logger and leakage test is £76.60 + VAT, not £200 as the customer had indicated. Three Valleys Water would normally refund this if a problem with their equipment was subsequently found."
"Our top priority is to provide reliable, high-quality water to all of our customers while keeping charges as low as possible - less than 1p for 10 litres of water.
Ofwat's response: Rebates for domestic customers
"There is no legal obligation for companies to backdate any rebate of charges beyond the current charging year. In fact the Water Industry Act of 1991 does not prevent companies from charging for surface water drainage even where customers do not receive the service. Nevertheless, following a requirement from Ofwat, all companies have provided rebates for non-connection since April 2001."
Backdating of fees for domestic customers
"Our recommendation for surface water drainage is similar in cases where customers have been undercharged. Just as any customer who has been overcharged for the service should receive a rebate backdated to the 1 April of the current charging year, in general we recommend that any undercharge should only apply to the 1 April of the charging year in which the mistake was identified."
Meter logging
"The installation of meter loggers in the instance of a metering dispute is not an area that is specifically covered in legislation. It is also not an area that we would specifically regulate. A water company can therefore negotiate a charge for the installation of such as device.
"We would recommend that if a customer believes his or her water meter to be giving a faulty reading that they first check their internal plumbing for any signs of leaks, as the company is not responsible for household's internal plumbing. Also we would suggest that they check to see if the meter appears to be increasing its reading when no taps are running within the house. If the customer believes that the water meter is faulty, we would recommend that they get in touch with their water company. If they are having difficulty resolving a dispute, we would recommend the customer gets in contact with the Consumer Council for Water to advise and investigate."
Sewage Spills (England & Wales) Compensation
"In the Water Industry Act there is a strict liability for escapes of water from the public main but there is no similar liability for escapes of sewage from their sewers. This is because the appointed water and sewerage companies are unable to limit or control discharges of materials into their sewers. It is also recognised that sewers will overflow from time to time during periods of exceptional weather, or where blockages may occur due to inappropriate materials being placed in the sewers (e.g. grease, fat, domestic waste etc.)
"There are of course remedies available where a company is negligent in the operation of their sewers or pumping stations. The Act preserved common law remedies under which damages can be awarded. And, where sewer flooding may be attributable to negligence on the part of a company, it remains open to any person suffering loss to bring an action seeking redress in the civil courts.
"As the economic regulator for the industry we do not and cannot perform the role of loss assessors, nor award compensation for damages - that role is properly reserved to the civil courts."
Ofwat Guidelines for Customers Affected by Sewage
"As part of Ofwat's guidelines for water companies dealing with customers affected by sewage, we recommend the following:
"The company should then provide any clean-up assistance necessary depending on the nature of the incident, the involvement of insurers and the customer's wishes for both internal and external incidents.
"This may include: pumping out sewage from basements or under floor areas; hosing down the affected area; cleaning floors and contaminated areas with disinfectant or providing advice to the customer on what they should do if they choose to clean up themselves."
More detail is available on their website.
Scottish Water's response
"Scottish Water has sympathy for Mr and Mrs Lawson and understands the inconvenience they have suffered as a result of the blockage to the sewer and the flooding of their property. We responded to the flooding in accordance with normal procedures and did everything we could to tackle the problem as quickly as possible. We cleaned Mr and Mrs Lawson's field and offered to clean their dressage arena and advised them that replacing it was not necessary. However, they declined our offer and chose not to take our advice. In light of that, we consider that it would be inappropriate to use customers' money to fund the replacement of Mr and Mrs Lawson's dressage arena. Scottish Water is not in breach of its statutory duty nor liable for the cost of replacing the dressage arena. As a regulated, publicly-owned company, we have to balance the assistance we give to individual customers with the proper use of public funds for all customers. We have been, and continue to be, in dialogue with Mr Lawson and have written to him this week inviting him to a further meeting."
Water Industry Commission for Scotland
"We are disappointed to learn of Mr and Mrs Lawson's situation. While we cannot comment on the details of their case, as the regulator for the provision of water services in Scotland, we work hard with Scottish Water to ensure they provide a high quality service and value for money to both household and business customers.
"We are engaged with Scottish Water on a rolling programme of improvements, and whilst responding to such complaints is not within the parameters of WICS's work, we will draw the attention of Waterwatch to this case. Waterwatch is the body responsible for handling complaints against Scottish Water from its customers."
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~07~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Hang on a minute... with regard to the sewage issue, this is clearly an issue of environmental contamination and a lack of Duty of Care on behalf of Scottish Water (they treat waste, which was left in their care- it's their sewage pipes after all!), which in accordance with EU legislation, SEPA should have intervened and quite possibly considered prosecuting Scottish Water for their lack of due dillegence under the Duty of Care system.
Complain about this comment
Thames Water now automatically install a water meter when you move house. When they did this to me 2 years ago, they didn't install the meter correctly and over 1000 litres of water was leaking into the ground each day, after passing through the meter.
They wrote to me to tell me that I would be responsible for any damage caused, subsidence etc.
They also have a policy of only repairing one leak in pipework free of charge for each customer account. When the source of the leak was discovered to be on a plastic joint next the meter, they still repeatedly failed to accept responsibility even though the engineers took photographs as evience. Thames Water considered the repair to have used up my entitlement to the free repair, even though it was their fault. They did, however, refund the charges for the excess water.
I contacted the water regulator and they investigated but when Thames Water simply said they didn't think they caused the leak, the regulator closed the record and took it no further despite my protests to them. The regulator is a complete waste of space and certainly appear to take the water companies side over customers.
Complain about this comment
Nearly 40 years ago, I studied English Law at A-level. Various things still stick in my mind - in this case, the tort of negligence, as illustrated by Hedley Byrne versus Heller and Partners. The rule of negligence states that: A duty of care must exist; that duty must be breached; and subsequent damage and/or loss must have been suffered. In the case above, one party had on their land a mine; the other had a reservoir. The reservoir leaked and flooded the mine. Negligence was proved, the judge's statement as follows: "When one party has on their land something that, should it escape, will cause damage to adjoining land, then a duty of care exists, being the responsibility of the landowner who has the potentially dangerous thing on their land" - or words to that effect. Therefore, the Lawsons (whose paddock was flooded by raw sewage leaking from the water company's land - have a clear action for negligence against the water company and should pursue this! (I've waited nearly 40 years to use that bit of knowledge....)
Complain about this comment
The injustice's suffered by the public from the utility companies & government agencies rest firmly with government. They allow these injustices to continue while they spend their time eroding our privacy and freedom. Justice from these organisations should be easily established if there was a will to do so.
Complain about this comment
why is it that we can change our gas/electric and telephone but we cant change our water suppliers. i feel that if this was possible there would be more joy to us bill payers!!
Complain about this comment
Is the judgement in the case of Ryland v Fletcher (1868)applicable in this instance? This established a doctrine of strict liability for inherently dangerous activities. The dispute in Rylands concerned the escape of water onto neighbouring land but in later cases was applied to the escape of all manner of wastes and materials.
Complain about this comment
The water companies are too protected by outdated laws/regulations that our MPs should be revueing constantly. Far too much time is taken by not only these people but so many Companies/ government bodies/ association etc apologising for their incompetance usually at the expense of the public. The public have to be accountable why not these people?
My advice is don't pussyfoot around with faceless clerks in a call centre, write you complaint and if you are not satisfied with the response go straight to the top. Do a bit of homework to find out who the "boss" and deal with them only be persistant.
Complain about this comment
Can anyone confirm that some part of the check for a joint supply is to shut off the water supply next to the meter and then visit the neighbouring houses to ask the respective occupants if they have also lost their supply?
Complain about this comment
I thought we have the Monopolies Commission to prevent this kind of thing!
It is disgusting and unfair how the Water Company can sherk their clear responsibilities in this way.
Complain about this comment
I assume that the Lawson's insurance company covered the cost?
Complain about this comment
We have recently moved house, within the same town, and after two years of paying for my water supply and waste, we are now faced with a two year bill from Southern Water for over £400!! We had been previously been billed by South East water for the supply and they in turn, bill us on behalf of Thames Water for the waste. I had questioned this in the very beginning and was informed that all was correct and that I had nothing to worry about. I had informed Southern Water where we lived before and they made no contact in respect of the water waste bills, so I assume all was correct. Now that I have moved they are chasing me for over £400, (twice the amount that Thames Water were charging). Now after watching last nights programme (27th April) I am concerned that I will not be able to get out of this financial problem. Any help and advice would be greatly appreciated
Complain about this comment
I really do think it is about time the water companies started playing the game correctly, to explain this further, surely the idea of competion is to have a choice and not to be following the same guidelines for all the water companies, who it seems do what the hell they like or what suits them, they should be trying to serve their customers and not making a fast buck. They have been putting up charges for years on the basis of leaks which their own watchdog offwat have said is bad and wants sorting out, the present water meter fiasco is typical not everyone will gain from one but they are trying to force it anyway, gone are the days of the £10 a year charges, but costs have moved on from then but not to the extent we are being charged.
Complain about this comment
Some years ago we bought a shop with flat over. There was a water pipe in the shop but it was capped and never used. We paid water rates for the flat but were forced to pay water rates for the shop the excuse being that we were paying for the water falling on the roof but the flat was under the same roof and we were paying for that!! We went to court but lost.
Complain about this comment
Why don't water companies check all their pipework? I wonder if the researchers actually checked to see how many thousands of miles of pipe work each water company is responsible for? Water companies are a fairly new business whose regulations are constantly being updated by OFWAT who can only work from feedback from the general public.
I wonder if anyone remembers the awful state all the UK's sewers were in prior to privatisation? Its taken most companies the past 20 years to update all the outmoded, rusted victorian sewers. Water companies could not possibly patrol all their network as this would pose a logistical impossibility! Have you any idea of the man power his would take? As sewer are not pressurised liek water mains are, you cannot have electical monitors set up either. Water companies can only respond to their custoemr's call and identify a problem and then fix it.
What should be happening is more awareness for the public on what is acceptable to put down the sewers, fat, nappies, wet wipes and anything your body does not naturally produce is a big no-no expect for toilet paper. Why should Scottish Water take responsibility for a blockage which was caused not due to poor management of the pipe work but probably by something someone flushed?
The report advsied 3rd part action/cause according to watchdog, so has the person affected tried to establish what this 3rd part action was or who flushed it? Being in the middle of the highlands it should be easy enough to trace the sewer line back and find out and then bill that person for the clean up.
Complain about this comment
mojoangus, have you any idea how hard the 'faceless clerks' work? Having worked for a call centre, the constant psychological pressure from 'faceless' angry custoemrs is relentless and really takes its toll. Imagine having to work an 8 hour days dealing with 80 - 100 calls 80% of which are people complaining, most of which are unsatisfied with the answer because its not the one they wanted, but still a correct one
Complain about this comment
Have just phoned Severn Trent Water to ask for forms to claim back for the surface water charge, only to be told that I will only receive the refund back to 1st April 09 because that is when their financial year starts. If I had rung on 31st March 09 I could have claimed back to 1st April 08. This is ridiculous they are running to their own rules - what happened to claiming back for 1 year??
Complain about this comment
The water companies do make up their own rules. For years I paid by direct debit, then moved to another property. The system meant that I'd paid too much in advance, so I asked for a refund. This duly came.........then so did the shock.
The new bill for the new home included the 'refunded' sum in the total to be paid. When I queried this theys said, "we gave you some money now we want it back to keep our records straight. After 3 years of wrangling, a visit from one of the 'bods' and a solicitor, they still wanted 'their' money. I always paid the bills, less the 'contested' amount which they always added to my account.
Eventually to save further agrivation I gave notice saying I was leaving the property, cleared my account - less the contested amount, and then opened up a new account in another name. Telling them I'd not been responsible for any utility bill at my previous address, no other information was required. JOB DONE!
This has worked well for the last 12 years.
Complain about this comment
WATCHDOG,
I discovered the Surface Water Drainage charge on my bill and I complained. However, after getting pushed back with a rebate for the year i complained I pressed my complaint with the following a mail and got it all back.
11 May 07
'Thank you for your letter regarding the Surface Water Drainage rebate for my house.
I would like to make it clear that I am not unhappy with the fact that the rebate has been applied from July 2006, but I was unhappy that my requests for the rebate application form did not result in the form being seen here, and that it takes 2 emails to elicit a human reply from Thames Water. This comes after my original request for water meter was lost in the Thames Water administrative system and I had to re-apply. It was only the fact that I intimated that I would complain that precipitated the rebate being awarded. That is what I am unhappy about!
It may be that this is a deliberate policy to dissuade people from pressing their application for a rebate; I would like to think not.
My case for having the rebate backdated to 1 Apr 00 is based on the fact that even though I had not made the rebate claim on paper (because the form never arrived), Thames Water admitted on the telephone, and by implication (because the rebate was awarded without my evidence being provided), that the fact that I was due a rebate was well known to Thames Water!
My case is clear, Thames water knew I was due a rebate but never awarded it and chose to continue to charge me for a service that Thames Water knew I was not receiving i.e. surface water drainage between 1 Apr 00 and 2007 when my original enquiry was made.
It would not be a great step to make the connection that Thames Water is knowingly charging many unwitting customers for a service they are not receiving, thereby swelling the profits of the company and the director's bonuses.
This is my position.
Would you please credit my account with the rebate due as soon as possible?
If I do not receive confirmation of rebate from you in 7 days I will take further steps to recover the rebate for the period 1 Apr 00 to Jul 06.'
Mr Ball
Here is the reply
Thames Water
Customer Relations
Customer Services
P.O. Box 436
Swindon
SN38 1TU
Telephone: 08457 200897
Fax: 01793 424291
E-mail: Customer.Feedback@thameswater.co.uk
16 July 2007
Our Ref: 380161
Surface water drainage rebate
Dear Mr Ball
Thank you for your e-mail of 9 July 2007 addressed to my colleague who is currently out of the office and I am therefore replying on her behalf.
I can confirm that the surface water drainage charges of £99.37 for the period 1 April 2000 to 4 July 2006 have been credited to your account. This will show on the next statement you receive from us.
I can confirm that the surface water drainage charges for the period 4 July
2006 onwards have been removed. This was confirmed in the bill dated 12 April 2007.
I trust this concludes the matter.
Best regards,
David
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS