logo
Anglian Water ordered to pay £63m for sewage failures

Anglian Water ordered to pay £63m for sewage failures

Times3 days ago
Anglian Water has been ordered to pay £62.8 million for failing to adequately tackle sewage pollution at its wastewater treatment works.
A years-long investigation by the water regulator, Ofwat, found the company had failed to properly operate and upgrade its sewage works and that the firm's leadership did not have sufficient oversight in place.
The company has been issued with an 'enforcement package', to be paid by shareholders rather than customers, to clean up the environment. Among the measures is a £57 million scheme to remove and reduce water pollution in eight catchments in the company's region, which spans East Anglia and neighbouring counties.
'Our investigation has found failures in how Anglian Water has operated and maintained its sewage works and networks, which has resulted in excessive spills from storm overflows. This is a serious breach and is unacceptable,' said Lynn Parker, senior director for enforcement at Ofwat.
The payout is the latest stemming from a major investigation launched in 2021 by Ofwat and the Environment Agency (EA) into whether firms were routinely failing to meet permits for handling sewage. Yorkshire Water and Northumbrian Water have agreed to pay £40 million and £15.7 million respectively, while South West Water was told to pay £24 million. Thames Water, Britain's biggest water company, was given a penalty of £104 million.
Anglian was found to have systematically failed to manage its sewage treatment assets effectively since 2017. In 2021, 56 per cent of outfalls at its wastewater treatment works spilt raw sewage into waterways at least 20 times. A further 21 per cent spilt more than 60 times, suggesting routine rather than exceptional discharges.
Many high-spilling incidents were attributed to operational and asset maintenance issues, which the company failed to resolve swiftly. Anglian was unable to provide up-to-date records of the volumes of sewage it could handle in storm tanks, which are vital to stopping sewage spills into rivers during heavy rainfall. Recent surveys showed that 16 per cent of the company's treatment works still had tanks smaller than required by permits.
• Alistair Osborne: Let the great water clean-up begin
Ofwat also expressed concern over the company's wider environmental record. Anglian recorded 11 serious pollution incidents in both 2022 and 2023, exceeding its targets. Since 2019 it has been prosecuted by the EA more than ten times for a series of pollution incidents. A serious pollution incident resulted in the company's chief executive, Mark Thurston, being banned from receiving a bonus this year under a new law passed by the Labour government.
Ofwat and elements of the EA will soon be merged into a new 'super-regulator' to protect rivers and seas, after ministers accepted five of 88 recommendations in a landmark review into water reform. The rest are being considered over the summer.
'We understand the need to rebuild trust with customers and that aspects of our performance need to improve to do that. Reducing pollution and spills is our number-one operational focus,' said Thurston.
A court on Monday separately ordered East Midlands airport to pay a £900,000 fine for polluting local waterways with de-icer from aircraft and runways. Campaigners had previously raised the alarm over the impact on fish in the River Trent and Diseworth Brook.
The Times's Clean it Up campaign is calling for better regulation and swift investment to protect the nation's rivers and seas.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Chelsea have spent eye-watering £360MILLION on defenders in three years – but how many of them were worth it?
Chelsea have spent eye-watering £360MILLION on defenders in three years – but how many of them were worth it?

The Sun

time17 minutes ago

  • The Sun

Chelsea have spent eye-watering £360MILLION on defenders in three years – but how many of them were worth it?

THE arrival of £37million Jorrel Hato takes Chelsea's spending on defenders under their new owners past a record-shattering £360m. Yet the Blues back four which lines up against Crystal Palace on the opening weekend of the new season may well include just one player who cost a fee. Marc Cucurella, who came in from Brighton three years ago in a deal worth up to £62m, is the biggest success of Chelsea 's hit-and-miss defensive recruitment. The signing of Hato is a major coup for the Blues, with Liverpool and Arsenal among the other major clubs who wanted the talented and versatile teenager. The young Dutchman is the 12th defender brought in since the consortium led by Clearlake Capital and Todd Boehly took over the club in May 2022. But Cucurella, a Euro 2024 winner with Spain, is the only member of the current Chelsea back four that you would describe as world class. And if Chelsea are to win domestic and European titles, they will need more defenders to reach that level. To be fair, Enzo Maresca 's side can already claim to be world champions. To beat a flair-filled Paris Saint-Germain side 3-0, just weeks after they had spanked Inter Milan 5-0 in the Champions League final, was an impressive achievement. The back four which started the Club World Cup final was left back Cucurella, homegrown centre backs Levi Colwill and Trevoh Chalobah, and right back Malo Gusto. The Frenchman, now 22, could end up costing Chelsea £30.7m after signing from Lyon in January 2023 and spending the rest of that season on loan back at the French club. Gusto has done a decent, sometimes very good, job at right back. He covered for the long injury-related absences of Reece James over the last two seasons and kept his place when James was employed in midfield - as he was against PSG. 8 8 But if you believe Moises Caicedo and Enzo Fernandez will start the biggest games in front of the defence, and James will mostly play as an inverted right back when he is fit, then Gusto will not be in Enzo Maresca's strongest 11. Chalobah did well after returning from half a season on loan at Crystal Palace, but could yet find himself being sold this summer. As a product of the Chelsea Academy, he would generate pure profit for financial rules purposes and there could be clubs willing to pay £40m for him. If Chalobah left, his replacement as right-sided centre back at the start of the season would almost certainly be Tosin Adarabioyo. The free transfer from Fulham last summer has carved a niche for himself off the pitch as well as on it. At just 27 he is one of the senior members of the squad, and plays an 'Uncle Tosin' role to the youngsters, enjoying a particularly close relationship with fellow Mancunian Cole Palmer. But no-one, not even Tosin himself, would claim that he is one of Europe's best defenders. If Wesley Fofana is able to put his injury hell behind him and rediscover his previous form, he could yet meet those standards and become a Chelsea stalwart for years to come. Fofana, still just 24, has made only 34 appearances for the Blues since arriving from Leicester in the summer of 2022 in a deal worth up to £75m. He is the most expensive of all Chelsea's defensive signings and that means, through no fault of his own, he has also been the biggest let down. But only just. The Blues really have had trouble finding a settled and satisfactory centre back pairing. Within weeks of the 2022 takeover, Kalidou Koulibaly became the new regime's first defensive signing. The Napoli star's £35m fee felt a little steep for a player about to turn 31, but the Senegal international was highly-rated and on the radar of other big clubs. Koulibaly failed to live up to his billing, although he could point to the chaos of playing under three different managers and a hamstring injury as decent explanations. He was offloaded after just one season to Saudi Pro League side Al-Hilal - and played for them in this year's Club World Cup. When Chelsea set a new record for winter window spending in early 2023, Benoit Badiashile 's £35m arrival from Monaco went a little under the radar in the wake of massive deals for Enzo Fernandez and Mykhailo Mudryk. The Frenchman did fine in a struggling team in the remainder of the 22/23 season, but not well enough to seal his spot. And when injury kept Badiashile out of the start of the following campaign, Colwill took his chance after returning from loan at Brighton. 8 8 8 Meanwhile the unfortunate Fofana had suffered the second major knee injury of his short Chelsea career in the summer of 2023. Within weeks, the Blues had gone back to Monaco to bring in Axel Disasi for another £38m. The France international was a first choice under Mauricio Pochettino for much of the 2023/4 season. But new boss Maresca did not fancy Disasi, and he was sent on loan to Aston Villa for the second half of last season. The signing of Hato, 19, fits Chelsea's current transfer philosophy of signing the best young players and trying to turn them into superstars. If they fail, they can usually be sold on for a profit, as is likely to be the case with Renato Veiga. The versatile Portuguese was signed only last summer, did well enough to earn a loan to Juventus for the second half of the season and could find himself joining Atletico Madrid for a chunky fee. In addition to Veiga, Chelsea signed two teenage defenders last summer in centre back Aaron Anselmino and left back Caleb Wiley. The latter has now returned to Watford for a second season on loan, while Anselmino may well also leave on a temporary deal after recovering from injury. Mamadou Sarr, 19, is likely to be loaned back to Strasbourg after the Blues paid £12m to their sister club. Hato is also 19 but at a fee of £37m, he will surely need to deliver for Chelsea this season. The Blues will probably ease him in, perhaps initially as cover for left back Cucurella. In the longer term, Hato should end up challenging Colwill for that left-sided centre back slot or forming a partnership with the England international. And finally, after spending more on defenders than any club, Chelsea could end up with a world-class back four to show for it. 8

The Guardian view on car finance scandal redress: mis-sold loans demand action, not excuses or spin
The Guardian view on car finance scandal redress: mis-sold loans demand action, not excuses or spin

The Guardian

time17 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

The Guardian view on car finance scandal redress: mis-sold loans demand action, not excuses or spin

With its ruling in the car finance case, the UK supreme court sent a clear message: some motorists purchased vehicles with deals that were indeed unfair, but it's not the judiciary's job to redraw the boundaries of consumer protection law. That burden, the justices suggested, rests with regulators and elected governments. This reasoning is in line with a major speech in June by the court's president, Lord Reed, who argued that judges aren't policymakers – and shouldn't be. He led a bench that nonetheless upheld a finding of unfairness in the case of the factory supervisor Marcus Johnson. The court flagged the danger, defined the threshold – but stopped short of imposing redress itself. Now, the baton has been passed. Millions could get payouts if the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) follows the court ruling with its proposed redress scheme, now out for consultation. The regulator admits what courts and campaigners have long suggested: that hidden commissions and opaque contracts were endemic, and that consumers were misled on a large scale. It may be 2025, but the roots of this scandal stretch back decades. More than 90% of new car purchases are financed, and for years, buyers weren't offered the best deal – just the one that earned the broker the biggest cut. Last October, the court of appeal saw hidden commissions as tantamount to bribes – secret incentives to push pricier loans. Banks had been on the hook for potentially £40bn in compensation had that view prevailed. But the supreme court disagreed. Dealers aren't fiduciaries, it said. They're not priests or doctors. They're salespeople and everyone knows it. The Treasury had tried, and failed, to intervene on behalf of banks that feared big payouts. The supreme court dismissed that petition with waspish brevity. Rachel Reeves may argue she was guarding financial stability, but it is not a good look to be siding with lenders over misled consumers, especially when there is a strong case to suggest regulators had been asleep at the wheel. The FCA now admits that many firms broke the rules. It plans a compensation scheme covering loans dating back to 2007, including both discretionary and some non-discretionary commission arrangements. The potential bill? At least £9bn, and possibly double that. Most individuals will probably receive less than £950 in compensation. The court's refusal to stretch the law to encompass issues of trust wasn't a shrug; it was a signal. The law allows unfairness to be addressed. But the heavy lifting must be done by the state. This episode lays bare a deeper malaise. Britain's credit system often runs on skewed incentives and asymmetric information. Brokers pose as advisers but act as commission-driven salespeople. In Mr Johnson's case a £1,650 hidden commission – a quarter of the car's price – went undisclosed. That's not a quirk; it's economics' classic lemons problem. In car finance, consumers didn't know how much brokers were pocketing or how that skewed the deal. Without trust or clarity, quality suffers – and everyone overpays for 'lemons' (duds). The court of appeal did focus minds; and failing to interpret the law robustly in the face of clear wrongdoing is itself a judicial choice. The supreme court smartly redirected the narrative. The regulator is stirring. Ministers must now support a consumer-facing system of redress and not shield the City from the consequences of its own mis‑selling. The public will be watching.

A fair price to the public for water nationalisation
A fair price to the public for water nationalisation

The Guardian

timean hour ago

  • The Guardian

A fair price to the public for water nationalisation

The environment secretary, Steve Reed, claims that water cannot be put into public ownership because it would cost £100bn, and that the government would have to raid the NHS budget to fund it ('Broken' water industry in England and Wales faces tighter controls under new watchdog, 21 July). This is inaccurate. The People's Commission on the Water Sector has investigated the £100bn figure in detail and found that the costs are based on biased evidence and have no basis in law. We have also found that any temporary funds needed to refinance the water sector would be through ringfenced bonds and would not affect the NHS budget. The environment secretary should not use figures that are clearly misleading and have no bearing on the actual costs of public ownership. The £100bn figure is the regulatory capital value (RCV) of the water companies, used by Ofwat and calculated using the market value of water companies in 1989, adding capital spending and depreciation since, multiplied by the retail prices index. Two water companies listed on the stock exchange have market values around half their RCV. KKR merely offered £4bn in its takeover bid for Thames Water, which has an RCV of £21bn, before it pulled out in June. RCV bears no resemblance to the market value of the company and should not be used as the cost of public ownership. Market value is also not the correct way to value a water company. In law, the government would simply need to pay a fair value, not market value, to take a company into public ownership. This would take into account the inadequate investment in the sewage infrastructure, the dividends paid, the high debts incurred which have weakened financial resilience, and the huge costs required to rectify the damage done under private ownership. The law ultimately has to ensure that a 'fair balance' has been struck in the public interest, and 'appropriate value' for secured creditors. In the case of failed water companies that have returned billions to shareholders and creditors, while leaving billions more in repair costs, this would mean paying something closer to zero for transfer into public Becky Malby, Dr Kate Bayliss, Prof Frances Cleaver, Prof Ewan McGaugheyThe People's Commission on the Water Sector Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store