Thameswater bills to raise by 50% by 2030

[NoHPCinTheUK]

https://www.ft.com/content/ed182b89-6b96-4bfa-96c0-b1c70357861b

[shlomo]

Ministers have accepted that Thames Water bills will have to rise, as they seek to persuade investors to put more money into the troubled company and stop it sliding towards a politically disastrous nationalisation.

Steve Barclay, the environment secretary, has told the company and the regulator, Ofwat, that he does not want to see any relaxation of the regulatory regime that would allow Thames Water to eject more sewage into rivers.

But ministers admit that something has to give to stop investors walking away from the company after Thames Water shareholders this week ruled out injecting £500mn of equity.

“We are not overjoyed about bills rising,” said one government insider close to the discussions with Ofwat and Thames Water. “But if you have to give somewhere, it would have to be on bills.”

Thames Water has asked to be allowed to raise bills by 56 per cent by 2030, including inflation — or around £262 per household. But the Consumer Council for Water (CCW) has warned that the increases will be unaffordable for many households and there is a growing campaign calling for non-payment of bills.

“Thames Water customers understand that investment is needed but they should not have to pay for Thames Water’s past failures. They’ve already paid a high price through the companies’ poor complaints record and service levels,” said Mike Keil, chief executive of the CCW.

Ofwat is in the process of weighing its decision, with a draft ruling expected in June when the company is expected to renew efforts to draw in billions of pounds of equity from new and existing shareholders. The company needs the bill increases to underpin any shareholder investment.

While Barclay accepts that customers already feel they are paying too much for water, there is also widespread anger over the state of Britain’s waterways; the Liberal Democrats are putting the campaign against sewage spills at the heart of their election campaign.

The issue will come into renewed focus on Saturday when the Oxford-Cambridge Boat Race takes place despite warnings of “dangerous” pollution caused by sewage in the river Thames.

 

Barclay met the new Thames Water management earlier this month and is said by colleagues to want to give them a chance to turn things around. “They seem to have a plan for doing it,” said one government official.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s business adviser Franck Petitgas has been involved in discussions to find a way out of the crisis at Thames Water, as Downing Street joins the effort to try to stop the company failing.

Thames Water is also asking for limits to regulatory fines for sewage pollution and other failings, as the company claims they deplete cash from the business, making it harder to turn around its performance.

Two directors, including company secretary Rachael Hambrook, quit parent company Kemble on Thursday in a sign of the water monopoly’s growing distress.

Chris Weston, Thames Water’s chief executive, said this week the company was “a long way off” temporary nationalisation, but did not rule it out, presenting a major problem for Sunak in an election year.

 

Margaret Thatcher privatised the water sector in the 1980s and the forced renationalisation of Thames Water would confirm in the minds of voters that it had been a costly failure.

Michael Gove, communities secretary, this week seemed to confirm some of those doubts. “I think for years now, we have seen customers of Thames Water taken advantage of by successive management teams that have been taking out profits and not investing as they should have been,” he said.

Neither the Conservatives nor Labour want to renationalise the sector and have to take the blame for rising bills and sewage spills or — in the case of Thames Water — become responsible for delivering water and sewage services to millions of customers.

Rachel Reeves, shadow chancellor, said last year: “Spending billions of pounds on nationalising things just doesn’t stack up against our fiscal rules.”

A government spokesman said: “We prepare for a range of scenarios across our regulated industries, including water, as any responsible government would.”

[btd1981]

The billpayers really need to be educated as to where much of their hard earned bill payments have disappeared over the last few decades, before they are 'given the option' to accept increased fees.

[Ballyk]

The idea that their only choice is a private company is absurd. 

Look at Scottish Water / Welsh Water / Northern Ireland Water.

Also, when Railtrack screwed up, Network Rail took over the railways.  

It is only a stupid ideology that would keep it in the private sector.

All the English water companies have been failing thanks to poor management and bad regulation.

[Stewy]

Providing fresh water is an important but very minor part of overall expenditure. 

Our rivers are the cleanest they've ever been, most are finally excellent for swimming in and even greeting our resident salmon or seals ⛵

We truly are in epic times. ✓

[Freki]

7 hours ago, Ballyk said:

 

All the English water companies have been failing thanks to poor management and bad regulation.

They failed due to poor governance. When you have a revolving door between the regulator and the industry it is meant to regulate, there is an obvious issue. 

Ofwat has been toothless and complacent. If there is no risk of losing, people will act as thieves.

Thames water's debt is held by the shareholders, a nationalisation due to bankruptcy would mean they would lose everything, as they should. 

[Stewy]

1 minute ago, Freki said:

They failed due to poor governance. When you have a revolving door between the regulator and the industry it is meant to regulate, there is an obvious issue. 

 

What is your solution?

You either have knowledgeable people at regulators who have worked in the industry, or you get outsiders who don't understand all the technicalities. 

[Freki]

2 minutes ago, Stewy said:

What is your solution?

You either have knowledgeable people at regulators who have worked in the industry, or you get outsiders who don't understand all the technicalities. 

BS, you have a contractual agreement, the industry has to follow it. What you need first and foremost is specialists in monopolies. You don't let monopolies get so much profit, by loading so much debt without stripping them off their assets. 

Besides, at this level the role is one of stakeholder management, the technicality you leave it to the analysts and their reporting. What kind of expertise do you need to understand you are being taken for a ride?

[Stewy]

7 minutes ago, Freki said:

BS, you have a contractual agreement, the industry has to follow it. What you need first and foremost is specialists in monopolies. You don't let monopolies get so much profit, by loading so much debt without stripping them off their assets. 

Besides, at this level the role is one of stakeholder management, the technicality you leave it to the analysts and their reporting. What kind of expertise do you need to understand you are being taken for a ride?

No answer there but a lot of bloviation. 

"When you have a revolving door between the regulator and the industry it is meant to regulate"

How do you prevent that happening while making sure the regulator is up to speed with goings-on in the industry? 

[Freki]

1 minute ago, Stewy said:

No answer there but a lot of bloviation. 

"When you have a revolving door between the regulator and the industry it is meant to regulate"

How do you prevent that happening while making sure the regulator is up to speed with goings-on in the industry? 

I answered your concern that the people of heading the regulator need to come from that industry. 

But if you want a simple one, to address the simplest part: you can't work for the industry you are regulating for 5 years. 

[Stewy]

3 minutes ago, Freki said:

 

But if you want a simple one, to address the simplest part: you can't work for the industry you are regulating for 5 years. 

I've worked in a regulated industry. 

During that employment I've had a three month break. Even in that time I can acknowledge that I'd started to slightly lose some awareness of the factors affecting the industry.

Five years is a joke. The industry would be able to run rings around unaware regulators. 

[MarkD]

9 hours ago, btd1981 said:

The billpayers really need to be educated as to where much of their hard earned bill payments have disappeared over the last few decades, before they are 'given the option' to accept increased fees.

Indeed. It’s as if their multi billion debts appeared overnight! Equally no one noticed the infrastructure was creaking and not up to the job. The next scandal? It’s been over a month since the last after all.

[Brendan110_0]

2 hours ago, Stewy said:

Providing fresh water is an important but very minor part of overall expenditure. 

Our rivers are the cleanest they've ever been, most are finally excellent for swimming in and even greeting our resident salmon or seals ⛵

We truly are in epic times. ✓

I go fishing in local rivers, 90% of life has been destroyed leading to fish population collapse. 

[Depressedpedro]

2 hours ago, Stewy said:

Providing fresh water is an important but very minor part of overall expenditure. 

Our rivers are the cleanest they've ever been, most are finally excellent for swimming in and even greeting our resident salmon or seals ⛵

We truly are in epic times. ✓

Your talking s*** again Stewy. From a government report in 2022 *before* it has further deteoriated over the last 18 months:

Only 14% of rivers in England can currently claim to have good ecological status.¹¹ The Government is not on track to meet the Water Framework Directive requirement—subsequently transposed into UK law—for all rivers to reach good status by 2027.¹²

So clean that only 14% are deemed good enough on a ecological level, a number undoubtably higher than.today.

stop spouting stuff you know nothing about.

[Timm]

1 hour ago, Stewy said:

What is your solution?

You either have knowledgeable people at regulators who have worked in the industry, or you get outsiders who don't understand all the technicalities. 

Just let them collapse.

Renationalise with existing staff retained and regulators folded into the operation. Over time, there would be a culture change to providing an improved service at a lower cost rather than providing maximum profit to shareholders, all of whom of course got wiped out by the insolvency.

Simplistic? Yes?

Naive? Probably.

But possible? Yes.

[NoHPCinTheUK]

The class of parasites whose only aim is to collect their quarterly dividends and/or monthly rental income have destroyed one of the wealthiest country on earth. 
 

I do wonder what the social and financial bill is going to be when we will finally realise all the damage they were allowed to pursue. 

Edited March 30 by NoHPCinTheUK

[Stewy]

And just like that...a canoeist goes a-sailing by 

🛶

[sexton]

UK water bills are very low. here in Sweden I pay £800 connection + £2 per cubic  metre. 

[andrewwk]

12 hours ago, NoHPCinTheUK said:

https://www.ft.com/content/ed182b89-6b96-4bfa-96c0-b1c70357861b

pretty vitriolic BTL comments on that article.

[Stewy]

Just now, sexton said:

UK water bills are very low. here in Sweden I pay £800 connection + £2 per cubic  metre. 

That'll be unpopular with the depressed Doom Porn Nothingburger Everything Collapse half of this forum 😄

[NoHPCinTheUK]

4 minutes ago, sexton said:

UK water bills are very low. here in Sweden I pay £800 connection + £2 per cubic  metre. 

They’re not very low. If you’re getting ripped off in Sweden it doesn’t matter we should also be over here. 

[bomberbrown]

When I first moved to London in 1998, my water charges were £2 a week (I remember vividly as I was on the dole initially before I got my job and I paid it weekly). I’m now paying £500 a year.  1,000% increase.  
 

Meanwhile, over the last 30 years, Thameswater have paid £7.2Bn in dividends to their shareholders.  

[DownwardSlopingPlateau]

5 hours ago, Stewy said:

Providing fresh water is an important but very minor part of overall expenditure. 

Our rivers are the cleanest they've ever been, most are finally excellent for swimming in and even greeting our resident salmon or seals ⛵

We truly are in epic times. ✓

Remember, every drop is precious:

[DownwardSlopingPlateau]

1 hour ago, NoHPCinTheUK said:

The class of parasites whose only aim is to collect their quarterly dividends..

Saved. I only use Accumulation Units. 😉

[winkie]

1 hour ago, bomberbrown said:

When I first moved to London in 1998, my water charges were £2 a week (I remember vividly as I was on the dole initially before I got my job and I paid it weekly). I’m now paying £500 a year.  1,000% increase.  
 

Meanwhile, over the last 30 years, Thameswater have paid £7.2Bn in dividends to their shareholders.  

London is not the most expensive of the monopoly water companies, other places like for like are often more expensive......same with council taxes, broadband etc.....on the news in Europe about the contaminated waters in and around the UK.....e coli, dysentery etc.   

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/hospital-cases-water-borne-diseases-32471609

https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/11/25/sewage-pollution-is-making-uk-beaches-and-rivers-unswimmable-new-report-reveals

Embarrassing.

Edited March 30 by winkie