Record and well-deserved fine for Thames Water
- Thread starter LimL
- Start date
Actionmat
Well-Known Member
Good. They get away with murder down this end. Every rain storm equals more shite in the river at Islweorth. They've taken millions without fixing the problem that school children are taught was solved by Sir Joseph Bazelgette. And people still row in it:disgust:
Tam Lin
Well-Known Member
Good news then for the customers who will have to pay for it? The actual perpetrators will, I presume, get off scot free.
(Am I allowed to use the phrase "scot free" or is it racist?)
(Am I allowed to use the phrase "scot free" or is it racist?)
oldgit
Well-Known Member
It means exactly what you want it to mean
Similar problem down on coasts of Kent and Sussex recently ,multiple sewage transgressions leading to even the authorities finally taking dim view.
Problem is making the shareholders feel the pain and preventing the companies burying the fine in running costs and claiming tax breaks on the losses. ?
From memory a water board got fined three times for the same thing before any money was spent to sort the problem.
Last edited:
Tam Lin
Well-Known Member
Well, I was just using the phrase naturally then wondered if I was offending the Scots!
Just checked on Google and several authoritative sources state that it comes from the Scandanavian word for taxes and is nothing to do with the Scots so that's alright then!
Just checked on Google and several authoritative sources state that it comes from the Scandanavian word for taxes and is nothing to do with the Scots so that's alright then!
No Regrets
Well-Known Member
The judge has instructed them not to make customers pay with increased bills. :encouragement:
No Regrets
Well-Known Member
I Googled 'Haggis muncher' but wasn't as lucky... :ambivalence:
oldgit
Well-Known Member
Please do not use that word again without some warning...any mention of that word could send readers of this forum into fit of the vapours.
Actionmat
Well-Known Member
They'll find a way. Even if bills don't rise above inflation, investment or staff will be cut back, which will affect the service that we're paying for.
Actionmat
Well-Known Member
No Regrets
Well-Known Member
Try 'Haggistani'
Lovely, that works fine! :encouragement:
Brightside
Well-Known Member
It may be a record fine, but I really question whether it was enough? Perhaps Thames Water should also be making compensation payments on top to correct the damage and to carry out restoration work to the river.
sailorman
Well-Known Member
boatone
Well-Known Member
Thames Water could do much to assist the funding of the Thames and, promote an acceptable face of capitalism. The pity of this fine is that it will benefit the inland Thames not one penny piece and yet it could be so different.
TW has some 15 million customers and made an operating profit of £742million in 2015/16 on turnover of £1.9billion. On average customers pay approx £1 day.
A contribution of just £1 per year per customer would bring £15million per annum to the river and, as it would be tax deductible would cost TW only half that amount. I have also previously suggested that, as their head office is just round the corner from EA Thames offices in Reading they could deliver the cheque by hand and save the cost of a stamp.
What a fabulous PR opportunity this represents for TW to make a real contribution to the river and the millions of people that use it as a recreational resource. Instead, they continue to pay a paltry £300k p.a. as required by the Thames Conservancy Act 1932 - a figure that is still the same today as there is no mechanism in the Act to increase it.
TW has some 15 million customers and made an operating profit of £742million in 2015/16 on turnover of £1.9billion. On average customers pay approx £1 day.
A contribution of just £1 per year per customer would bring £15million per annum to the river and, as it would be tax deductible would cost TW only half that amount. I have also previously suggested that, as their head office is just round the corner from EA Thames offices in Reading they could deliver the cheque by hand and save the cost of a stamp.
What a fabulous PR opportunity this represents for TW to make a real contribution to the river and the millions of people that use it as a recreational resource. Instead, they continue to pay a paltry £300k p.a. as required by the Thames Conservancy Act 1932 - a figure that is still the same today as there is no mechanism in the Act to increase it.
Last edited:
TrueBlue
Well-Known Member
Here, here (or is it 'hear).
Time was when we 'all' had a direct stake in utilities - which was later 'stolen' by takeovers. My shares in Thames Water, Southern Water and SeBoard were forcibly bought out by foreign investors with no concern for any public 'duty'.
DogsBody
Well-Known Member
Never gonna happen, since their shareholders / customers wouldn't agree to pay the extra! I don't think I come under their area, so am not directly a Thames Water customer but they can have £2 off me, if they can get the other 14,999,999 customers to pay their £1
boatone
Well-Known Member
I'm not suggesting that the shareholders should pay extra. The £7 or £8 million net of tax could come out of their PR budget and not be missed. Alternatively, perhaps they could be persuaded to enclose a covenant form with their bills inviting customers to contribute a little to the wider good of the river as a recreational resource.Never gonna happen, since their shareholders / customers wouldn't agree to pay the extra! I don't think I come under their area, so am not directly a Thames Water customer but they can have £2 off me, if they can get the other 14,999,999 customers to pay their £1
The Thames provides much of what is, in effect, their raw material/stock in trade which they pay so little for they actually take it for granted and, as the court case and fine clearly demonstrates, pay scant attention to its welfare.
Actionmat
Well-Known Member
There wasn't a group action brought against Thames Water and as I was part of it, I can't say a lot.
It ran for years, making lawyers very wealthy. We wanted them to spend their money on pollution and stench measures, not on dividends. In the end, they settled out of court. I was fuming as for me it wasn't about money, but the protection of the river. They paid a not inconsiderable sum to hundreds who were willing to be bought off. Unfortunately, I had no say, the decision went with the majority. Thames Water was always going to spend more on Lawyers than anyone who was willing to stand up to them.
Despite regular checks from the authorities, Thames Water has always found it more cost effective to pay the fines than invest, update and stop polluting.
Expecting them to pay towards the Thames is a nice idea, but from my experience, I can say "no chance".
It ran for years, making lawyers very wealthy. We wanted them to spend their money on pollution and stench measures, not on dividends. In the end, they settled out of court. I was fuming as for me it wasn't about money, but the protection of the river. They paid a not inconsiderable sum to hundreds who were willing to be bought off. Unfortunately, I had no say, the decision went with the majority. Thames Water was always going to spend more on Lawyers than anyone who was willing to stand up to them.
Despite regular checks from the authorities, Thames Water has always found it more cost effective to pay the fines than invest, update and stop polluting.
Expecting them to pay towards the Thames is a nice idea, but from my experience, I can say "no chance".
TrueBlue
Well-Known Member
- Understandable, sadly.
Perhaps something could (!) be done at governmental level -
- EA probably don't have the resources (possibly the will either)
- If CART ever 'takes over', then even less (although they do seem to have a creative firm on lawyers in their employ....)