"Money Down the Drain"

[Bper]

Ofwat has imposed £168 million in fines on Thames Water, Yorkshire Water, and Northumbrian Water for mishandling sewage spills. There are concerns that these companies might offset the fines by increasing customer bills. However, Ofwat states that the majority of penalties are redirected back to customers through bill reductions or service improvements.

To absorb the losses from the fines, they say water companies must improve efficiency and reduce operational costs.Thames Water, which is £14.7 billion in debt, is predominantly owned by a consortium of pension and sovereign wealth funds, including international investors like the China Investment Corporation and the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority. Since these investors are primarily focused on returns, there is concern about whether Thames Water might still raise bills to manage its debt and cover fines, despite regulatory measures.

The ownership of the other fined water companies is as follows: Yorkshire Water, Owned by the Kelda Group, which is primarily controlled by investment funds managed by Corsair Capital, Deutsche Asset Management, and GIC (the sovereign wealth fund of Singapore).

Northumbrian Water: Owned by Cheung Kong Infrastructure Holdings (CKI), a Hong Kong based infrastructure investment company, which is part of the larger CK Hutchison Holdings conglomerate.These ownership structures reflect significant foreign and institutional investment in the UK's water industry.

[Hadrian1]

If none of your rainwater goes into the storm drains, including water from a drive,  you can get a reduction in your bill.

We did this and it was back dated as well.

[Bper]

38 minutes ago, Hadrian1 said:

If none of your rainwater goes into the storm drains, including water from a drive,  you can get a reduction in your bill.

We did this and it was back dated as well.

Hi Alan, How does this work, and how do you prove it.?

[Rhymes with Paris]

3 hours ago, Bper said:

Hi Alan, How does this work, and how do you prove it.?

Apologies to Alan for answering what is his to answer if he's about.

The way it works is if rainwater from roofs and hard surfaces like driveways with channel drains goes to a soak away instead of into the mains drainage system.

It is proved by declaring this to the relevant water company, and they visit to inspect to ensure that this is the case.

This means less volume going into the mains system, therefore the charge for the sewage m3 measurement is less, the water used charge remains the same.

Run off from undrained hard surfaces like patios and such just goes into the surrounding ground.

Foul water (toilets) grey water(baths, showers, sinks) goes into the mains drainage system to be carried away to treatment plants to be treated and filtered.

Storm drains are usually in roads and on commercial sites such as shopping centres,car parks etc, not on private property .

[Bper]

10 minutes ago, Rhymes with Paris said:

Apologies to Alan for answering what is his to answer if he's about.

The way it works is if rainwater from roofs and hard surfaces like driveways with channel drains goes to a soak away instead of into the mains drainage system.

It is proved by declaring this to the relevant water company, and they visit to inspect to ensure that this is the case.

This means less volume going into the mains system, therefore the charge for the sewage m3 measurement is less, the water used charge remains the same.

Run off from undrained hard surfaces like patios and such just goes into the surrounding ground.

Foul water (toilets) grey water(baths, showers, sinks) goes into the mains drainage system to be carried away to treatment plants to be treated and filtered.

Storm drains are usually in roads and on commercial sites such as shopping centres,car parks etc, not on private property .

Hi Paul. Thanks for answering this, at the end of our front drive we have a rainwater soakaway, and so do all the properties in our close.On the garden patio any rain water runs off onto the garden. This being the case wouldn't Anglian water be aware of this and have adjusted the water bill originally to reflect this.? If not then surely they would open themselves up to claims from thousands of residents who meet the same criteria .?

[FROSTYBALLS]

18 minutes ago, Bper said:

This being the case wouldn't Anglian water be aware of this and have adjusted the water bill originally to reflect this.?

Have a look at the following Ofwat guidance:

https://www.ofwat.gov.uk/households/your-water-bill/surfacewaterdrainage/

 

[Rhymes with Paris]

6 minutes ago, FROSTYBALLS said:

Have a look at the following Ofwat guidance:

https://www.ofwat.gov.uk/households/your-water-bill/surfacewaterdrainage/

 

Aye, that covers it better than the reply I was composing.

[Bper]

1 hour ago, Rhymes with Paris said:

Aye, that covers it better than the reply I was composing.

Hi Paul/Mike, just spoken to Anglian water and they are sending a form out for us to make a claim. If we are accepted which seems likely we are entitled to claim back up to 6 years which is the length we have been here.So will keep posted how we get on.Thank you.😃👍

[Cyker]

Huh, they kept that quiet! I wonder if that's why some people have gravel driveways despite them being worse than bricked/concrete ones, because they know this secret!!

 

But this is another utility that should never have been privatised; It just doesn't make sense.

Fining them is even stupider though - That's just going to make them pass it on to us (I don't care what they think, it will) and take resources away that could have gone toward fixing things.

What they should do is be order them to withhold all dividends and pay awards for everyone in charge or something along those lines, until the thing they're being fined for is sorted out. Hurt the people in the company responsible, not the company itself, as that'll just hurt us and the people in the company who actually do work, while the fatcats at the top are completely unaffected.

[Bper]

36 minutes ago, Cyker said:

Huh, they kept that quiet! I wonder if that's why some people have gravel driveways despite them being worse than bricked/concrete ones, because they know this secret!!

 

But this is another utility that should never have been privatised; It just doesn't make sense.

Fining them is even stupider though - That's just going to make them pass it on to us (I don't care what they think, it will) and take resources away that could have gone toward fixing things.

What they should do is be order them to withhold all dividends and pay awards for everyone in charge or something along those lines, until the thing they're being fined for is sorted out. Hurt the people in the company responsible, not the company itself, as that'll just hurt us and the people in the company who actually do work, while the fatcats at the top are completely unaffected.

As water companies are typically regulated by government agencies or public utility commissions, which have the authority to oversee their financial practices, including dividend payments. 😡

[Rhymes with Paris]

It is open to anyone to divert the rainwater (ie topwater clean water) into a properly constructed soakaway.

Whether it's worth it though needs a bit of thinking about.

It used to be that a soakaway had to be at least 5M from any dwelling, might be more now.

I can't keep up with prices now despite being previously professionally employed to do so, the last time I priced for a simple system on a 3 bed semi though, it was £120 per linear metre for installing underground pipes and around £1200 for a soakaway 2M deep at invert level.

Plus changing the rainwater gullies to go into that drainage, rather than the mains.

But for those with that system anyway, yes well worth declaring/claiming a rebate.

The recent fashion for block paving and amateurs doing the work,means that millions of gallons of run off now have nowhere to go if there is no proper drainage in place , hence increased flooding.

[FROSTYBALLS]

6 minutes ago, Rhymes with Paris said:

The recent fashion for block paving and amateurs doing the work,means that millions of gallons of run off now have nowhere to go if there is no proper drainage in place , hence increased flooding.

Which is why there is consideration being given to a tax on driveways .......

[Bper]

14 minutes ago, Rhymes with Paris said:

It is open to anyone to divert the rainwater (ie topwater clean water) into a properly constructed soakaway.

Whether it's worth it though needs a bit of thinking about.

It used to be that a soakaway had to be at least 5M from any dwelling, might be more now.

I can't keep up with prices now despite being previously professionally employed to do so, the last time I priced for a simple system on a 3 bed semi though, it was £120 per linear metre for installing underground pipes and around £1200 for a soakaway 2M deep at invert level.

Plus changing the rainwater gullies to go into that drainage, rather than the mains.

But for those with that system anyway, yes well worth declaring/claiming a rebate.

The recent fashion for block paving and amateurs doing the work,means that millions of gallons of run off now have nowhere to go if there is no proper drainage in place , hence increased flooding.

Well to be honest its the first time I have heard anything about this but it certainly opens your eyes. However there must be hundreds of thousands of properties that qualify for this rebate and I'm surprised its not been widely advertised. Having said that I don't suppose the water companies would look at profiteering from their customers would they.?🙄

 

[Cyker]

57 minutes ago, FROSTYBALLS said:

Which is why there is consideration being given to a tax on driveways .......

But from what's been said above, almost all of us, apart from those in the know, are ALREADY paying an extra charge on our water bills to compensate for that!!!  

 

[Bper]

15 minutes ago, Cyker said:

But from what's been said above, almost all of us, apart from those in the know, are ALREADY paying an extra charge on our water bills to compensate for that!!!  

 

From what I understand the proposed tax was related to surface water runoff because non-permeable surfaces, like those used in some driveways, prevent rainwater from soaking into the ground. This leads to increased runoff, which can contribute to flooding and strain drainage systems. The tax was intended to address these environmental concerns by discouraging the installation of such surfaces, but it faced strong criticism and was ultimately scrapped.😃

[FROSTYBALLS]

The proposal has raised its ugly head again since the election  .......

[Cyker]

1 hour ago, Bper said:

From what I understand the proposed tax was related to surface water runoff because non-permeable surfaces, like those used in some driveways, prevent rainwater from soaking into the ground. This leads to increased runoff, which can contribute to flooding and strain drainage systems. The tax was intended to address these environmental concerns by discouraging the installation of such surfaces, but it faced strong criticism and was ultimately scrapped.😃

Yeah I got that, but what I was saying is *we are already paying* an extra charge on our water bills for that exact purpose, which I didn't twig until Hadrian1 casually mentioned that you can get a rebate on that charge if your house has full drainage already.

So, if I understand this all correctly, that tax would mean we'd be effectively paying *twice* for the same thing!

[FROSTYBALLS]

6 minutes ago, Cyker said:

we are already paying* an extra charge on our water bills

Don't think it would be on water bills - probably an annual charge per metre of driveway and targeted towards cities. Possibly an addition to local government council tax(?) It is to compensate for an increased risk of flooding .... believe the idea has been raised again for London, which will please you immensely.

[Cyker]

Yaaay*

 

 

 

*not yay.

[AndyN01]

IMHO for a "fine" to have any effect it must be sufficiently large to make the potential perpetrator think twice, or more 🙂.

So, for instance, the standard fine for speeding for a premiership footballer isn't, IMHO, going to have any effect on their decision to speed. If, however, it was unlimited and/or set to some sort of formula that could be up to perhaps their annual income maybe that might focus their attention?

Setting aside my view that National Infrastructure should be there for the good of the Country, not profit, then any fine should be both painfully large and absolutely outside any possibility of increased bills to pay for it.

Open for discussion but how about up to 100% of post tax profits or, say, 10 times the cost of doing it "right" or putting it "right?"

Or something else that makes doing it "right" the financially effective way to go?

 

[Bper]

5 hours ago, AndyN01 said:

IMHO for a "fine" to have any effect it must be sufficiently large to make the potential perpetrator think twice, or more 🙂.

So, for instance, the standard fine for speeding for a premiership footballer isn't, IMHO, going to have any effect on their decision to speed. If, however, it was unlimited and/or set to some sort of formula that could be up to perhaps their annual income maybe that might focus their attention?

Setting aside my view that National Infrastructure should be there for the good of the Country, not profit, then any fine should be both painfully large and absolutely outside any possibility of increased bills to pay for it.

Open for discussion but how about up to 100% of post tax profits or, say, 10 times the cost of doing it "right" or putting it "right?"

Or something else that makes doing it "right" the financially effective way to go?

 

I agree that for a fine to really make an impact, it needs to be large enough to make people think twice. For high earners like premiership footballers, a standard fine probably won’t be much of a deterrent. If fines were based on their income say, a percentage of their earnings or even a multiple of the cost to fix the issue it could be more effective.The idea of fines being as much as 100% of their post-tax income or something like ten times the cost to do it right seems extreme, but it would definitely make people consider doing things the right way. It’s about making the financial hit big enough to actually change behavior. It makes sense but would it ever be implemented.😃

[AndyN01]

1 hour ago, Bper said:

I agree that for a fine to really make an impact, it needs to be large enough to make people think twice. For high earners like premiership footballers, a standard fine probably won’t be much of a deterrent. If fines were based on their income say, a percentage of their earnings or even a multiple of the cost to fix the issue it could be more effective.The idea of fines being as much as 100% of their post-tax income or something like ten times the cost to do it right seems extreme, but it would definitely make people consider doing things the right way. It’s about making the financial hit big enough to actually change behavior. It makes sense but would it ever be implemented.😃

In short, no, it'd never get past the vested interests. 🤫

[Bper]

45 minutes ago, AndyN01 said:

In short, no, it'd never get past the vested interests. 🤫

 

 

45 minutes ago, AndyN01 said:

In short, no, it'd never get past the vested interests. 🤫

Vested interests have always been there, how do you overcome them ,?

[AndyN01]

Remove them from the equation.

Hence my view that Infrastructure isn't for profit, it's for the benefit of the Country/population.

And I don't understand how anyone who thinks that having an "investor" who's primary function is to make money (by whatever means 😉) is a ideal solution for something that is, for me, a fundamental part of the basic needs of the people is a good or sensible idea is beyond me.

[Bper]

44 minutes ago, AndyN01 said:

Remove them from the equation.

Hence my view that Infrastructure isn't for profit, it's for the benefit of the Country/population.

And I don't understand how anyone who thinks that having an "investor" who's primary function is to make money (by whatever means 😉) is a ideal solution for something that is, for me, a fundamental part of the basic needs of the people is a good or sensible idea is beyond me.

We have all been told that private companies can be more efficient and innovative, with access to private funding for improvements.and expertise. They are supposed to have specialised knowledge, leading to potentially better service. Which should lead to financial relief for the State and privatisation can free up public funds for other needs.With regulation and strong government oversight this should ensure they serve the public well.

With state ownership the public benefit should be essential services like in this case water should be for everyone, not for profit.  State ownership can also prioritise long-term investments and sustainability.Publicly run services are more accountable and transparent.Ensures everyone can afford essential services. Have we seen any of this in private ownership.?

Billions of pounds of debt, higher bills for consumers, large inflated directors wages and dividends to the shareholders has been the reality of the selling off of our utility services. If these companies fail guess who bails them out.☹️