Unadopted Sewer

andydakin

I, along with a number of other households in our area, have recently received a letter from United Utilities telling me that we are due compensation because they failed to adopt the sewer serving our new build estate from the builders until 16 years had elapsed. They have offered 6 years worth of sewerage charges (approx. £220), which apparently is their standard compensation as per their T's & C's. I am of a mind to appeal this as until the letter was received, I had no idea there was an issue, therefore how could I make a claim? I feel I should be getting the full 16+ years worth of refund. Am I wasting my time?

Cardew

Any debt over 6 years is 'Statute barred' so you normally have no claim before that period, and you are unlikely to get a 'goodwill' payment.

You should look up 'Statute of Limitations' for more on this subject.

Another aspect covered by Ofwat is that any such backdated payments are paid for by a small increase in bills by current customers - many of whom were not old enough to be water customers 6, 10 ,16 years ago etc. Not that would deter any of us if we had a chance of getting a higher payout!!






There are masses of similar claims - for similar and Surface Water Drainage back payments. To allow yours beyond 6 years would set a precedent; so I think you are probably wasting your time.

Aquamania

Cardew wrote: »

...Another aspect covered by Ofwat is that any such backdated payments are paid for by a small increase in bills by current customers .

I don't understand that point of view.

The supplier has been charging for something they never supplied.

All they are doing is returning money that is otherwise pure profit (apart from the admin costs of collecting the money in the first place and the admin costs of refunding such inappropriate charges).

Cardew

Aquamania wrote: »

I don't understand that point of view.

The supplier has been charging for something they never supplied.

All they are doing is returning money that is otherwise pure profit (apart from the admin costs of collecting the money in the first place and the admin costs of refunding such inappropriate charges).

Then you don't understand how all the water companies' finances are Regulated by Ofwat who enforce The Water Act.


Every year, the water companies' revenue, and hence profit, is regulated by Ofwat. That forms the basis of their schedule of charges.


There is no such thing as extra 'pure profit'. They are only allowed to raise £Xmillion in revenue.


For instance there are possibly a million households who are charged for Surface Water Drainage(SWD) when they could claim relief from that charge. It doesn't affect the finances of the water companies if customers claim relief or not. If a company loses, say, £1million in SWD charges, then they can simply raise other charges slightly to recoup that loss of revenue. They are simply in a win/win situation which is why their shares increase and increase in value.


The stance taken by Ofwat is that any rebates for unjustified charges for 1998(in the OP's case) and all subsequent years, cannot be reclaimed by a backdated levy on all customers for 1998,1999 etc Half of them might be dead!!


So all rebates for the last 16 years would be totalled up and paid for customers by a levy on our 2015/16 charges. Which is obviously unfair on some 20 year old who has only started paying water charges this year.


The merits of the Ofwat stance can be debated. However the main point to get across is that there is no 'pure profit'(as you suggest) to be made by sneaking in an unjustified charge.

Aquamania

Cardew wrote: »

Then you don't understand how all the water companies' finances are Regulated by Ofwat who enforce The Water Act.


Every year, the water companies' revenue, and hence profit, is regulated by Ofwat. That forms the basis of their schedule of charges.


There is no such thing as extra 'pure profit'. They are only allowed to raise £Xmillion in revenue.


For instance there are possibly a million households who are charged for Surface Water Drainage(SWD) when they could claim relief from that charge. It doesn't affect the finances of the water companies if customers claim relief or not. If a company loses, say, £1million in SWD charges, then they can simply raise other charges slightly to recoup that loss of revenue. They are simply in a win/win situation which is why their shares increase and increase in value.


The stance taken by Ofwat is that any rebates for unjustified charges for 1998(in the OP's case) and all subsequent years, cannot be reclaimed by a backdated levy on all customers for 1998,1999 etc Half of them might be dead!!


So all rebates for the last 16 years would be totalled up and paid for customers by a levy on our 2015/16 charges. Which is obviously unfair on some 20 year old who has only started paying water charges this year.


The merits of the Ofwat stance can be debated. However the main point to get across is that there is no 'pure profit'(as you suggest) to be made by sneaking in an unjustified charge.

You are correct, I (probably along with 99% of the UK population) do not understand how all the water companies' finances are Regulated by Ofwat

I know about the limitations act, so knew you can only reclaim the last 6 years.

Anyway following your explanation of how all the water companies' finances are Regulated by Ofwat, and therefore that all water companies revenue is capped by Ofwat, does that mean if a huge housing development is approved (e.g. about 30,000 new houses) in the area, does that mean customers served by that water company should expect a relative fall in their bills (assuming all these homes are served by fully adopted services) ? :beer:

Cardew

Aquamania wrote: »

Anyway following your explanation of how all the water companies' finances are Regulated by Ofwat, and therefore that all water companies revenue is capped by Ofwat, does that mean if a huge housing development is approved (e.g. about 30,000 new houses) in the area, does that mean customers served by that water company should expect a relative fall in their bills (assuming all these homes are served by fully adopted services) ? :beer:

Firstly, in case you think otherwise, I am no fan of the Water Companies; or perhaps I should say the privatisation of a monopoly. For that you can blame Maggie and this Act:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/56/contents

In essence Ofwat require all companies to submit 5 year plans which are then approved or modified and their charges and revenue agreed. This is an example:

http://www.thameswater.co.uk/about-us/17481.htm

You will see that in this example Thames intend to keep average charges(before inflation) at the same level in the years 2015 - 2020.

Provision for your hypothetical estate of 30,000 properties presumably will have been included in their submission. Even if they were not - I hardly think that reducing charges, below that agreed with Ofwat, would be high on their list of priorities.

In any case companies can go back to Ofwat and ask for an variation in charges allowed(under the 5 year plan) if unforeseen circumstances occur. In fact Thames did this for 2014. See:

http://www.iwapublishing.com/template.cfm?name=news1703

UK: Ofwat pledges to challenge Thames over bill increase proposal (20/08/13)

Economic regulator Ofwat has pledged to challenge Thames Water after it asked for a 13% increase in consumer bills to recoup money spent on the Tideway super-sewer project.

The company has also cited the impacts of bad debt, adopting private sewers and Environment Agency abstraction charges as reasons for the price hike.

Thames director Richard Aylard told ITV news that Ofwat did not plan ahead for big infrastructure projects such as the Tideway tunnel despite knowing that funding would be necessary.

Ofwat has pointed out that Thames has permission to raise prices by 1.4% above inflation in 2014/15 as part of its five-year plan. Ofwat chief executive Regina Finn said: ‘We have made it clear to companies that we expect them to talk to their customers, listen to them and take account of their customers’ views. We will challenge these proposals and question the company strongly on their reasons. Proposed increases will only be allowed if they are fully justified.’

The Consumer Council for Water has also expressed concern. Sir Tony Redmond, chair of the London and South East branch, said: ‘Many other water companies absorbed the costs that Thames say they are facing – and they have done so without applying for a further price increase. We believe that Thames Water should do the same.’

He added: ‘Our research shows that one in seven customers say they can’t afford their water bill. This is reflected in an increasing number of customers defaulting on payments to their water company. Thames Water’s price hike will add to the problem.’

Ofwat is to make its final decision in November. If it agrees the price hike, it will come into force in 2014.

Similarly if a water company failed to achieve a target by insufficient capital expenditure, then Ofwat could take measures against the company.

slivi15

I think this is ridiculous, in any other situation this would be called fraud!

If I charge somebody for something that I am not supplying to them how on god's earth should I not be liable to return the money to them for it?

I know that United Utilities have a conference call with the Consumer Council for Water and I really hope that they have some teeth because it seems clear that OFWAT do not!

slivi15

It is not as though we can move to another water company, this is clearly a case of abuse of their monopoly!

mart.vader

slivi15 wrote: »

I know that United Utilities have a conference call with the Consumer Council for Water and I really hope that they have some teeth because it seems clear that OFWAT do not!

They don't have any teeth at all

slivi15

Guessed as much, what regulator does these days!!

bluewire

slivi15 wrote: »

I think this is ridiculous, in any other situation this would be called fraud!

If I charge somebody for something that I am not supplying to them how on god's earth should I not be liable to return the money to them for it?

I know that United Utilities have a conference call with the Consumer Council for Water and I really hope that they have some teeth because it seems clear that OFWAT do not!

I guess that it is only fraud if you know that you are charging for something that you are not supplying. I would expect that they didn't at the time know that they weren't.

I have just read on another site that OFWAT make UU treat all customers the same and so if they give all years charges back to you they will have to do so for everyone else who has ever claimed for this......this would be a giant bill that would end up on everyones charges as explained above.