Anglian Water to pay out £63m after 'excessive' sewage spills
Water regulator Ofwat said on Tuesday Anglian Water has proposed a £62.8million penalty and remedial action following an investigation.
The watchdog said the east of England water company, which serves nearly seven million customers, had 'breached its legal obligations' in operating its wastewater treatment network.
The water industry has come under fire for discharging sewage into rivers and seas, with outflows at record levels.
Yorkshire Water, South West Water, Thames Water and Northumbrian Water are among the firms that have faced similar enforcement action so far in 2025, collectively facing penalities over £160million.
At the same time, domestic bills have increased by an average £10 a month as the sector embarks on a multi-billion pound infrastructure upgrade package.
Anglian Water said in a statement the proposed redress package will be 'entirely funded' by shareholders, rather than customers.
Ofwat's investigation into Anglian Water found it had failed to operate, maintain and upgrade its wastewater assets to ensure they could 'cope with the flows of sewage and wastewater coming to them'.
As part of the package of measures, Ofwat said £5.8million of the penalty would go towards a community fund to support environmental and social projects.
'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,' Lynn Parker, Ofwat's senior director of enforcement said.
'This is a serious breach and is unacceptable.'
Anglian Water said it planned to accelerate investment to reduce spills at high-risk sites and implement a longer term plan to ensure spills from storm overflows are minimised.
Mark Thurston, chief executive of Anglian Water said: 'We understand the need to rebuild trust with customers and that aspects of our performance need to improve to do that.
'Reducing pollutions and spills is our number one operational focus, and we have both the investment and the partners in place to deliver on those promises as part of our £11billion business plan over the next five years.'
The independent Water Commission, led by Sir John Cunliffe, was set up in response to outrage over sewage spills and rising bills.
The review, published last week, concluded that Ofwat would need to be scrapped in favour of a new regulator.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
28 minutes ago
- The Independent
Sheffield Wednesday players release statement amid club's financial turmoil
Sheffield Wednesday players have issued a statement saying that they are 'extremely concerned' at the lack of clarity around the club's financial situation. Players and staff at the Championship club have had to deal with late wage payments for three months in a row as a consequence of the club's financial issues, with the players deciding to withdraw from a planned friendly against Burnley last week. Wednesday have previously been placed under transfer embargo for payments owed to HMRC, while the EFL imposed ' a three-window fee restriction after exceeding 30 days of late payments between 1 July 2024 and 30 June 2025'. And the statement from the members of the squad highlighted how 'players and staff are now feeling real, practical impacts in their professional and personal lives', adding that they want to make sure that 'decisions taken like the one not to play at Burnley are avoided in the future'. 'As has been well publicised, players, coaching and club staff groups at the club have all been impacted by delayed and overdue payment of salaries,' began the statement. 'This has been a worrying time for us as players but, whist we are often the ones in the spotlight, we are not the only ones involved. We stand together in support with all our colleagues employed by the club who have been affected. 'The decision taken by the players to withdraw from the planned friendly with Burnley was not taken lightly or without consideration. We are fully aware of the added concern this will have caused supporters but trust there is a real understanding of the difficult position we have been put in,' it added. Naturally, the decision to not play the match against Burnley has led to concerns as to what action the players could take as the league season gets underway, with the Owls set to face Leicester City in their first match of the new Championship season. But the players explained that they 'want to reassure fans that there has not been, and will not be, any 'downing of tools' by any of us on the training ground, and we are all working as hard as we can'. 'However, we, like you, want our focus to be fully on what happens on the pitch and the new season ahead. This is proving to be really challenging and we have made it clear to the club that we want this situation to be addressed as soon as possible so decisions taken like the one not to play at Burnley are avoided in the future. We can then all move forward together as a club,' it added. The Owls's pre-season preparations have been thrown into chaos with the transfer embargo, the departure of Danny Rohl and the closure of the North Stand at Hillsborough, and there are doubts over whether they will be able to fulfil their first game of the season. That match comes against Leicester on Sunday, 10 August, with fans planning a protest against owner Dejphon Chansiri, who is under mounting pressure to sell the club.
Daily Mail
28 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
I was slapped an £18 Clean Air Zone fine then wasted FIVE months and £100s fighting the tickets... council is to blame
On the face of it, an innocuous work trip to Bristol offers the chance to get out of the office and take in a new part of the country with a few colleagues. But, for Colin Griffiths, what promised to be an enticing two-day visit to the West Country turned into a five-month ordeal as a battle over a pair of Clean Air Zone fines prompted sleepless nights, a ruined holiday and a spiralling bill on the company card. The 56-year-old, from Bedford, was initially handed a reduced penalty of £18 but, despite paying it immediately, saw it increase more than 10-fold to £267 after the council claimed he had not coughed up the cash. In reality, it was the local authority that had been kicking its heels, taking weeks at a time to respond to Mr Griffiths's appeals and hiking the fines with no apparent rhyme or reason. The beleaguered employee eventually paid the heavily inflated amount just to put the nightmare behind him, but it left a distinctly sour taste in his mouth. He told the Daily Mail that he should not even have been fined in the first place. 'I didn't see any any notices whatsoever,' he said. 'Absolutely none. 'My friend, subsequently, said, "yeah, they're an absolute nightmare, their signs are not obvious at all."' A month after his two-night stay in the city in early October 2024, Mr Griffiths was told by the company's accountant that he had received two fines for breaching a Clean Air Zone in the Green Party-run city. The policy was introduced in November 2022 and applies to all vehicles except a limited number of petrol-powered vehicles released since 2006; one type of diesel vehicles released since the end of 2015; fully electric or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles; Energy Saving Trust's Clean Vehicle Retrofit Accreditation Scheme vehicles; and motorbikes. It is one of seven such zones in England, with London boasting a similar but separate Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez). But Mr Griffiths was none the wiser about the scheme, which meant his car had been slapped with a £9 daily charge, boosted to £69 each thanks to a supposed delay in paying despite the council not contacting him for four weeks. He appealed both of them - a decision that would prompt months of misery and a penalty which would soon spiral out of control. It took the council a further four weeks to respond to his correspondence, at which point it said he could be let off with a £9 fine for the Sunday offence, with seemingly no news regarding the Saturday one. Mr Griffiths claims he paid this straight away, through the link and code provided, and the money left his account, heralding what he thought was the end of an already frustrating ordeal. He should be so lucky. In January, Bristol City Council revisited the saga and told him he had not paid the fine after all and that he had supposedly ignored letters of reminder over the festive period. An investigation later found that he had paid the sum to Bath Council instead, although Mr Griffiths is insistent he used the link and reference code provided by Bristol. The local authority also finally got back to Mr Griffiths about the Saturday penalty and said that this was also late, meaning he owed £129 for this one alone. All this, despite it being the first correspondence he had had regarding the Saturday fine since he appealed it back in November. 'They just kept putting on more and more fines and fees,' he said. Nonetheless, he dug into his pockets to pay the penalty and end the saga once and for all. But it was still far from over. In February, Bristol revisited the Sunday penalty, claiming he had not paid it in December when he said he had. It turned out the fine somehow went to Bath Council despite Mr Griffiths using the link and code provided by Bristol in their email. The upshot was a rehiking of the already hiked penalty, the £120 added onto the original £9 would be shooting up to £180, creating a mega Clean Air fine of £189. Bristol also threatened the increasingly stressed Mr Griffiths with a court appearance. 'I'd been on holiday, and I was getting really stressed about this because their senior manager just wasn't interested in communicating with me anymore,' he said. 'So on that basis, [they said] "tough, it's going to go to a debt recovery agency, so we'll see you in court." 'I actually can't be dealing with this - it's a lot of money, but I don't need the aggravation. It's ruining my holiday. I'm having sleepless nights.' He gave in - and paid the eye-watering £189 figure Bristol had concocted, meaning he had now spent £267 on the two fines, including the £9 December payment and the £69 January transfer. This was painful for Mr Griffiths, who insists he did everything right and any delays were caused by the council's own tardiness. 'I did everything that they asked,' he said. 'I dealt with everything in a timely fashion as soon as I received it and paid them straight away, and even chased them. 'It's upsetting, and I like to do the right thing by people. And I was on holiday and getting these emails, I'm like, "I don't need this aggravation and worrying about it", especially as it's a company car, not mine, and I'm worried. 'My boss knows I wouldn't have abused his hospitality, but it was very stressful, it really was. 'Absolutely [the fact it was company car made it more stressful]. I just felt totally pressured into paying it. 'I paid it and I had to bite the bullet and walk away. I cannot emphasise the stress it put me under.' Will it make him think twice about visiting the Green-run city again? 'Definitely. My friend's wife said you can't obviously see the signs for the Ulez - they don't make it obvious at all,' he said. 'It's a money-making scheme.' For Mr Griffiths, the time for apologies is over and only a refund could make him feel better about his Clean Air Zone nightmare. He added: 'I would love my money back. Not expecting a penny out of them though. It was outrageous. 'I want my money back. Not an apology. 'I can't see compensation happening, but 100 per cent (think I'm entitled to it). They're keyboard warriors - or bullies rather.'
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on water boss's undisclosed bonus: Labour won't fix a system it won't confront
Despite the noise around England's sewage scandal, the political response so far has mostly generated headlines, not real consequences. Ministers performatively 'rage' about polluting water companies. Regulators are rejigged. Laws are passed. Yet little actually changes. The latest manoeuvre by Yorkshire Water is a case in point – and a revealing one. In March, the company was ordered to pay £40m for the 'unacceptable impact' of sewage spills blamed on poor maintenance. It was one of six firms caught by Labour's new bonus ban for the most serious polluters, passed under the Water (Special Measures) Act earlier this year. But the company confirmed to the Guardian that its chief executive, Nicola Shaw, received an additional £660,000 for 'investor-related' work last year – on top of her £689,000 take home pay. The money did not come from Yorkshire Water directly, but from Kelda Holdings, the firm's offshore parent. Using complex corporate structures to sidestep regulatory scrutiny is not a new trick. Many water companies are structured to allow financial engineering to take place at one remove from the regulated business. But Yorkshire's executive reward scheme reveals something important about the nature of the bonus ban itself: its design left scope for avoidance. If companies can reclassify pay or shift it between entities, enforcement becomes a matter of interpretation. Ministers say they are 'aware' of the payments and Ofwat is 'assessing' them. But this is a now-familiar Whitehall formulation – passive, conditional and hollow. The environment secretary, Steve Reed, appears to have a habit of making threats he doesn't back up. When Southern Water, also under the bonus ban, nearly doubled the pay package awarded to its CEO to £1.4m, Mr Reed's response was to urge him to turn it down. No ministerial direction to investigate. No legal challenge or legislative amendment. Just a suggestion. Why the timidity? Because Labour's tough talk on water is just words. It won't touch the system that enables this behaviour, and ministers bend over backwards to reassure markets they never will. The Treasury wants Thames Water kept private – warning Mr Reed a £4bn rescue through nationalisation would gut his entire budget. No wonder he keeps shroud-waving about the cost of public ownership The government seems dazzled by private providers. Regulators are being asked to offer 'forbearance', as Mr Reed's Independent Water Commission suggested. No doubt they had in mind Thames Water, which is facing an estimated £1bn in Ofwat performance penalties. The logic seems to be that enforcement risks spooking the investors needed to fund long-overdue infrastructure upgrades. But this reveals the real problem. England's water system has been financialised to the point of dysfunction. Layered holding companies, offshore entities and opaque capital structures mean regulators are chasing shadows. Attempts to govern via gesture – bonus bans, naming and shaming – are no substitute for structural reform. Most countries retain public ownership, recognising water as a public good, not a commodity. The idea that better people could fix the system is a fantasy – decades of extraction, debt-loading and dividend grabs show the model itself is broken. If Labour truly wants to clean up the nation's waterways, it must confront a hard truth: the incentives of private capital and the obligations of public interest, health and accountability do not align. Until then, expect more sewage, more euphemisms and more payments that defy the spirit – if not always the letter – of the law. Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
