Water Company Claim Legal Action

SisterMichael

Newbie and long time lurker here!

We would be very grateful for any thoughts on the following situation. It may be that it is not worth pursuing at all...

Unfortunately our water supplier is one now famous for all the wrong reasons.

Following a burst mains water pipe in the middle of our street in January this year, we have suffered a massive level of disruption to our lives due to poor communication, mismanagement, a lack of engagement and a few key mistakes. We were led to believe by the water supplier that the costs incurred by us through this period of time (as we suffered their slow systems whilst they repaired the problem) would be reimbursed.

Now that the problem has finally been resolved at the beginning of March, they have reneged on reimbursing the full costs and have decided instead to offer only 60% of these costs. In absolute terms, we are talking about significant sums of money.

The CCW are currently involved and looking at the case but the water supplier are at pains to repeatedly point out that claims disputes do not fall under the remit of the CCW. They have suggested that we seek independent legal advice. 

We are curious as to how wise a move this is and thought we would seek the collective opinion of the MSE forum?

Has anybody taken similar action and won?

Are we permitted to ask for the names of legal firms who have a history with such cases and what sort of costs to expect in hiring a legal firm (we do not have the sort of money we think it might need)?

Are there any other avenues open to us? OFWAT also do not get involved in cases like this by domestic customers.

Any and all help appreciated!

MattMattMattUK

SisterMichael said:

Newbie and long time lurker here!

We would be very grateful for any thoughts on the following situation. It may be that it is not worth pursuing at all...

Unfortunately our water supplier is one now famous for all the wrong reasons.

Following a burst mains water pipe in the middle of our street in January this year, we have suffered a massive level of disruption to our lives due to poor communication, mismanagement, a lack of engagement and a few key mistakes. We were led to believe by the water supplier that the costs incurred by us through this period of time (as we suffered their slow systems whilst they repaired the problem) would be reimbursed.

Now that the problem has finally been resolved at the beginning of March, they have reneged on reimbursing the full costs and have decided instead to offer only 60% of these costs. In absolute terms, we are talking about significant sums of money.

The CCW are currently involved and looking at the case but the water supplier are at pains to repeatedly point out that claims disputes do not fall under the remit of the CCW. They have suggested that we seek independent legal advice. 

We are curious as to how wise a move this is and thought we would seek the collective opinion of the MSE forum?

What are those costs? What do you mean by "suffered their slow systems"? The costs need to be reasonable, for example if the water supply was not potable then it would be perfectly reasonable to buy supermarket own brand bottled water to drink and cook with, the might tolerate main brand bottled water, but are unlikely to to agree to Fiji or Aqua Libre. They might also agree to say 10 litres a day per person, but are unlikely to agree to 100. Equally if you needed to stay elsewhere because there was no water then they would probably agree to a Premier Inn, Holiday in, Travelodge etc. but are unlikely to agree to a Hilton or Crowne Plaza. 

When you say "led to believe", what form did that communication take, email or verbal, and were you given any guidance? 

SisterMichael said:

Has anybody taken similar action and won?

Are we permitted to ask for the names of legal firms who have a history with such cases and what sort of costs to expect in hiring a legal firm (we do not have the sort of money we think it might need)?

You can ask for anything, but they would not have to reply. My first port of call once I had all the information together would be Citizen's Advice. Any legal firm would give you terms of engagement, which would detail costs, after the free initial consultation. 

SisterMichael said:

Are there any other avenues open to us? OFWAT also do not get involved in cases like this by domestic customers.

Any and all help appreciated!

Not really no, if they think they are being reasonable and you think you are being reasonable then largely it is down to a court to decide. You could potentially try something like the Guardian or Daily Mail consumer sections and see if you can use the power of the press, but as they only take a few cases a week you would have a low hit rate.

If you can explain exactly has happened and what the costs were then people on here will be able to offer an opinion as to whether our expectations are reasonable. 

DullGreyGuy

You need to explain what the costs are and how much... at the moment dont know if you are claiming for 1 bottle of supermarket water until they brought a bowser or if you are trying to claim for a new car because the alloys got dirty when the mains burst. 

Assuming your claim is under £10,000 and doesn't involve injury then any legal costs would be your own to pay for so at a few hundred an hour a solicitors fee could rapidly exceed the 40% you aren't being offered. 

SisterMichael

Thanks for the replies!

Re: MattMattMattUK:
The costs are comprised of 3 things. The first is the damage done to our washing machine by the water supplier's plumber which the final offer covers. The second is the cost of us having to order daily bottled water from an online retailer (a relative is on the Priority Services Register and water-dependent) to ensure the health and safety of our PSR relative. Unfortunately, the minimum required order to secure delivery from the retailer is £20 less than the maximum amount of bottled water  they allow any customer to order per time. So we were having to make the order up to the minimum required each time. None of the supermarkets who deliver would take on this work. The third and final cost is that of our energy bills over the period of time whilst the water issue existed as we had to make major adjustments to keep our PSR relative safe within the property. We do not have a smart meter hence could not be precise as to what was being used by which device between whatever 2 dates were picked. Initially we were told the costs would be covered. The claims manager changed inexplicably and the second manager changed what had been VERBALLY agreed on the phone. No guidance was given. If I had my time again, I would have done it all via emails from the very outset. There was no time at that initial stage to send emails - we were also in the middle of organising a funeral when this all occurred. 

"Suffered slow systems" relates to the amount of time it took the water company to eventually perform the action that was required to resolve the problem - an action we had asked for at the outset and periodically throughout. They set about doing things which had no impact before relenting and finally doing what they should have done at the outset (which resolved the matter). "Suffered slow systems" also refers to the fact that, despite acknowledging that they should be providing the bottled water delivery, it took them 3 weeks to get this up and running despite multiple phone calls to them every day.   Before they finally engaged, we were forced to source the water ourselves. The water brand was simple Volvic. 

We did contact the Citizen's Advice Bureau who said........await the CCW (despite my telling them that the CCW do not deal with claims, only compensation) and consider legal advice. 

Thanks for the tip about the Guardian or Daily Mail! I will try this avenue.....


Re: DullGreyGuy
I ummed and ahhed about whether to detail the precise costs because, if we do end up taking the legal route, I am not sure if discussing it in detail somewhere on the internet (I think the details given so far would make us very easily identifiable to the water company in question) might cause problems?

Our claim is definitely under £10,000 and you have pinpointed precisely my worry - that the cost of going legal would far outweigh the shortfall the water supplier has omitted. 

I don't suppose this is the sort of thing that can be done via Legal Aid? Could the judge (if we did go legal) request that the water supplier foots the bill for the costs of our lawyer if they ruled in our favour?

Thanks, this is all food for thought!

DullGreyGuy

Under £10,000 falls into Small Track (aka Small Claims Court), it's intended to be the simple route for resolving what the law considers relatively small issues where employing a lawyer isn't necessary. As such if everyone plays by the rules legal fees aren't claimable as otherwise any big company could scare a wronged person into not claiming by threatening them with thousands in legal fees if they lose. David can take on Goliath knowing they are protected from costs.

Judges do have a fair amount of latitude in what they do however costs only tend to be awarded in vexatious cases or where the claimant has abused the process... eg without even raising the matter with the defendant has jumped straight to litigation. 

Legal aid was massively cut back for civil law and effectively replaced with the creation of conditional funding (aka no win no fee) which enables the lawyer to enhance what can be claimed for costs from the otherside with a percentage of the award. You'll find almost no one who will do conditional funding on a small track claim as there just isn't enough in it for them. Legal Aid, outside of criminal law, is for real hot topic things like discrimination, being sectioned under mental health act, unlawful evictions, forced marriage protection orders etc.

The one to check is if you have Legal Expenses cover on your Home insurance? They will certainly be able to give you advice and they may be able to represent you depending on the terms of your policy and their judgement on the prospects of success. 

Whilst it is supposed to be simple, given there is an offer on the table, be mindful if they make it a "part 36 offer". If they do this then "winning" in the court's eyes is changed from if you get anything or not to if you get more than what they offered or not. So if they offer 60% as a part 36 and you go to court and the judge agrees 60% was reasonable then you cannot recover the court fees, if the judge decides 90% is more appropriate then its likely the court fees are recoverable. 

MattMattMattUK

SisterMichael said:

Thanks for the replies!

Re: MattMattMattUK:
The costs are comprised of 3 things. The first is the damage done to our washing machine by the water supplier's plumber which the final offer covers.

That would be reasonable, if they caused damage then they would be due to cover the cost of rectification/repair and potentially replacement (accounting for age) etc. 

SisterMichael said:

The second is the cost of us having to order daily bottled water from an online retailer (a relative is on the Priority Services Register and water-dependent) to ensure the health and safety of our PSR relative. Unfortunately, the minimum required order to secure delivery from the retailer is £20 less than the maximum amount of bottled water  they allow any customer to order per time. So we were having to make the order up to the minimum required each time. None of the supermarkets who deliver would take on this work.

I would say that it is not reasonable to expect them to cover extra goods ordered at the same time, the daily order also seems excessive, rather than a bulk shopping trip / bulk delivery, so that may factor into the legitimacy of the costs. They key questions would also be was the water supply deemed (by the supplier) non-potable, or in some way unsafe? If the supply was not potable then the suppliers usually offer free bottled water, was that offer not made, or not accepted? 

SisterMichael said:

The third and final cost is that of our energy bills over the period of time whilst the water issue existed as we had to make major adjustments to keep our PSR relative safe within the property. We do not have a smart meter hence could not be precise as to what was being used by which device between whatever 2 dates were picked.

Can I ask why the cost would increase significantly? If you are consuming bottled water then there would be no need to boil it etc. What were the "major adjustments"? A smart meter would not give you information as to what was being used by each device either, however if the cost was legitimate it would be easy enough to estimate, eg. to boil 10L of water from 4c (usual inflow temperature) uses 0.44kWh amount of energy, we did that 100 times therefore the amount, therefore that means 44kWh of electricity @ 29p per kWh, which means cost is £12.76 and doing that for any reasonable expenditure. 

SisterMichael said:

Initially we were told the costs would be covered. The claims manager changed inexplicably and the second manager changed what had been VERBALLY agreed on the phone. No guidance was given. If I had my time again, I would have done it all via emails from the very outset. There was no time at that initial stage to send emails - we were also in the middle of organising a funeral when this all occurred.

The lack of guidance might give some rise to negotiation, but will be unlikely to hold any weight in court. The lack of anything in writing would mean it would fall back on standard industry practice, unless there are any call recordings to fall back on. It would be submitting a DSAR to them for any and all call recordings and/or transcripts, if they still retain them.

SisterMichael said:

"Suffered slow systems" relates to the amount of time it took the water company to eventually perform the action that was required to resolve the problem - an action we had asked for at the outset and periodically throughout. 

When you say "perform the action", what was that action? From their perspective they may have been required to do other things first, or they may have just been incompetent. 

SisterMichael said:

"Suffered slow systems" also refers to the fact that, despite acknowledging that they should be providing the bottled water delivery, it took them 3 weeks to get this up and running despite multiple phone calls to them every day.   Before they finally engaged, we were forced to source the water ourselves. 

I would keep up your sleeve that them taking three weeks is unacceptable if the water supply is not potable and cannot be made safe by simply boiling. 

SisterMichael said:

The water brand was simple Volvic. 

They might argue that Volvic is 90p per litre and own brand is 20p per litre or less.

SisterMichael said:

We did contact the Citizen's Advice Bureau who said........await the CCW (despite my telling them that the CCW do not deal with claims, only compensation) and consider legal advice. 

Sometimes CA miss the mark, asking again can usually help.

SisterMichael said:

Thanks for the tip about the Guardian or Daily Mail! I will try this avenue.....

It is worth a shot, but it is a long shot. You will also need your ducks and facts in a row before doing so, your complaint needs to be demonstrably legitimate. 

SisterMichael said:

Re: DullGreyGuy
I ummed and ahhed about whether to detail the precise costs because, if we do end up taking the legal route, I am not sure if discussing it in detail somewhere on the internet (I think the details given so far would make us very easily identifiable to the water company in question) might cause problems?

It would cause zero problems. 

SisterMichael said:

Our claim is definitely under £10,000 and you have pinpointed precisely my worry - that the cost of going legal would far outweigh the shortfall the water supplier has omitted. 

The cost, if the claim has reasonable grounds would be minimal, small claims route, the fee is fully recoverable.

SisterMichael said:

I don't suppose this is the sort of thing that can be done via Legal Aid? Could the judge (if we did go legal) request that the water supplier foots the bill for the costs of our lawyer if they ruled in our favour?

No legal aid, no the judge would not award costs, that does not happen at a small claims court in either direction (unless the claim is deemed vexatious). If your claim is legitimate you would not need a lawyer, you just submit the claim yourself. 

SisterMichael

DullGreyGuy:

Thank you, very helpful and useful post which gives me a running start. I think we may well try the Small Claims Court route first (probably clear that I have never done this before). Just had a quick read of the gov.uk pages which indeed are simple and strsightforward.

Hopefully the issue of costs will not arise as we have gone through all the necessary processes/escalation before the legal route was suggested to us.

I take your point about Legal Aid - it seems irrelevant to us from what you have written and what we have since read. 

We will look into whether legal advice is offered under the terms of our home insurance.

Is there any way to pre-emptively avoid a 'part 36 offer' or can we reject it if it is offered?

MattMattMattUK:

Thank you for pointing out potential potholes to look out for, again great advice.

Regarding the bottled water, we did contact the world-famous online retailer to ask if they would make an exception and accept only the daily order of the bottled water, given that we would need to order daily until the problem was resolved. The agents on their live chat facility could not even wrap their minds around what we were proposing. So that was a hard 'No'. Hence we were forced in to a situation of having to buy the extra goods in order to secure the order. Our PSA relative is heavily water-dependent - the water supplier has known that for years. Hence I spent tens of hours at the outset reminding them of this and their assertion when they last messed up in similar circumstances 2 years ago, that the next time it recurred, the relative would be priority and receive deliveries of bottled water from them from the outset. This did not happen despite my incessant phone calls and requesting manager call-backs. They did eventually apologise for this to me in person (one of their senior NSTs who came to the property, saw our situation, looked slightly mortified and immediately rectified the situation by setting up daily bottled water deliveries). We live in a small flat hence could not make an order for, say, enough water to see us through a week as we have nowhere to store it while we use it and the PSR relative is also a falls risk hence we could not have 30 packets sitting around in the corridors. Our situation is quite restrictive and unique which is why I went to extraordinary lengths at the beginning to get the bottled water delivery from the water supplier up and running quickly - all to no avail. I am a full-time carer for the PSR relative who requires 24-hour care and cannot be left alone - hence I could not go and do a bulk buy even if I wanted to and if that was an option. 

Essentially, our water had black debris in it for weeks after the mains water pipe burst. We had to wait for the water supplier to perform water quality tests - that took weeks of me calling to get them to achieve. When the debris persisted, the DWI suggested we raise a formal complaint with them to force the water company to do the things they had so far not done (we did not raise this complaint formally in the end as the water supplier then decided to do the external flush of the pipes that we had been requesting since the debris appeared in our drinking water. I begged the water supplier for deliveries of bottled water throughout those weeks. 

The PSR relative is immunosuppressed through medication hence consuming water with macroscopically visible debris is something that was a no go.

When their plumber inadvertently damaged the washing machine, we could not use it for weeks and I had to boil kettles in excess of 30 times per day in order to wash their clothes and meet the health and safety restrictions they have to live within in order to be able to safely care for them in the property. It also meant boiling water and waiting for it to cool slightly in order to bathe that relative daily, clean them properly if they had had a continence incident and even to wash their hands after using the toilet. I had to boil water in order to do the basic washing up throughout the day daily. Despite this, my relative became unwell with no clear diagnosis and the GP who visited actually asked what was going on with the water (to a point where I worried they would alert social services with concerns that we could not keep the relative safe within the flat).   

   

In summary, our lives were made a living hell for the best part of 2 months. The burst mains water pipe happened a week before another relative's funeral that I had to plan and I had to move my PSR relative out of the property for 4 days over the funeral because I could not guarantee safety over that window, particularly as relatives began to arrive.

Interestingly, I have actually made a DSAR already and am imminently awaiting the results - I will look for any information relating to any guidance they thought they gave. 

My apologies - 'perform the action' was referring to the external flush of the pipework that even the DWI were suggesting should have been done from the moment the debris was clearly persisting from the drinking water tap in the kitchen. A week after they finally performed this action, the debris cleared up (and began to clear 12 hours after they did it).

I have certainly made clear to the CCW that it took 3 weeks for the water supplier to finally institute the bottled water deliveries and will outline it again in the Small Courts Claim I think we may end up making - thank you!

The Volvic we sourced was 50p/L but the point still remains - the famous online retailer insisted we purchase their minimum delivery spend before agreeing to deliver the water. We would have had to pick even more extra goods to meet this requirement if we had done for the online retailer's own brand of water. 

We agree the media route is a long shot and have decided to keep the Daily Mail/Guardian route as the 'nuclear option' if checking with our home insurance and going the Small Claims Court route do not give a positive outcome.    

The total costs we incurred were approx £2000 (the washing machine repair was shockingly spendy). The water supplier has offered £1200 reimbursement and a further £250 compensation claim, the latter after performing a case review of the many mistakes made by the water supplier during the handling of our case since January 2024 (for which they apologised in writing). We are not particularly interested in compensation, just reimbursement of the costs we were forced into and some sort of written plan from them about how they will avoid a repeat of this car-crash the next time (this is the third time it has happened in 5 years). 

DullGreyGuy

You can choose to accept or reject a Part 36 Offer, there are just consequences if you decline it and then dont convince the judge to give you more. I used to deal with personal injury cases (defence) so it was more important then as nothing went into Small Track but all Fast Track or Multi-Track where solicitors fees can be added... there if they dont surpass our offer we were only liable for their legal fees to the date of the offer, anything after and court was their problem. 


News papers would be before court, if the court has passed judgement papers won't touch the story as the outcomes known. Like asking them to bet on a horse race thats already been run and that they have to back the horse that came in last. 

MattMattMattUK

Unfortunately I do not think that this is the slam dunk you think it might be, the cost of topping up the deliveries will likely be a straight no. The daily deliveries, the selection of bottled water 250% more expensive than a supermarket option, 300%+ more expensive than getting a bulk delivery from the likes of CostCo etc. I am not really sure how they would view any potential storage issues either, they may take the view that as a temporary measure stacked against a walk in a corner of a room, would be reasonable. I do not think that a court would agree those costs as you have stated are reasonable.

With regard to the energy usage, to boil 1,000 litres of water (from 4c, normal input temperature from water mains) to 99c would use 110 kWh of heat. Heating with electricity at 29p per kWh would be £31.90, gas is cheaper at 7p per kWh, but only 75% efficient heating on a hob, so 9.3p per kWh of usable heat means the cost would be £10.23. Average usage of all water is around 120 litres per person per day, much of which will not be heated (toilet flushing), I know you have said you use a lot more than that, but I raise that point to indicate just how much water 1,000 litres is. Another example would be that a bath uses 50-100 litres at a time. Most kettles are 1.7 litres, so thirty a day would still only be 51 litres of water, £1.59 per day on electricity or 51p per day on gas. You will need reasonable calculations on the energy cost, not just a guess as a court would not make a judgement based on a guess (rather than a reasonable estimate).

SisterMichael said:
The total costs we incurred were approx £2000 (the washing machine repair was shockingly spendy). The water supplier has offered £1200 reimbursement and a further £250 compensation claim, the latter after performing a case review of the many mistakes made by the water supplier during the handling of our case since January 2024 (for which they apologised in writing). We are not particularly interested in compensation, just reimbursement of the costs we were forced into

So in total they have offered £1,450, your initial estimate of your costs is £2,000 but it appears that might be on the high side and a court is in my opinion unlikely to consider some of the additional costs you incurred. In my view you can probably claim for the cost of the bottled water itself (although there is still a risk a court might decide that branded water is excessive) and the cost of boiling water (provided you can demonstrate both a need and a reasonable estimate of usage, with cost methodology). Then of course the washing machine repair cost, which they have already agreed to cover in full. If you add those costs together are they higher than the £1,450 you have been offered? 

SisterMichael said:

and some sort of written plan from them about how they will avoid a repeat of this car-crash the next time (this is the third time it has happened in 5 years). 

I would suspect that there is zero chance you will get that from them, it is certainly not something a court would get involved with.

The reason that I am pointing this out is because you have have an expectation, but it might not align with what a court would deem reasonable and whilst the court fees are not huge (£115 for your claim value). If you lost your claim because the court deemed it unreasonable then you would lose the £115 and likely the water supplier would withdraw the £250 compensation, leaving you with only £1,085, or potentially even less if the supplier then decided to lower their offer.