| £168m 07:19 - Aug 6 with 2307 views | Tangledupin_Blue |
When utilities, such as water companies, are fined large sums of money, how does that not ultimately result in increased bills for their customers?
Isn't it the case that water company breaks the rules and is fined; the money goes to the regulator and the customer finishes up paying? The company CEO still gets their 6-figure bonus. |  |
| |  |
| £168m on 07:34 - Aug 6 with 2197 views | NedPlimpton |
Was just thinking this. Surely there is a better way of punishing the water companies that won't just be passed down to the customer |  | | |
| £168m on 07:49 - Aug 6 with 2126 views | tcblue |
| £168m on 07:34 - Aug 6 by NedPlimpton |
Was just thinking this. Surely there is a better way of punishing the water companies that won't just be passed down to the customer |
AFAIK from when I was looking at it (I live near the coast and water quality is one of my main voting motivations), it isn't too much of a cost to 'fire' water company operators.
But it IS a huge cost to set up to run them. Somewhere in the region of £9bn to renationalise our water. I'd definitely be finding that money if I was PM but realise I'm probably a bit blinkered to it.
Interesting to read that France (another country which privatised their water) couldn't host open water swimming in the Seine because of pollution. Must be one of those coincidences |  | | |
| £168m on 07:53 - Aug 6 with 2102 views | Tangledupin_Blue |
And hospitals sometimes are negligent leading to hospital trusts being fined. Isn't it the case that that simply takes money away from the hospital budget leaving the hospitals less able to invest in treatment?
So the public suffers from health service negligence resulting in the public losing out through reduced investment (in staff, equipment etc)? I daresay the people in charge are untouchable... | |
| |
| £168m on 08:15 - Aug 6 with 1980 views | tonybied |
| £168m on 07:49 - Aug 6 by tcblue |
AFAIK from when I was looking at it (I live near the coast and water quality is one of my main voting motivations), it isn't too much of a cost to 'fire' water company operators.
But it IS a huge cost to set up to run them. Somewhere in the region of £9bn to renationalise our water. I'd definitely be finding that money if I was PM but realise I'm probably a bit blinkered to it.
Interesting to read that France (another country which privatised their water) couldn't host open water swimming in the Seine because of pollution. Must be one of those coincidences |
France had a massive amount of rain as you would've seen from the opening ceremony of the Olympics. This was the reason for the poor water quality recently. Sewer water being released into rivers is normal and expected in these conditions and it makes no difference who is overseeing looking after the water. What is not normal is sewage being released into rivers when there haven't been any adverse rain conditions recently, causing high levels of pollution throughout the year.
Bringing our water back under the public sectors wing would not guarantee that it is governed any better. It should mean that the money that we pay towards it doesn't end up in shareholders pockets though and there would be a much better chance that it would be invested in the upkeep of service. [Post edited 6 Aug 2024 9:20]
|  | | |
| £168m on 08:20 - Aug 6 with 1935 views | Keno |
| £168m on 07:53 - Aug 6 by Tangledupin_Blue |
And hospitals sometimes are negligent leading to hospital trusts being fined. Isn't it the case that that simply takes money away from the hospital budget leaving the hospitals less able to invest in treatment?
So the public suffers from health service negligence resulting in the public losing out through reduced investment (in staff, equipment etc)? I daresay the people in charge are untouchable... |
This is my feelings on this
The fines should be paid personally by the senior execs and directors not by the company/NHS Trust
They should also me made to eat Battenberg, drink Carlsberg and listen to the The Smiths |  |
| |
| £168m on 08:30 - Aug 6 with 1883 views | Zx1988 |
In this instance, the fines alone are not enough.
If you're going to levy a fine against a company such as this, it needs to be coupled with dividend bans, and restrictions on price increases. | |
| |
| £168m on 08:36 - Aug 6 with 1820 views | OldFart71 |
It wasn't many months ago when it was declared that customers would get a refund on their water bills. That all disappeared then the regulator allowed them to up bills by 5%. Why should customers pay for the prevention of pollution of rivers when surely that's part and parcel of what they already pay for. It's obvious that when these Company's are privatised it won't benefit customers as all they are interested in is paying millions in dividends to share holders, who I would suggest in the main are wealthy people and paying the boardroom members massive bonuses. Quite regularly adverts come on tv, give just £2 a month so that someone in a far off Country can have clean water. So how come I pay £30 a month ? No I'm not denying these people clean water, but it's just an example of the rip off of virtually everything in the UK. Pay or benefits go up and consequently prices go up. You never get any better off. | | | |
| £168m on 08:39 - Aug 6 with 1812 views | flettonblue |
Recently announced water (special measures) bill should help avoid this in the future banning bonuses under certain conditions and ring fencing our customer money for upgrades. They continue to get away with it until then |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| £168m on 09:00 - Aug 6 with 1748 views | Tangledupin_Blue |
| £168m on 08:39 - Aug 6 by flettonblue |
Recently announced water (special measures) bill should help avoid this in the future banning bonuses under certain conditions and ring fencing our customer money for upgrades. They continue to get away with it until then |
I don't want to be or to sound obtuse but...
If all of the money, paid by customers through our bills, is ringfenced to improve water supply and quality, then what money can the companies use to pay their fines? Where will that money come from?
Edit: Thames Water ceo received £437,000 for the first three months of this year, including a bonus of £195,000. Thames Water has just been fined more than £100m. If they paid the fine by withholding his bonus then there would still be a substantial shortfall to make up... [Post edited 6 Aug 2024 9:10]
| |
| |
| £168m on 09:09 - Aug 6 with 1690 views | Meadowlark |
| £168m on 09:00 - Aug 6 by Tangledupin_Blue |
I don't want to be or to sound obtuse but...
If all of the money, paid by customers through our bills, is ringfenced to improve water supply and quality, then what money can the companies use to pay their fines? Where will that money come from?
Edit: Thames Water ceo received £437,000 for the first three months of this year, including a bonus of £195,000. Thames Water has just been fined more than £100m. If they paid the fine by withholding his bonus then there would still be a substantial shortfall to make up... [Post edited 6 Aug 2024 9:10]
|
These companies are large conglomerates of several businesses, often owning assets in other markets such as hotels, and also most of them are overseas companies owning utilities in many countries. My water supplier in Lowestoft is a Hong Kong based company!!! |  | | |
| £168m on 09:10 - Aug 6 with 1688 views | ElderGrizzly |
And sometimes the fine is cheaper than fixing the problem, so they simply run the numbers and take the hit |  | | |
| £168m on 09:10 - Aug 6 with 1677 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
Ah, but when they put their prices we will all move to a different supplier won't we? Isn't that the point of privatisation - to drive healthy competition!
I think there is some stigma associated with the fines but I do agree that their impact is likely to be negligible. I also wonder why the water companies advertise since they are monopolies without competition. |  |
| |
| £168m on 09:15 - Aug 6 with 1651 views | Tangledupin_Blue |
| £168m on 09:09 - Aug 6 by Meadowlark |
These companies are large conglomerates of several businesses, often owning assets in other markets such as hotels, and also most of them are overseas companies owning utilities in many countries. My water supplier in Lowestoft is a Hong Kong based company!!! |
I would prefer my water and sewage service provider to be a publicly owned not-for-profit organisation where any excess money stays in East Anglia and is used to improve infrastructure. | |
| |
| £168m on 09:18 - Aug 6 with 1624 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| £168m on 09:15 - Aug 6 by Tangledupin_Blue |
I would prefer my water and sewage service provider to be a publicly owned not-for-profit organisation where any excess money stays in East Anglia and is used to improve infrastructure. |
Absolutely. The drive to privatise to improve services used the logic of competition as motivation. There is no competition in this sector. | |
| |
| £168m on 09:22 - Aug 6 with 1600 views | flettonblue |
| £168m on 09:00 - Aug 6 by Tangledupin_Blue |
I don't want to be or to sound obtuse but...
If all of the money, paid by customers through our bills, is ringfenced to improve water supply and quality, then what money can the companies use to pay their fines? Where will that money come from?
Edit: Thames Water ceo received £437,000 for the first three months of this year, including a bonus of £195,000. Thames Water has just been fined more than £100m. If they paid the fine by withholding his bonus then there would still be a substantial shortfall to make up... [Post edited 6 Aug 2024 9:10]
|
It's for investors to pick up the fines as when ofwat set our bills every 5 years they don't make allowance for any fines. Not sure how investors would do that as not anything I understand but I did read recently investors across the water sector had received 11 billion so on that I think they can afford this pittance in fines in comparison. | | | |
| £168m on 09:31 - Aug 6 with 1559 views | Tangledupin_Blue |
| £168m on 09:22 - Aug 6 by flettonblue |
It's for investors to pick up the fines as when ofwat set our bills every 5 years they don't make allowance for any fines. Not sure how investors would do that as not anything I understand but I did read recently investors across the water sector had received 11 billion so on that I think they can afford this pittance in fines in comparison. |
Genuine question...
Does 'investors' mean 'pension funds' and the like because, if it does, then we the public still lose out through reduced pensions. | |
| |
| £168m on 12:15 - Aug 6 with 1274 views | JamestownPrince |
When I saw "£168m" as a headline I thought it was what price Blackburn were wanting today! | | | |
| £168m on 12:27 - Aug 6 with 1224 views | Freddies_Ears |
| £168m on 08:30 - Aug 6 by Zx1988 |
In this instance, the fines alone are not enough.
If you're going to levy a fine against a company such as this, it needs to be coupled with dividend bans, and restrictions on price increases. |
Spot on. The water companies have paid themselves £11bn in dividends, so a fine is irrelevant to them. The last govt either let the regulator sleep, or didn't allow them to regulate - no dividends should have been permitted whilst basic requirements were not being met.
Now, the customer faces having to pay a second time .. which I call out as fraudulent behaviour by the water cos. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
