Delving Into Water

Home , Bournemouth Water, Essex and Suffolk Water, Hartlepool Water, Northumbrian Water, Welsh Water

   

 

DELVING INTO WATER

Performance of the water companies in England and Wales

2010-11 to 2013-14

Consumer Council for Water January 2015 Contents

Section Page 1. Executive Summary 3 2. Introduction 9 3. Dealing with complaints 11 4. Customer assistance schemes 14 5. Sewer flooding 19 6. Leaks 22 7. Interruptions to the water supply 25 8. Metering 27 9. Daily water consumption 30 10. Drinking water quality 32 11. Appendices 34

Charts and tables

Page Table one Summary of company performance 2010-11 to 2013-14 (industry 3 level) Table two Number of written complaints per 10,000 connections 11 Chart one Total Service Incentive Mechanism Score (2010-11 to 2013-14) 13 Chart two Number of customers per 10,000 household connections that are 15 registered on WaterSure or the equivalent Table three Number of customers that are registered for customer funded 16 social tariffs Chart three Number of customers per 10,000 household connections that are 17 paying through Water Direct Chart four Number of customers per 10,000 household connections that are 18 included on the special assistance register Chart five Number of properties flooded internally per 10,000 sewerage 19 connections Chart six Number of areas flooded externally per 10,000 sewerage 21 connections Chart seven Total daily leakage as a percentage of water put into the system 22 Table four Company leakage levels 23 Chart eight Number of hours lost due to water supply interruptions of three 25 hours or longer per property served Table five Companies performance against their supply interruptions targets 26 Table six Percentage of household metering 28 Table seven Percentage of non household metering 29 Table eight Average water use 30 Chart nine Overall drinking water quality 32

Page 2 of 39

1. Executive summary

This report has been compiled using information that companies have voluntarily provided to the Consumer Council for Water to demonstrate their performance across a number of service areas that have an impact on consumers. Where appropriate, the information is shown in a comparable format, either by per 10,000 property connections, or using percentages. The key findings from the report are as follows:

Table one: Summary of company performance 2010-11 to 2013-14 (industry level)

Measure 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Contacts and Complaints Written Complaints 185,140 163,036 150,893 123,218 Unwanted contacts 4,703,6901 3,694,150 3,135,539 2,698,240 Service Incentive Mechanism (score) - 68.76 75.09 79.16 82.47 average Customer Assistance Schemes (total number of customers) WaterSure/Welsh Water Assist 63,381 78,835 93,251 109,404 Social Tariffs N/A N/A N/A 13,444 Water Direct 177,912 212,894 227,297 243,811 Special Assistance Registers 158,524 186,171 224,393 249,918 Operational Activities Total internal sewer flooding incidents 5,626 4,525 8,659 4,959 Total external sewer flooding incidents 39,504 39,426 52,308 43,307 Leakage (total megalitres per day) 3,382 3,093 3,094 3,113 Supply interruptions (arithmetical 0.34 0.31 0.27 0.24 average number of hours per property) Household metering levels 41.6% 43.8% 46.7% 49.3% (arithmetical average) Non-household metering levels 88.8% 89.2% 89.5% 89.8% (arithmetical average) Per capita consumption (arithmetical 149.91 147.77 142.20 143.55 average litres per person per day) Drinking water quality (average) N/A 99.96% 99.96% 99.97%

Overall, the industry is making progress in most of the areas that matter to customers; the sections below provide further detail. Yet, there is still room for improvement across all service areas and significant improvement needed for some companies.

This reinforces the importance of the customer focus of the recently completed price review (PR14) in December 2014. CCWater had argued that regulatory price setting needed to have much more customer input and influence than had occurred in the past. Ofwat and the industry listened and the price review of 2014 made major progress in reflecting customer priorities.

Ofwat’s announcement last month of price limits for 2015-20 contained a large range of investments to improve the services that customers had said, throughout the price review, they valued and wanted to see delivered. Many of these investments should help improve the performance measures covered in this report. In many cases these investments have been linked to outcome delivery incentives – rewards for outperforming targets and penalties for failing to deliver them. We will monitor companies’ performance against these incentives, with particular attention on those that are customer-focused. And, where a company performs well and is due a reward, we will be looking at securing a share for customers.

1 The 2010-11 figure does not include data from Sutton & East Surrey as this information is not available. Page 3 of 39

1.1 Dealing with customer complaints and contacts

The number of written complaints to water companies has continued to fall, from 185,140 in 2010-11 to 123,218 in 2013-14. While the reduction is welcome there are still some companies whose performance is a cause for concern, and we are pressing them to improve so they come into line with the better performing companies.

Previously, we have worked with Ofwat and the industry to change the regulatory incentives and penalties system so every water company is focused on delivering services and behaving in a way that meets customers’ expectations. This resulted in Ofwat – the industry’s economic regulator - introducing the Service Incentive Mechanism (SIM) in 2010. This was a new measure of customer service which assessed companies’ performance in handling written complaints and included a survey of customers with resolved company contacts. Companies’ performance is scored out of 100. In 2013-14 the majority of companies saw an increase in their SIM score on previous years. In 2010-11 the average SIM score was 68.76 but this has positively increased by 20% over the past four years to 82.47.

1.2 Customer assistance schemes

The number of customers that are receiving help with payment of their bills has almost doubled over the past four years. However, there is still work to do, as one in five customers has told us that they can not afford their water bill3. Other research4 we commissioned has found that general awareness of the companies’ assistance schemes is often low, and some customers simply do not expect to be offered such help. We are using the findings of this research to identify areas for improvement in water companies’ practices, and to improve awareness of the assistance available with those agencies that deal with indebted customers.

Since 2010-11 all water companies have increased the number of customers registered on WaterSure, which requires companies in England to offer eligible metered households financial assistance through a bill capped at their average level. Customers in Wales can seek assistance from Welsh Water Assist, which extends support to unmetered customers. In 2013-14, almost 110,000 customers were registered on these two schemes, a 73% increase on the 63,381 customers registered in 2010-11.

In addition to WaterSure/Welsh Water Assist, three companies - Bristol Water, South West Water and Wessex Water - introduced customer funded social tariffs in April 2013, offering lower bills to customers that would otherwise struggle to pay. Affinity Water, Sutton & East Surrey Water and Thames Water also launched schemes for their customers in 2014, with more expected to follow suit in 2015.

There have been fluctuations in the number of customers who pay their bill through Water Direct (another Government run scheme that enables customers who are in debt and receive specific benefits to have payments taken directly from those benefits). In 2013-14 there were

2 The 2010-11 figure does not include data from Sutton & East Surrey as this information is not available. 3 http://www.ccwater.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Water-Matters-household-customers-views-on-their-water- and-sewerage-services-20131.pdf 4 http://www.ccwater.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Living-with-water-poverty-in-2014-Report-of-research- findings.pdf

Page 4 of 39

243,811 customers paying their bill via Water Direct, a 37% increase over the past four years. However, only five companies were responsible for this increase.

Each company maintains a ‘special assistance register’ which records the details of customers who have expressed a need for special assistance in the way that services are provided to them. Almost 250,000 customers are now registered on companies’ special assistance registers, a 58% increase from the 158,524 registered in 2010-11.

1.3 Sewer flooding

Sewer flooding is one of the worst service failures that customers can experience. Not only does it damage properties and belongings but it can seriously impact the quality of life for those affected. The number of properties that are flooded with sewage is heavily influenced by the intensity and duration of rainfall. As such there is often variability in sewer flooding across the years. For example, the years 2010-11 and 2011-12 were relatively dry (5,626 and 4,525 properties flooded respectively) but were followed by a relatively ‘wet’ year of 2012-13 (8,659 properties flooded). In 2013-14 a total of 4,959 properties were flooded internally.

Typically there are eight times more external than internal flooding incidents in any given year. Although, at 43,307, external flooding incidents last year were below the ‘wet’ year of 2012-13, they show a worrying upward trend when compared to earlier years.

Customers, of course, do not accept the distinction between ‘dry’ and ‘wet’ years. What they want is action to prevent a recurrence of sewage entering their property or polluting the local environment. We expect companies to take action to resolve and mitigate sewer flooding.

At each price review sewerage companies are provided with funds to resolve or mitigate existing problems and to prevent future flooding incidents. Ofwat’s latest price determination has provided funds to reduce internal sewer flooding incidents by one-third, with companies collectively facing a £353m penalty if they do not deliver.

We will be discussing with the companies where, when and how they will deliver these schemes, and whether there is scope for them to go beyond their commitments and reduce sewer flooding even further.

1.4 Leaks

Customers have told us that their perceptions of their water company can be influenced by how they deal with leakage, and that this can also have an impact on customers’ own efforts to save water5. While they do not expect leakage to be reduced to zero, they do expect companies to do more to fix leaks. They become particularly annoyed when, having reported a leak, the company does not repair it quickly or, if there is a delay, fail to keep customers informed about progress.

We are pushing companies to prioritise leakage and address the more customer facing aspects by producing the information customers find useful, and demonstrating that they are tackling leakage. Some companies are rising to this challenge as they view active leakage control as part of both their wider water management activity and as a means to build a better relationship with their customers.

Nevertheless, about 22% of the water put into the system is currently lost each day through leakage. While this is a slight reduction on the position four years ago, industry-wide leakage levels has been rising since 2011-12. The industry must, therefore, do a lot more to show customers that they are driving down leakage. They should be aiming to go below the targets set

5 http://www.ccwater.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Research-into-customer-perceptions-of-leakage.pdf Page 5 of 39

in the latest price limits, which are collectively above those being currently achieved6. On behalf of customers, we will follow this up with each of the companies.

1.5 Interruptions to the water supply

Interruptions to water supplies can cause inconvenience to customers, especially if they occur at a time when customers would normally be showering or using water appliances. If the interruption occurs without warning due to, for example, a burst main the inconvenience can be that much greater. Whilst customers accept that companies need to occasionally interrupt supplies to do planned maintenance they still expect them to be kept to a minimum and for communication about the interruption to be clear and accurate to minimise disruption.

The amount of time that a customer is without a continuous supply of water is falling7. In 2010- 11 this was about 20 minutes per property, falling to about 14 minutes in 2013-14. Customers of Sembcorp Bournemouth Water, Essex & Suffolk Water and Portsmouth Water experience the least amount of time without water, while Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water customers suffered the longest supply interruptions of about 50 minutes.

Given that customers want their water to keep flowing, we will work with those companies with recent high levels of supply interruptions to see whether they can adopt the practice of the better performing companies.

1.6 Metering

Over the last four years household metering has increased from 42% to 49% in England and Wales. Whilst customers agree that metering is the fairest way to charge for water, many do not support compulsory metering. We have, and will continue to work with companies that introduce compulsory metering programmes to ensure that adequate transitional arrangements are in place for customers, particularly those that may struggle to pay for a metered water bill.

Anglian Water and South West Water have comparatively high percentages of metered customers (above 70%) largely through promotion of the meter option scheme and other initiatives. Northumbrian Water (30%) and Portsmouth Water (23%) have the fewest metered customers.

In parts of the South East of England compulsory metering programmes have significantly increased the level of metering, and will continue to do so over the next five years. Southern Water has reached 75% of households and South East Water 64% to date.

The percentage of metered non-household properties has remained stable at around 90%. Although most business customers will be metered, non household customers that may not be metered include churches, scout huts, farm troughs and stand alone garages.

1.7 Daily water consumption

Since 2010-11 there has been an overall reduction in water use. This reflects an increase in metering, particularly in the areas served by Southern Water and South East Water where there are compulsory metering programmes, and continuing calls for customers to use water wisely. This is partly offset by a slight increase in water use in some areas where water resources are not under the same sort of pressure.

The difference in the average amount of water used by metered households (129 litres per person per day in 2013-14) and that of non metered households (155 litres per person per day) has widened since 2010 -11 (136 and 158 litres per person per day respectively).

6 In 2013-14 companies reported leakage at 3,113Ml/day. Ofwat’s Final Determination states that by 2020 companies will reduce leakage to 3,123Ml/day from 3,281 Ml/day (policy chapter A2 – outcomes, section A2.2.3, page 20). 7 Ofwat’s measure of performance is the average time across the customer base that supplies are off line. Page 6 of 39

Over the next five years, population growth, other demographic changes and restrictions on the amount of water that can be abstracted from rivers, lakes and ground waters mean that available water resources will come under greater strain. Although metering will increase to 61% of all households, it is likely that there will be renewed calls for everyone to use water wisely.

1.8 Drinking water quality

The quality of drinking water is a priority for water consumers and regulated by the Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI). The average figure for public water supply compliance with the EU Drinking Water Directive Standards in 2013 has increased to 99.97%. In 2011 and 2012 this was 99.96%.

Over the next five years, companies are being challenged to increase compliance to 100%.

1.9 Conclusion

The industry is making progress in most of the areas that matter to customers. Commitments that companies have made for the next five years to reflect their customers’ priorities should build on this. The high level trends over the past four years show that:

 Complaints are falling, but we will continue to press the companies who are underperforming to improve in line with the rest of the industry.  More customers struggling to pay their bills are receiving help, but general awareness of the schemes remains low. We will therefore work with companies to improve promotion and take-up of the assistance available to those that would benefit.  Less water is being lost through leakage than in 2010-11, but this has been rising since the 2011-12 low. We are pushing companies to demonstrate to customers that they are addressing leakage.  The amount of time that customers are without water is decreasing - and we are monitoring the progress of companies that are struggling to meet targets.  Water consumption is falling which has been driven by increased metering and continuing campaigns to use water wisely by ourselves and companies. We will also continue to ensure that compulsory metering programmes have the right transitional arrangements and customer protection in place.

However, sewer flooding does remain an area of concern. The consequences can be devastating, and the industry needs to work tirelessly to protect those at risk and provide solutions for those affected, especially as extreme weather events are becoming more commonplace.

Customers expect and deserve high levels of service, and when things go wrong they want a sympathetic hearing and a quick resolution. Within each of the different service areas covered in this report, there are some companies that have much more to do to match the better performers:

 The three companies with the highest amount of complaints per 10,000 connections in 2013-14 were Southern Water, South West Water and South East Water. All three companies have had higher than average figures over the last four years (although not significantly so for South West Water in 2011-12 and 2012-13);  Northumbrian Water’s and United Utilities’ performance on sewer flooding has, of late, been comparatively poor. Northumbrian Water have attributed this to particularly wet weather, and for United Utilities the levels of sewer flooding has been impacted by the age of their network and higher rainfall than other regions;  All companies should continue to encourage water efficiency by their customers, but need to demonstrate that they, too, are water wise by reducing leakage levels; Page 7 of 39

 This is especially relevant for Thames Water and United Utilities whose leakage levels have been the industry’s highest for several years; and  Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water needs to improve its performance on supply interruptions.

In each case, we will continue to push these companies to improve their performance by adopting industry best practice, where appropriate, or by developing innovative solutions to issues and service problems that customers view as important. We will also monitor the performance of the better performing companies to ensure that their service levels to customers continue to improve.

We will monitor companies in the context of their customers’ priorities and their PR14 commitments and, where necessary, adjust our monitoring to reflect this.

Page 8 of 39

2. Introduction

The Consumer Council for Water (CCWater) represents the interests of household and non- household water and sewerage customers. We operate through four committees in England and a committee for Wales.

We work directly with the UK and Welsh Governments, regulators, key stakeholders and water and sewerage companies, to influence and deliver for water consumers and to inform consumers about the issues they say are of interest to them.

During 2013 we asked water companies across England and Wales to change the way in which they reported performance data to our committees. Over many years, the data requested of companies had expanded, become ever more variable and less comparable. Companies recognised the benefits of a reduced number of performance measures that were both customer- focussed and comparable. They agreed to provide us with quarterly reports setting out their performance against a core set of measures, commencing April 2014.

We also asked companies to provide performance data for the full year, 2013-14 and the preceding three years. This report summarises and comments upon company performance for those four years. We will publish a company performance report each year.

Our other reports

This is one of three reports about the water industry that we publish.

Since 2006 we have tracked customer satisfaction with the services they receive and the value for money of those services. The latest research report – Water Matters 2013 – is available on our website at www.ccwater.org.uk.

We also produce an annual report on written customer complaints to the water companies. This is also available on our website, and the key findings are summarised in this report.

For several years we have taken key data from our tracking survey and the complaints report and published it on our website under the banner ‘how is my water company doing?’ We plan to add key data from this company performance report to that webpage to present a more rounded view of customer experience and perception of the water industry in England and Wales.

Comparability of data

Because water companies vary in size, the data in this report is shown as either per 10,000 property connections8 or as a percentage. This ensures company performance can be directly compared.

In some instances, data reported against Anglian Water includes its subsidiary, Hartlepool Water. Due to its small size, Cholderton Water9 does not feature in this report.

Future reporting

As part of the 2014 price review, companies set themselves a number of performance targets based on measures that customers have told them are important. We recognise that there may be some cross over between the information companies gather in tracking progress against delivery of those measures and the information which CCWater will periodically collect.

8 Per 10,000 connections is calculated from the 2013-14 year end total connections data 9 Cholderton Water serves approximately 2,000 consumers on the Wiltshire/Hampshire border. Page 9 of 39

We will be working with the industry and Ofwat to determine how company performance measures will be monitored in future, to:

 Uncover cross overs;  Ensure information is provided at the right time and the right level of detail;  Avoid duplication of reporting or an unnecessary burden; and  Report for customers and others interested in the performance of the water industry and the individual companies.

Page 10 of 39

3. Dealing with customer complaints and contacts

3.1 Number of written complaints to water companies

CCWater was formed at a time when complaints to water companies were rising rapidly. In 2007-08 written complaints to water companies peaked at 273,000. Since then we have used information about complaints to press all companies to adopt a ‘right first time’ approach to complaints management. We name and shame the poor performers, and praise the better ones in our annual written customer complaints report10. We also undertake an on-site assessment of the processes and procedures used by companies with the aim of helping poor performers improve by adopting best practice from industry leaders. This, together with the introduction of SIM, has helped to drive written complaints to water companies down by 55% to 123,000 from their peak in 2007-08.

Table two: Number of written complaints per 10,000 connections

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Trend Average 60.8 53.2 49.0 39.8 Water and sewerage companies Anglian 67.3 60.8 57.1 44.6 Dwr Cymru 72.0 36.0 26.0 26.0 Northumbrian 49.2 39.6 38.1 35.1 Severn Trent 57.0 49.0 42.0 44.0 South West 77.1 56.9 53.1 55.6 Southern 62.0 65.0 113.0 81.0 Thames 54.2 60.7 56.5 38.2 United Utilities 116.6 81.0 49.3 40.8 Wessex 37.0 22.0 20.0 17.0 Yorkshire 41.0 36.0 45.0 38.0 Water only companies Affinity 20.3 16.7 15.0 17.5 Bristol 39.0 24.0 22.0 20.0 Cambridge 32.0 24.5 20.3 12.4 Dee Valley 59.5 50.4 35.8 29.6 Essex and Suffolk 44.6 41.3 34.6 28.7 Hartlepool 27.0 30.0 26.0 18.0 Portsmouth 7.0 8.0 10.0 8.0 Sembcorp Bournemouth 23.7 23.0 18.5 18.0 South East 100.3 137.0 98.0 69.0 South Staffs 48.4 43.5 28.7 22.9

Sutton and East Surrey 23.3 19.7 18.0 16.4

Over the past four years there has been a 34% fall in complaints from 185,140 to 123,218. While welcoming the continuing improvement, we will continue to press the poorer performing water companies to do more work in some areas as they have not improved enough to bring them in line with better performers, or even within 25% of the industry average.

Despite seeing a decrease in the number of complaints received, South East Water and Southern Water are still the poorest performers. They have both made new commitments to CCWater to put a greater focus on addressing the concerns of their customers. We will monitor them closely to ensure they do.

10 http://www.ccwater.org.uk/publications/waterindustrycomplaintsreport/ Page 11 of 39

Our complaints report shows that four water companies (Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water, Severn Trent Water, South West Water and Affinity Water) bucked the industry trend and reported an increase in complaints during the year. CCWater has challenged each company to explain why this has happened and what they propose to do to improve performance.

3.2 Unwanted contacts

An unwanted contact is any phone contact about events/actions that have caused unnecessary aggravation (however mild) for the consumer, including the need to make repeat or chase calls to their company. Over the four year period unwanted calls have fallen by over 40% from around 4.7 million11 to 2.7 million. This broadly reflects the fall in written complaints, and demonstrates that companies are increasingly adopting a ‘right first time’ approach to dealing with their customers.

If you would like to read more about complaints within the water industry and what we are doing to drive improvements, please see our annual written customer complaints report12.

3.3 The Service Incentive Mechanism

Previously, we worked with Ofwat and the industry to change the regulatory incentives and penalties system so incentives drive customer-focused company behaviour and outcomes that satisfy customers. This resulted in Ofwat introducing the Service Incentive Mechanism (SIM) in 2010. This new measure of customer service assessed companies’ performance in complaint handling, from unwanted customer telephone calls to CCWater investigations. It also included a survey of customers with resolved company contacts. Companies’ performance is scored out of 100.

The SIM’s financial rewards and penalties have added weight to the ‘right first time’ ethos that CCWater has encouraged companies to adopt within their complaint handling processes, with the average score for the industry improving year on year. In 2010-11 the average SIM score was 68.76; it now stands at 82.47.

The industry leaders for the SIM in 2013-14 were Anglian Water (87), Wessex Water, (87) and Sembcorp Bournemouth Water (86.76). Wessex Water has shown the highest SIM score for each of the four reporting years.

In 2013-14, Portsmouth Water (+15) and Southern Water (+13) saw the largest increases. Three companies saw a decrease in their SIM score: Affinity Water (-1.58), Bristol Water (-0.2) and Cambridge Water (-1), albeit from a high base level.

Affinity Water’s 1.58 points reduction in their SIM score was attributed to problems arising from merging the computer systems of the three formerly separate company areas. They have told us that they are currently analysing the root causes of those complaints and implementing improvements to address them. We will monitor progress.

Bristol Water attributes its slight decrease to a rise in the number of unwanted, abandoned and engaged calls, primarily due to increased call volumes following unplanned interruptions, caused by burst mains and pump failures.

Cambridge Water has informed us that high staff turnover in its call centres has had an impact on its SIM score. The company says it has put processes in place to address this which should hopefully have a positive result for 2014-15.

We will be working with these companies to ensure the plans they have put into place to address these issues result in improvements and a more positive customer experience.

11 The 2010-11 figure does not include data from Sutton and East Surrey as this information is not available. 12 http://www.ccwater.org.uk/publications/waterindustrycomplaintsreport/ Page 12 of 39

Chart one: Total Service Incentive Mechanism Score (2010-11 to 2013-14)13

Service Incentive Mechanism 100 Water and sewerage companies Water only companies 90

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

* The value for Anglian Water also includes that for Hartlepool

13 2010-11 was a transitional year and did not count towards the Ofwat Price Review 2014 SIM assessment of companies performance. The data for this year was affected by reporting issues, as many companies could not count all of the measures and so direct comparisons between companies for this year cannot easily be made. Page 13 of 39

4. Customer assistance schemes

Affordability is now a major concern for customers with household budgets under increasing pressure. Although customers inform us they are generally satisfied with the service their water and sewerage companies provide, one in five customers thinks their water bill is unaffordable14. We will continue to encourage companies to have in place a range of strategies to support those who need extra help.

Water companies have been set targets by Ofwat to ensure that over the next five years (2015- 2020), 445,000 more households will receive assistance through schemes to help them pay their bills15.

The paragraphs below explain some of the different ways in which companies are working to help their customers who are struggling to pay their water and sewerage bills.

4.1 WaterSure and Welsh Water Assist

WaterSure is a Government mandated scheme which requires companies in England to offer some metered households a bill capped at the average metered bill for the company. Customers are eligible for the scheme if they are on a water meter, in receipt of certain benefits and have either three or more children living at home or someone with a medical condition requiring significant water use. You can find out more about WaterSure on our website here.

The scheme only applies in England, although Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water and Dee Valley Water who operate in Wales have introduced similar schemes on a voluntary basis. The Welsh Water Assist scheme also extends help to customers without a meter and charges are capped at a level lower than the average bill.

Chart two shows how many customers per 10,000 connections16 are registered for WaterSure or the equivalent scheme in Wales. Please note that these figures are for information only and should not be used to compare companies as the number of households with meters, the level of charges, and the extent of household poverty in the company’s supply area will have a significant effect on uptake.

Over the last seven years, CCWater’s project to rebrand the scheme and introduce a standard simplified application form has helped improve take-up of the WaterSure scheme (excluding the unmeasured element of Welsh Water Assist) by 426%. For the four year period covered by this report the number of customers registered on WaterSure and Welsh Water Assist has increased from 63,381 to 109,404.

It is not surprising to see that South West Water has the highest number of customers per 10,000 connections registered for WaterSure as they have both a high percentage of metered customers (see section eight) and historically high charges17. They have also worked to promote the scheme alongside other affordability measures which has contributed to the high take up. The number of customers per 10,000 connections registered with Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water is also high, as its scheme has been extended to unmetered customers.

14 http://www.ccwater.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Water-Matters-household-customers-views-on-their-water-and- sewerage-services-20131.pdf 15 http://www.ofwat.gov.uk/pricereview/pr14/det_pr20141212financeability.pdf 16 Based on household connections (water, water and sewerage, and sewerage only) for 2013-14. 17 An annual £50 Government Contribution for South West Water’s household customers was introduced in April 2013, aimed at addressing the unfairness of water charges in the South West caused by three per cent of the population funding the clean up of 30% of the nation’s bathing waters since 1989. It is a flat rate reduction that will run until 2020. Page 14 of 39

Chart two: The number of customers per 10,000 household connections that are registered on WaterSure or the equivalent18

Number of customers per 10,000 connections that are registered on WaterSure

250 Water and sewerage companies Water only companies 200

150

100

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

Despite seeing increases in WaterSure uptake, our annual tracking survey ‘Water Matters’19 showed that general awareness amongst customers of the scheme remains fairly low (9% in 2014 and 12% in 2013). Not surprisingly, the highest awareness was in regions where there were more metered respondents in the survey.

Our recent ‘Living with Water Poverty 2014’20 research also found that although more help is now provided by water companies than ever before, general awareness of the assistance available is often low. Some customers simply don’t expect their water company to be able to offer such help.

We are using the findings of the research to identify areas for improvement in water companies’ practices, and to improve awareness of the assistance available with those agencies that deal with indebted customers.

4.2 Social tariffs

In addition to WaterSure and Welsh Water Assist, some water companies have introduced, or are planning to introduce, customer funded social tariffs. Further information about these schemes is available from the water companies.

As table three shows, in 2013 three companies introduced a social tariff. By the end of the year almost 13,500 customers were signed up21.

18 The 2013-14 figures for Bristol Water and Wessex Water refer to the WaterSure Plus scheme which has the same eligibility criteria as WaterSure, but offers greater financial assistance. The Welsh Water Assist scheme extends help to customers without a meter and charges are capped at a level lower than the average bill. 19 http://www.ccwater.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Water-Matters-household-customers-views-on-their-water-and- sewerage-services-20131.pdf 20 http://www.ccwater.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Living-with-water-poverty-in-2014-Report-of-research-findings.pdf 21 These figures do not include customers registered for Bristol Water and Wessex Water’s WaterSure Plus scheme. Page 15 of 39

Table three: The number of customers that are registered for customer funded social tariffs

Company Number of Per 10,000 connections22 customers Bristol Water 4,786 98.75 South West Water 1,100 15.10 Wessex Water 7,558 65.02

Please note that for Bristol Water and Wessex Water, these figures include customers that were already receiving help through a pre-existing assistance scheme, in addition to those that have taken up the social tariff since April 2013.

Affinity Water, Sutton and East Surrey Water and Thames Water also launched social tariffs for their customers in 2014 and most other companies plan to follow suit over the next few years.

CCWater has worked closely with all companies that have introduced social tariffs, and is currently working with others to ensure implementation of their schemes goes smoothly.

A number of other water companies also have schemes to offer support to customers, who are struggling to pay and you can find out more about these from the companies or on their websites.

4.3 Water Direct

Water Direct is part of another Government administered scheme that enables customers who are in debt and receive specific benefits to have payments taken directly from those benefits. You can find out more about Water Direct on our website here.

Although chart three shows the number of customers within each company that are paying their water bill via Water Direct, comparisons of the success or otherwise of companies’ promotion of the scheme cannot be drawn. There are several local factors that will affect registration on the scheme, including the number of benefit recipients and the level of customer debt.

Over the four year period, there have been fluctuations in the number of customers that are paying through Water Direct. In 2013-14 there were almost 250,000, an increase of 37% on 2010- 11. However, only five companies saw an increase in numbers of people paying through the scheme – these were Affinity Water, Essex and Suffolk Water, South Staffs Water, United Utilities and Thames Water.

The stable numbers in other areas may be a reflection of the economic climate improving, or that the scheme has successfully helped customers out of debt in previous years. Additionally, customers may be struggling to meet bills from other utilities which have a greater priority than water in the Water Direct hierarchy, so the maximum deductions are already being made leaving nothing for water.

22 Based on all household connections (water, water and sewerage, and sewerage only) for 2013-14 Page 16 of 39

Chart three: The number of customers per 10,000 household connections23 that are paying through Water Direct24

Number of customers per 10,000 household connections that are paying through Water Direct 400 Water and sewerage companies Water only companies 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

4.4 The special assistance register

Each water company maintains a ‘special assistance register’ which is open to anybody who needs one of the services they offer, regardless of their age, health, disability, or indeed their lack of disability. For example, anyone who is concerned about personal security in the home should be able to register for a password scheme, which helps ensure only genuine water company staff have access to their property. Other services include meter reading, help during water supply interruptions, and large print, Braille or talking bills. You can find further information about the types of assistance that are available here.

Although the number of customers that are on water companies’ special assistance registers has risen by 58% over the past four years to almost 250,000, there are annual fluctuations in the numbers reported by individual companies. This may be due to companies updating their data as customers leave the area, go into sheltered accommodation/nursing homes, or pass away.

23 Based on all household connections (water, water and sewerage, and sewerage only) for 2013-14 24 Historic figures not available for Wessex Water and Bristol Water and the 2013-14 figure relates to both companies – a split is not available Page 17 of 39

Chart four: The number of customers per 10,000 household connections 25 included on special assistance registers

Number of customers per 10,000 household connections that are included in the special assistance register

250

200 Water and sewerage companies Water only companies

150

100

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

Our annual tracking survey ‘Water Matters’26 found that customer awareness of services for the elderly and disabled such as the special assistance register has been rising strongly, although uptake remains static at 1-2%.

We are continuing to monitor the level of registration for these services; raise awareness of them through the media; maintain companies’ focus on raising awareness of the scheme and particularly encourage companies to work with other utilities to ensure customers are aware of these cross utility services.

25 Based on all household connections (water, water and sewerage, and sewerage only) for 2013-14 26 http://www.ccwater.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Water-Matters-household-customers-views-on-their-water-and- sewerage-services-20131.pdf

Page 18 of 39

5. Sewer flooding27

5.1 Number of properties that have flooded internally

Sewer flooding is one of the worst service failures that customers can experience. Not only does it damage properties and belongings but it can seriously impact the quality of life for those affected. Until remedial action is taken every time there is heavy rain those customers who have been through this horrendous ordeal can become anxious about a repeat event.

The number of properties that are flooded with sewage is heavily influenced by the intensity and duration of rainfall. As such, there is often variability in the number of reported sewer flooding incidents across the years. For example, 2010-11 and 2011-12 were relatively ‘dry’ years, and internal sewer flooding incidents reduced over this two year period from 5,626 to 4,525. However, in November 2012 there was in excess of 150% of the average monthly rainfall, and this occurred predominately in one week. This brought widespread disruption across many parts of England and Wales28. During this ‘wet’ year, 8,659 properties were internally flooded.

The winter of 2013-14 was reported to be the wettest in England and Wales since at least 1766.29 Although the number of properties affected was not as numerous (4,959), because rainfall fell throughout the winter months rather than in concentrated periods, properties tended to be affected by flooding for longer periods.

Chart five: The number of properties flooded internally per 10,000 sewerage connections

The number of properties flooded internally per 10,000 sewerage connections

For customers of Northumbrian Water, 2012-13 was a particularly difficult year with 2,112 properties internally flooded. This was due to three exceptional storms (including Newcastle upon Tyne’s ‘Thunder Thursday’ on the 28 June 2012) which led to a quadrupling of flooding problems. Sewer flooding numbers returned to the long term average last year. Northumbrian

27 Sewer flooding information relates to public sewers and does not include those which have transferred to companies from private ownership as these were not included in the targets set for companies at the last price review period (2009). 28 http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/summaries 29 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmenvfru/240/24004.htm#note2 Page 19 of 39

Water is investing heavily in maintaining and upgrading the sewer network to reduce the risk of flooding and has delivered a significant programme of individual property protection to reduce the risk of flooding to people’s homes and businesses.

United Utilities also report a higher number of internal flooding incidents per 10,000 connections when compared to other companies across most years. They have one of the largest and oldest sewer networks in the UK, and also typically have more rainfall than any other region. These factors mean the company has started from a very low base in trying to tackle flooding problems.

It has made significant investment in improving the sewerage system; this has resulted in improvements in operational performance shown by a 52% reduction in internal flooding over the last four years. Through offering a comprehensive mitigation programme alongside targeted customer campaigns they have been able to improve the performance level for customers. However, further improvement will be constrained by costs and customers’ willingness to pay for more rapid improvement.

Wessex Water and Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water reported the lowest incidents of internal sewer flooding in 2013-14.

The increase in flooding incidents in 2012-13 and media interest in this issue could explain why there has been a reduction in the number of customers who are satisfied with how their sewerage company minimises sewer flooding30. In 2011 this was 83% but it fell to 76% in 2012, falling further to 68% in 2013.

However, Ofwat’s Final Determinations require water companies to reduce the number of properties that are flooded by sewage by 33% by 2020.

5.2 Number of areas that have flooded externally

While not as traumatic as internal sewer flooding, the presence of sewage material in gardens, roads, paths and open spaces is very unpleasant and could have implications for public health. The flooding of external areas is typically eight times greater than internal flooding, largely because the sewerage system is designed to overflow from manhole covers and other areas before it impacts on homes.

Chart six below shows the number of external flooding incidents per 10,000 sewerage connections7 in each of the four reporting years.

30 http://www.ccwater.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Water-Matters-household-customers-views-on-their-water-and- sewerage-services-20131.pdf Page 20 of 39

Chart six: The number of areas flooded externally per 10,000 sewerage connections

Number of external sewer flooding incidents per 10,000 connections 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

Although the number of external flooding incidents in 2013-14 was below the levels reported in 2012-13, they show a worrying upward trend (from earlier years). This is despite the heavy investment that companies have made, and are making, in resolving or minimising sewer flooding. This may be due to the ‘wet’ winter in 2013-14, but we will discuss this further with the companies to better understand the underlying reasons for the increase, and to identify the actions the companies are taking to reverse the trend.

We will be discussing with the companies where, when and how they will deliver these schemes, and whether there is scope for them to go beyond their commitments to further reduce sewer flooding.

Page 21 of 39

6. Leaks

Leakage is a key concern for customers and can have a big impact on their perceptions of water companies and their own water saving activities31. With more than 17 billion litres of water travelling through hundreds of valves and pumps, thousands of kilometres of pipes, and millions of joints each and every day, water can be lost via small pinholes in pipes through to major bursts that flood roads, gardens and sometimes properties. It will never be possible to reduce leakage to zero as it would be enormously expensive and impact significantly on customer bills.

Although customers have told us that companies should prioritise leakage, they accept that leakage will happen. But they expect companies to do more to fix leaks. Customers become particularly annoyed when, having reported a leak, the company does not repair it quickly or, if there is a delay, fail to keep them informed about progress.

We are pushing companies to address the more customer facing aspects of leakage by producing information customers find useful, and demonstrating that they are tackling leakage. Some companies are rising to this challenge as they view active leakage control as part of both their wider water management activity and as a means to build a better relationship with their customers.

The graph below shows the level of leakage as a percentage of the total volume of water put into the system each day by each company (the distribution input).

Chart seven: Total daily leakage as a percentage of water put into the system32

Total daily leakage as a percentage of water put into the system

30 Water and sewerage Water only companies companies 25

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

31 http://www.ccwater.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Research-into-customer-perceptions-of-leakage.pdf

32 The figures for Anglian also include Hartlepool Water. Page 22 of 39

In 2013-14, about 22% of the water put into the system was lost each day through leakage. While this represents a slight reduction on the position four years ago, industry-wide leakage levels have been rising since 2011-12.

Both United Utilities and Thames Water have leakage levels around 25%, but are meeting the targets set for them by Ofwat. For United Utilities this is because the region is relatively water rich and reducing leakage further is only cost effective in locations where providing extra resources is either expensive or environmentally damaging. For Thames Water this is predominantly due to the age of the network which is prone to leaks. However, due to the pressures on water resources in London and the South East of England, Thames Water has committed to reduce its leakage levels. Its progressive (compulsory) metering programme will help to locate leaks on customers’ supply pipes (for which it will provide free repairs) and identify the areas of its network where leakage reduction activity will have the biggest impact.

Table four: Company leakage levels (mega litres per day)33

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Trend Water and sewerage companies Anglian* 229 199 189 193 Dwr Cymru 203 162 178 184 Northumbrian 158 130 136 135 Severn Trent 497 464 441 441 South West 84 81 84 84 Southern 96 82 81 85 Thames 665 637 646 644 United Utilities 464 453 457 452 Wessex 71 69 69 69 Yorkshire 325 274 265 282 Water only companies Affinity 194 170 189 181 Bristol 50 43 42 44 Cambridge 14 12 12 13 Dee Valley 10 9 9 10 Essex and Suffolk 65 59 54 58 Hartlepool 5 4 4 4 Portsmouth 36 37 34 30 Sembcorp Bournemouth 22 22 21 21 South East 96 95 93 93 South Staffs 73 68 65 67 Sutton and East Surrey 24 24 24 24

Whilst companies are meeting their leakage targets (with the exception of Portsmouth Water in 2012-13), there has been a slight rise in the levels of leakage reported since 2011-12. In 2013-14 only six companies - Affinity Water, Hartlepool Water (marginally), Northumbrian Water, Portsmouth Water, Thames Water and United Utilities - reduced the level of water that they lose each day through leakage. South East Water, Severn Trent Water and South West Water all remained static, with the remaining companies all reporting increased leakage levels.

There are a number of factors that can influence annual leakage performance and these are largely weather related. Additionally, some water companies may have chosen to simply meet

33 The figures for Anglian also include Hartlepool Water Page 23 of 39

their targets. We will be encouraging companies to explain any fluctuations in performance so that customers are better informed and start to understand the various factors that can affect leakage levels.

The industry must, therefore, do a lot more to show customers that they are driving down leakage. They should be aiming to go below the targets set in the latest price limits, which are collectively above those being currently achieved34. We also expect companies to acknowledge the effect that leakage can have on customers’ views of their company and their own water saving efforts35.

On behalf of customers, we will follow this up with each of the companies.

34 In 2013-14 companies reported leakage at 3,113Ml/day. Ofwat’s Final Determination states that by 2020 companies will reduce leakage to 3,123Ml/day from 3,281 Ml/day (policy chapter A2 – outcomes, section A2.2.3, page 20). 35 http://www.ccwater.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Research-into-customer-perceptions-of-leakage.pdf

Page 24 of 39

7. Interruptions to the water supply

Interruptions to water supplies can cause inconvenience to customers, especially if they occur at a time when customers would normally be showering or using water appliances. If the interruption occurs without warning due to, for example, a burst main the inconvenience can be that much greater. Yet customers accept that companies need to occasionally interrupt supplies to do planned maintenance – for which they receive notification – but they still expect them to be kept to a minimum and for communication about the interruptions to be clear and accurate to minimise disruption.

7.1 Performance over the past four years

The graph below shows the number of hours lost due to water supply interruptions36 for three hours or longer per property served. A supply interruption is defined as when customers are without a continuous supply of water.

Chart eight: Number of hours lost due to water supply interruptions of three hours or longer per property served37

Number of hours lost due to water supply interruptions of three hours or longer per property served (hours/property) 1

0.9 Water and sewerage Water only companies companies 0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

* The figures for Anglian Water also include Hartlepool Water.

36 A supply interruption is defined as when customers are without a continuous supply of water due to a planned or unplanned interruption and overruns of planned interruptions and interruptions caused by third parties. 37 Please note that for some companies, this information was not recorded in 2010-11. Page 25 of 39

On average, the amount of time that a customer is without a continuous supply of water is falling38. In 2010-11 it was approximately 20 minutes, and in 2013-14 this was about 14 minutes. By 2020 companies across England and Wales are required to reduce, the time that interruptions affect water supplies by 32%.39 This means the average time customers are off supply should fall to under 10 minutes.

Customers of Sembcorp Bournemouth Water, Essex and Suffolk Water and Portsmouth Water experience the least amount of time without water.

Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water is the industry outlier with 50 minutes lost per property. They attribute these high supply interruption figures to a number of factors including the topography of their supply area, specifically more length per main per customer (by 44%); limited network integration and linkage of supplies; and five events they have classed as significant in 2013- 14. The company has identified a plan to address this which includes improved planning and delivery of work, following best practice, and better prediction and data analysis. CCWater will continue to press the company to achieve better results for customers. We plan to discuss how water supply interruption improvements can be best achieved in the interest of all customers.

Wessex Water has historically focussed on reducing the amount of time that its customers are without water due to unplanned supply interruptions, as it considered that these were more disruptive for customers. However, they have made commitments to make improvements to also reduce the amount of time that customers are without water for planned interruptions over the next five years, and we will be monitoring this.

7.2 Performance against targets

Table five shows the average number of hours that properties are without a water supply for each of the past four years. The colour coding – green for achieved, amber for just missed and red for failed – relates to the water companies’ performance against their targets.

Table five: Companies performance against their supply interruptions targets40

Water & Sewerage 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Water 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Anglian 0.40 0.24 0.33 Affinity 0.30 0.32 0.38 Dwr Cymru 0.72 0.88 0.84 Bristol 0.28 0.35 0.39 0.39 Northumbrian 0.16 0.09 0.11 Cambridge 0.45 0.19 0.31 0.15 Severn Trent 0.61 0.48 0.27 Dee Valley 0.60 0.19 0.24 0.15 South West 0.82 0.62 0.27 0.25 Essex and Suffolk 0.27 0.16 0.06 0.05 Southern 0.21 0.41 0.30 0.19 Hartlepool 0.12 0.13 0.25 0.11 Thames 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.20 Portsmouth 0.09 0.08 0.05 0.09 United Utilities 0.42 0.30 0.16 Sembcorp Bournemouth 0.06 0.04 0.07 0.03 Wessex 0.80 0.60 0.43 0.45 South East 0.22 0.35 0.22 0.27 Yorkshire 0.32 0.30 0.17 0.17 South Staffs 0.14 0.11 0.14 0.16 Sutton and East Surrey 0.47 0.16 0.25 0.22

Most companies are currently meeting their targets, though South East Water has just missed its target for the past two years while Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water has failed to hit its target over the same period.

38 Ofwat’s measure of performance is the average time across the customer base that supplies are off line 39 http://www.ofwat.gov.uk/pricereview/pr14/det_pr20141212final.pdf 40 Colour codes sourced from published Key Performance Indicators within companies annual reports, figures have been supplied to CCWater separately. The figures for Anglian Water also include Hartlepool Water.

Page 26 of 39

8. Metering

8.1 Household properties

While customers support metering as the fairest method of charging, many do not support compulsory metering. Reasons for this vary, but removing choice, variability of bills and the potential negative impact on lifestyle are all cited. While compulsory metering may make economic and environmental sense in areas which are currently or forecast to be water stressed, the same is not true in areas where water resources are not under stress. Water company metering policies, therefore, reflect the availability of local water resources.

Water companies in areas that the Secretary of State has determined to be in serious water stress are able to consider compulsory metering on a wide scale. The companies that have already introduced compulsory metering programmes are Affinity Water (South East region), Southern Water and South East Water. Thames Water has recently embarked on its compulsory metering programme and Affinity Water (Central region) will be doing so from 2015.

In addition, some water companies will selectively meter properties when they change ownership or when there is high discretionary use of water on, for instance, garden watering and swimming pools.

Any customer who is currently paying a water bill based on the rateable value of their property (and not part of a planned compulsory programme) can request to switch to a water meter. Installation of the meter is free of charge, and customers have the option of reverting to their previous method of charging within 13 months (longer for some companies) if they decide that metering does not suit their circumstances.

Customers can find out if they could save money by switching to a meter by visiting our water meter calculator at: http://www.ccwater.org.uk/watermetercalculator/

Over the last four year period household metering in England and Wales has increased from 42% to 49%, and is expected to exceed 50% by March 2015. Ofwat’s Final Determinations provides funding to increase household metering to 61% by 202041.

Anglian Water and South West Water both have comparatively high percentages of metered customers, in excess of 70%. For Anglian Water, this is primarily due to targeted metering schemes and promotion of the meter option. For South West Water, the principal driver for customers choosing to go on to a meter is the historic high cost42 of unmetered household bills.

The lowest meter penetration is for Northumbrian Water (30%) and Portsmouth Water (23%).

Northumbrian Water has few water resource issues in its Northern operating area, so has fewer demand management issues and therefore a comparatively low base of metered customers.

Although Portsmouth Water operates in an area designated as being in water stress it is not projecting a water deficit so again the case for, and cost of, compulsory metering are not justified. It also has the lowest water charges in England and Wales so the opportunity for customers to make financial savings by switching to a meter and reducing water usage are more limited than elsewhere.

41 http://www.ofwat.gov.uk/pricereview/pr14/det_pr20141212final.pdf 42 An annual £50 Government Contribution for South West Water’s household customers was introduced in April 2013, aimed at addressing the unfairness of water charges in the South West caused by three per cent of the population funding the clean up of 30% of the nation’s bathing waters since 1989. It is a flat rate reduction that will run until 2020.

Page 27 of 39

The table below shows the percentage of household customers that are on a meter for each water company.

Table six: Percentage of household metering43

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Trend Water and sewerage companies Anglian* 67.3 70.3 73.1 74.7 Dwr Cymru 32.6 33.7 35.0 37.0 Northumbrian 24.1 25.9 27.8 29.7 Severn Trent 34.5 35.9 37.5 39.0 South West 70.9 73.4 75.4 76.9 Southern 44.4 52.2 64.5 75.2 Thames 29.5 31.1 32.5 33.8 United Utilities 31.2 33.0 35.0 36.8 Wessex 49.0 51.0 54.0 56.0 Yorkshire 38.9 40.7 43.0 45.2 Water only companies Affinity 43.8 45.1 47.3 48.6 Bristol 35.4 37.3 39.7 42.2 Cambridge 64.0 65.2 66.5 68.0 Dee Valley 50.0 52.0 54.0 56.0 Essex and Suffolk 50.1 52.0 53.9 55.6 Hartlepool 25.1 27.4 29.8 32.2 Portsmouth 17.0 19.0 21.0 23.0 Sembcorp Bournemouth 58.0 60.1 62.3 64.3 South East 44.0 47.0 57.0 64.0 South Staffs 28.0 28.0 30.0 32.0 Sutton and East Surrey 35.8 38.5 41.6 44.3

43 The figures for Anglian Water also include Hartlepool Water. Page 28 of 39

8.2 Non-household properties

For non-household properties, the percentage of metered properties is higher (90% on average). While most non-household properties are metered, it may not be appropriate for lock-up garages, field troughs or and other small users of water to be metered.

Table seven: Percentage of non household properties that are metered44

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Trend Water and sewerage companies Anglian* 96.5 96.8 97.2 98.0 Dwr Cymru 91.0 91.1 91.1 91.0 Northumbrian 87.0 87.8 87.9 88.1 Severn Trent 93.0 93.2 93.4 93.4 South West 91.3 91.8 92.2 92.5 Southern 89.0 89.2 89.3 89.6 Thames 83.0 83.1 83.5 83.6 United Utilities 89.6 89.9 90.4 91.1 Wessex 89.0 90.0 90.0 91.0 Yorkshire 85.6 85.8 86.1 86.3 Water only companies Affinity 87.1 87.7 88.2 88.0 Bristol 85.6 87.3 88.3 89.8 Cambridge 91.2 91.4 91.7 91.9 Dee Valley 92.0 93.0 93.0 93.0 Essex and Suffolk 95.1 95.2 95.3 95.5 Hartlepool 69.1 70.3 71.3 72.6 Portsmouth 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 Sembcorp Bournemouth 94.2 94.2 94.3 93.8 South East 91.0 91.0 91.0 92.0 South Staffs 89.0 89.0 89.0 89.0 Sutton and East Surrey 85.9 86.2 86.4 86.7

44 The figures for Anglian Water also include Hartlepool Water. Page 29 of 39

9. Daily water consumption

Since the 1930s water usage has increased on average by 1% per year. It now stands at an average of 144 litres per person per day, although there is significant variation across water companies. Although the UK is thought to have a wet climate, our available water resources are under pressure due to demographic changes, such as population growth and the move towards smaller households, and tighter controls on the amount of water being taken from the environment. This is why there is a need for water companies and customers alike to become more efficient in their use of water.

While water companies are investing in leakage reduction and becoming more efficient in their water service operations, customers can also play their part by using water more wisely. Adopting good water using behaviours and choosing water efficient appliances, for example dual flush toilets or water efficient washing machines, can help consumers cut down on their water use, and where metered, save money at the same time.

For more information on using water wisely visit our website here: http://ccwater.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/76

Table eight: Average water use per person per day (litres)45

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Trend Water and sewerage companies Anglian* 146 145 136 135 Dwr Cymru 150 152 144 145 Northumbrian 144 146 141 141 Severn Trent 126 125 121 129 South West 138 135 137 137 Southern 154 157 143 141 Thames 163 161 155 156 United Utilities 134 132 128 129 Wessex 143 140 136 138 Yorkshire 142 136 133 136 Water only companies Affinity 161 158 149 155 Bristol 146 142 141 144 Cambridge 141 141 133 132 Dee Valley 139 138 136 133 Essex and Suffolk 156 153 147 150 Hartlepool 176 168 169 172 Portsmouth 162 160 149 148 Sembcorp Bournemouth 153 146 142 144 South East 172 167 159 156 South Staffs 132 134 124 126 Sutton and East Surrey 172 169 161 167 AVERAGE (arithmetic) 150 148 142 144

45 The figures for Anglian Water also include Hartlepool Water. Page 30 of 39

Since 2010-11 there has been an overall reduction in water use, and it was at its lowest in 2012- 13 when there was an exceptionally wet summer46 resulting in fewer peaks in water demand. During this year there was also a period of drought where customers responded positively to campaigns to encourage them to use water wisely. In addition, the exceptionally wet summer of 2012 meant that there were less peaks in water demand. In 2013-14, the figures rose again for some water companies, albeit to levels below the long-term trend. However, there was no increase in water consumption for South East Water and Southern Water customers who are receiving water efficiency advice as part of the companies’ compulsory metering programmes.

There is a growing difference in the amount of water used by metered households (129 litres per person per day in 2013-14) and that of non metered households (155 litres per person per day). This may be because more single occupiers and smaller households are opting for meters.

The amount of water people use each day varies from company to company. It has been suggested that water companies should be aiming to reduce water consumption to an average of 130 litres per person per day, in line with Government aspirations. United Utilities, Severn Trent, and South Staffs Water reported that their customers are now using less water than this amount. Others like Hartlepool Water, Sutton & East Surrey Water and Thames Water all report much higher figures, and therefore have more to do.

This year in our Water Matters research47, customers were asked if they had made a conscious decision to use less water. Two-thirds of all customers (66%) reported that they had. Many more metered customers (72%) than non-metered (59%) made this decision.

46 http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/summaries/2012/summer 47 http://www.ccwater.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Water-Matters-household-customers-views-on-their-water-and- sewerage-services-20131.pdf Page 31 of 39

10. Drinking water quality

The quality of drinking water is a priority for water consumers and regulated by the Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI). Each year, DWI publish a report48 that outlines what it does to check that water companies and local authorities have taken the appropriate action to maintain or, where necessary, improve drinking water quality and to safeguard public health. Compliance with the EU Drinking Water Directive standards in 2013 was 99.97% (shown by a red line on the graph). In 2011 and 2012 this average was 99.96%.

Over the next five years companies have been challenged to increase compliance to 100%49.

Chart nine: Overall drinking water quality 2011-2013

Drinking Water Quality 100.00%

99.95%

99.90%

99.85%

2011 2012 2013

The comparatively low performance of Essex and Suffolk has been due to the number of widespread metaldehyde failures which have been recorded, largely from commercial control of slugs. They have delivered a number of plans to address this as agreed with the DWI and this will continue over the coming years. Additionally, they have initiated an abstraction management project to assist with the management of metaldehyde in Essex.

Dee Valley Water’s below average performance (99.93%) over the past three years, has led to DWI noting no improvement in water quality standards in Wales since 2011, which has remained below the industry average at around 99.95%. This is mainly due to an increase in instances of discoloured water for Dee Valley Water customers due to deterioration in raw water quality. Dee Valley Water has agreed a long term discoloured water reduction programme with the DWI. CCWater has supported future investment that will help address discolouration, notably through the upgrade of the company’s Legacy treatment works. We will continue to report on updates from the company on discolouration related complaints and progress on investment to address the issue.

48 http://dwi.defra.gov.uk/about/annual-report/2013/index.htm 49 http://www.ofwat.gov.uk/pricereview/pr14/det_pr20141212final.pdf

Page 32 of 39

The DWI has noted no improvement in water quality standards in Wales since 2011, which has remained below the industry average at around 99.95%. This is because of Dee Valley Water’s below average performance (99.93%) over the past three years, mainly due to an increase in instances of discoloured water for Dee Valley Water customers due to deterioration in raw water quality. Dee Valley Water has agreed a long term discoloured water reduction programme with the DWI. CCWater has supported future investment that will help address discolouration, notably through the upgrade of the company’s Legacy treatment works. We will continue to report on updates from the company on discolouration related complaints and progress on investment to address the issue.

You can find out more about drinking water compliance in the DWI annual report at: http://dwi.defra.gov.uk/about/annual-report/2013/index.htm

Our annual tracking survey ‘Water Matters’50 shows that customers are generally satisfied with the different aspects of their water supply, although in some areas, the hardness/softness of the water affects overall customer satisfaction. This is more evident in the Thames, Southern, Eastern and Wessex regions, the chalky areas of England where water is typically hard.

50 http://www.ccwater.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Water-Matters-household-customers-views-on-their-water-and- sewerage-services-20131.pdf

Page 33 of 39

Appendices

Sewer flooding – properties at risk

Companies report on two different types of properties/external areas that are at risk of flooding due to local sewers not being large enough to cope with heavier than normal rainfall: those at risk of flooding once in ten years; and those at risk of flooding twice in ten years.

We collect this information to monitor the progress that water companies are making, not only towards what they promised to achieve by April 2015 but also to identify other properties and areas that are at risk of sewer flooding. Where companies successfully manage this, the number of actual flooding incidents can be reduced. We will continue to discuss sewer flooding with companies during our regular meetings, in order to understand where improvements can be made and to press for greater action where progress is slower that expected.

Anglian Water

Internal 1 and 2 in 10 External 1 and 2 in 10 2010 2011 2012 2013- 2014- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- -11 -12 -13 14 15 11 12 13 14 15 Target Target Actual number of properties (internal) 300 300 253 253 or areas (external) on 564 621 630 692 the register at the start of the period Total number of properties (internal) 20 58 57 50 or areas (external) 56 52 57 57 removed from the register Total number of properties (internal) 20 11 57 29 113 61 119 74 or areas (external) added to the register Total number of properties (internal) 300 253 253 232 198 or areas (external) 626 630 692 709 left on the register at the end of the period Number of properties (internal) or areas (external) 10 23 17 22 210 7 31 29 6 100 that have received mitigation measures in the period

Page 34 of 39

Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water

Internal 1 and 2 in 10 External 1 and 2 in 10 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014- 2010 2011- 2012- 2013- -11 -12 -13 -14 15 -11 12 13 14 Target Actual number of properties (internal) or areas (external) 250 267 218 215 2,626 2,757 2,778 3,081 on the register at the start of the period Total number of properties 15 79 79 53 219 (internal) or areas (external) 32 91 110 85 removed from the register Total number of properties 32 30 76 49 (internal) or areas (external) 163 112 413 241 added to the register Total number of properties (internal) or areas (external) 267 218 215 211 211 2,757 2,778 3,081 3,237 left on the register at the end of the period Number of properties (internal) or areas (external) 1 8 0 5 5 2 4 10 that have received mitigation measures in the period

Northumbrian Water

Internal 1 and 2 in 10 External 1 and 2 in 10 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2010 2011 2012 2013 11 12 13 14 -11 -12 -13 -14 Actual number of properties (internal) or 401 477 351 340 areas (external) on the register at the 294 368 348 318 start of the period Total number of properties (internal) or 210 252 114 121 areas (external) removed from the 118 105 70 28 register Total number of properties (internal) or 286 126 103 401 192 86 40 181 areas (external) added to the register Total number of properties (internal) or 477 351 340 620 areas (external) left on the register at 368 348 318 445 the end of the period Number of properties (internal) or areas 4 274 128 128 (external) that have received mitigation 0 0 0 0 measures in the period

Page 35 of 39

Southern Water

Internal 1 and 2 in 10 External 1 and 2 in 10 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2010 2011 2012 2013 11 12 13 14 -11 -12 -13 -14 Actual number of properties (internal) or 206 200 173 160 areas (external) on the register at the start 712 795 803 797 of the period Total number of properties (internal) or 13 31 16 13 0 13 6 6 areas (external) removed from the register Total number of properties (internal) or 7 4 3 0 83 21 0 0 areas (external) added to the register Total number of properties (internal) or 200 173 160 147 areas (external) left on the register at the 795 803 797 791 end of the period Number of properties (internal) or areas 28 76 47 57 (external) that have received mitigation 17 26 57 48 measures in the period

Severn Trent Water

Internal 1 and 2 in 10 External 1 and 2 in 10 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 11 12 13 14 11 12 13 14 Actual number of properties (internal) 560 544 462 443 or areas (external) on the register at 2,349 2,351 2,327 2,316 the start of the period Total number of properties (internal) 120 170 115 89 or areas (external) removed from the 84 57 63 35 register Total number of properties (internal) 104 88 96 128 or areas (external) added to the 87 37 56 63 register Total number of properties (internal) 544 462 443 482 or areas (external) left on the register 2,351 2,327 2,316 2,338 at the end of the period Number of properties (internal) or 35 4 19 10 areas (external) that have received 61 8 4 13 mitigation measures in the period

Page 36 of 39

South West Water

Internal 1 and 2 in 10 External 1 and 2 in 10 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014- 2010 2011 2012 2013- -11 -12 -13 -14 15 -11 -12 -13 14 Target Actual number of properties (internal) or areas (external) on 47 38 37 60 254 262 272 325 the register at the start of the period Total number of properties 14 5 3 4 (internal) or areas (external) 13 9 6 6 removed from the register Total number of properties 5 4 26 17 (internal) or areas (external) 21 19 59 66 added to the register Total number of properties (internal) or areas (external) left 38 37 60 73 30 262 272 325 385 on the register at the end of the period Number of properties (internal) or areas (external) that have N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 1 0 received mitigation measures in the period

Thames Water

Internal 1 and 2 in 10 External 1 and 2 in 10 2010 2011 2012 2013- 2014- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- -11 -12 -13 14 15 11 12 13 14 15 Target Target Actual number of properties (internal) 1,604 1,526 1,528 1,406 or areas (external) on 3,061 3,089 3,144 3,485 the register at the start of the period Total number of properties (internal) 163 99 221 209 or areas (external) 76 47 90 342 removed from the register Total number of properties (internal) 85 101 99 468 104 102 431 1,214 or areas (external) added to the register Total number of properties (internal) 1,526 1,528 1,406 1,665 or areas (external) 3,089 3,144 3,485 4,357 left on the register at the end of the period Number of properties (internal) or areas (external) 77 5 9 3 648 34 3 5 7 108 that have received mitigation measures in the period

Page 37 of 39

United Utilities

Internal 1 and 2 in 10 External 1 and 2 in 10 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 11 12 13 14 11 12 13 14 Actual number of properties (internal) 1,028 987 913 965 or areas (external) on the register at 1,731 1,756 1,701 1,853 the start of the period Total number of properties (internal) 126 137 153 177 or areas (external) removed from the 68 99 92 55 register Total number of properties (internal) 85 63 205 69 or areas (external) added to the 93 44 244 63 register Total number of properties (internal) 987 913 965 857 or areas (external) left on the register 1,756 1,701 1,853 1,861 at the end of the period Number of properties (internal) or 167 235 69 66 areas (external) that have received 21 43 20 7 mitigation measures in the period

Wessex Water

Internal 1 and 2 in 10 External 1 and 2 in 10 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014- 2010- 2011 2012 2013- -11 -12 -13 -14 15 11 -12 -13 14 Target Actual number of properties (internal) or areas (external) on 124 102 92 98 838 678 663 844 the register at the start of the period Total number of properties 33 53 16 31 (internal) or areas (external) 210 121 111 78 removed from the register Total number of properties 11 43 22 29 (internal) or areas (external) 50 106 292 155 added to the register Total number of properties (internal) or areas (external) 102 92 98 96 105 678 663 844 921 left on the register at the end of the period Number of properties (internal) or areas (external) 3 3 42 1 14 10 22 0 that have received mitigation measures in the period

Page 38 of 39

Yorkshire Water

2010- 2011- 2012 2013 2014- 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014- 11 12 -13 -14 15 -11 -12 -13 -14 15 Target Target Actual number of properties (internal) or 193 162 144 227 areas (external) on the 1411 1548 1631 1865 register at the start of the period Total number of properties (internal) or 88 94 14 77 353 areas (external) 44 63 25 28 132 removed from the register Total number of properties (internal) or 57 76 97 54 181 146 259 151 areas (external) added to the register Total number of properties (internal) or 162 144 227 204 134 areas (external) left on 1,548 1,631 1,865 1,988 the register at the end of the period Number of properties (internal) or areas 2 0 4 2 (external) that have 5 0 4 2 received mitigation measures in the period

Page 39 of 39