Water Companies Hit Homeowners Twice: Ofwat Under Fire Over Sewage Investments
A court is set to hear a case claiming that water companies are unlawfully charging customers twice to fund £100bn worth of sewage pollution investments. Critics say the practice, approved by Ofwat, means households are paying for improvements meant to achieve environmental compliance through two separate bills.
The PR24 decision allows water firms to inject £104bn into their finances by the end of the decade to tackle record levels of sewage in rivers, which have been exacerbated by decades of underinvestment. Thames Water customers face a 35% increase, from £436 to £588 annually, while Southern Water bills are up 53%, rising to £642 per year on average.
However, lawyers representing River Action argue that this is unfair, as any investment meant to rectify historic neglect should be paid by shareholders, not customers. According to Ofwat rules, households must only pay for new infrastructure investments, not the costs of bringing companies into compliance with environmental regulations.
"It's fundamental that the public shouldn't be made to pay twice for water companies' past failures," said Emma Dearnaley, River Action's head of legal. "But River Action is concerned that Ofwat's approach means customers could be paying again." The case argues that Ofwat must ensure billions in approved funding result in compliance and fair charging practices.
The hearing in Manchester will examine whether water bills are being used to fund essential infrastructure improvements rather than just bringing companies into environmental compliance. If the court finds in River Action's favour, it could lead to significant changes for customers of struggling water firms.
A court is set to hear a case claiming that water companies are unlawfully charging customers twice to fund £100bn worth of sewage pollution investments. Critics say the practice, approved by Ofwat, means households are paying for improvements meant to achieve environmental compliance through two separate bills.
The PR24 decision allows water firms to inject £104bn into their finances by the end of the decade to tackle record levels of sewage in rivers, which have been exacerbated by decades of underinvestment. Thames Water customers face a 35% increase, from £436 to £588 annually, while Southern Water bills are up 53%, rising to £642 per year on average.
However, lawyers representing River Action argue that this is unfair, as any investment meant to rectify historic neglect should be paid by shareholders, not customers. According to Ofwat rules, households must only pay for new infrastructure investments, not the costs of bringing companies into compliance with environmental regulations.
"It's fundamental that the public shouldn't be made to pay twice for water companies' past failures," said Emma Dearnaley, River Action's head of legal. "But River Action is concerned that Ofwat's approach means customers could be paying again." The case argues that Ofwat must ensure billions in approved funding result in compliance and fair charging practices.
The hearing in Manchester will examine whether water bills are being used to fund essential infrastructure improvements rather than just bringing companies into environmental compliance. If the court finds in River Action's favour, it could lead to significant changes for customers of struggling water firms.
. It sounds like these water companies are taking advantage of us - their customers! They're basically passing on the cost of fixing their own mess to us, their customers. I mean, can you believe we have to pay more for our water bills just so they can fund their sewage investments? It's like they're trying to take us for a ride.
. But I don't think that's fair. These companies have been neglecting our rivers for decades and now we get stuck paying the price? It just doesn't sit right with me.
.
. I mean, come on, households are already paying enough for basic services. Charging them twice is just not right 
. It's like, don't they think we're already overpaying? Like, remember when they used to raise our bills in secret and nobody even knew about it until it was too late? Yeah, this isn't exactly going to win hearts 
.
. It's not fair, and River Action is right to fight this 
.
Thinkin' about this whole thing... If I were a homeowner, I'd be livid too! 
That way, everyone's happy... well, except maybe the shareholders 
.
and hoping the court rules in their favour 
. It's time for these water companies to get their act together and stop double-dipping 
Can you believe this? Water companies are basically ripping off their customers like a bad joke! 
I mean, come on, 35% increase for Thames Water? That's like, paying for someone else's therapy sessions! 
Who knows what'll happen, but one thing's for sure, customers will be having a real "drain"-ing experience! 
, £104bn worth of sewage investments and households are paying for that twice? Interesting 
. And what's with the huge increases in bills for Thames Water and Southern Water? 35% and 53%?! That's like, a whole lot of money 
. It's just not fair that the people who benefit from these investments (shareholders) get to keep their profits while we foot the bill again 
. Can you believe Ofwat is just green-lighting this? 
water companies r charging customers TWICE 
Thames Water customers get a 35% increase from £436 to £588 annually 
and Southern Water bills are up 53%! 
.
Thames Water and Southern Water are getting away with charging us like 35% and 53% more respectively? That's outrageous! They're basically milking us dry 
. River Action is on to something and I hope they win this case 
.
.