Water Sector ADR Panel Meeting 9 Minutes of Meeting Monday 12 October 2015 at Water UK, 36 Broadway, London

Present: Gary Dixon Sir Tony Redmond Helen Hunter Adam Scorer Richard Khaldi Sandra Webber (Chair)

Secretary: Shona Flood

Apologies: Rachel Barber

ITEM 1: Minutes and actions arising from meeting on 5 October

1. The Minutes of the meeting on 5 October were agreed. 2. The draft questions and evaluation and success criteria previously agreed by the Panel had been circulated. 3. Minor amendments to the wording of the survey questionnaire had been agreed with the Preferred Supplier.

ITEM 2: to consider the written response and hear representations from representatives from the Scheme Provider 4. The Panel received a report and representation from representatives from the Scheme Provider, who made the following key points: a) difficulties in making telephone contact with WATRS had been identified and steps put in place to remedy and to prevent the difficulties re-occurring; b) a limited number of customer satisfaction responses had been received by the Scheme Provider but the sample size so far was too small to enable any significant conclusions to be drawn; c) the Scheme provider had had a positive “buy-in” from companies during the set-up phase and had a good working relationship with CCWater; d) the subject matter of the claims was the “most complicated” in terms of evidence and issues of all of the schemes provided by the Scheme Provider. Evidence provided from companies was generally of a high quality but evidence from customers was variable both in terms of quantity and quality. It would be helpful if companies set out their legal obligations in relation to a particular case at the start of their response; e) the procedure for dealing with multiple applications may need to be reviewed following the completion of the first such application; and f) the Panel of experts had not been used.

ITEM 3: to consider the written response and hear representations from a representative from Yorkshire Water Services Limited

5. The Panel received a report and representation from a representative from Yorkshire Water Services Limited, who made the following key points: a) the company considered the 5 day timescale to be very tight and recommended that it be increased to 10 days; b) in relation to one decision involving the company the customer concerned had been given an award in respect of a service failure by the company that the customer had not complained about; and c) working examples of the type of awards made would be helpful to both customers and companies.

ITEM 4: to hear representations from a representative from United Utilities Water Limited

6. The Panel received representations from a representative from United Utilities Water Limited, who made the following key points: a) the company had been able to comply with the 5 day timescale to date but might struggle to cope with bigger numbers; b) the company had concerns around the element of awards made in relation to a breach of a “duty of care” and how they were quantified. It was further noted that awards were not proportionate to the amount actually paid in charges by customer; c) there was concern about how “vulnerable” customers using the Scheme might be dealt with; and d) customers need more support when completing the form.

ITEM 5: to hear representations from a representative from Severn Trent Water Limited

7. The Panel received representations from a representative from Severn Trent Water Limited, who made the following key points: a) the company had been able to comply with the 5 day timescale to date but was concerned that the quality of responses could be compromised if the company had to respond to a multiple applications. It was suggested that a 7 -10 day time limit for responses would be more appropriate; b) the company considered that overall the decisions issued had been fair but would like to have more clarity about how the awards were assessed and better definition of “succeeds in part” as a case could succeed on a majority or minority of points; and c) customers could be better supported through the process of making an application.

ITEM 6: to hear representations from a representative from Affinity Water Limited

8. The Panel received representations from a representative from Affinity Water Limited, who made the following key points: a) the timescale for responding to an application was adequate but that the 2 day time limit for challenging eligibility should be changed as it meant that a company had to prepare a response even though the application might not proceed ; b) there would be greater transparency and learning if copies of all of the redacted decisions were available to companies; and c) it would be beneficial if the guidance to customers included examples regarding eligibility.

ITEM 7: to receive a report regarding feedback from water companies 9. The Panel received a report regarding feedback from water companies who did not attend the meeting, who made the following key points: a) it was considered that the awards looked to be fair, balanced and reasonable but that there was concern about the implication of a “duty of care”; and b) it would be useful to know the number and type of cases and awards made.

ITEM 8: AOB and actions arising 10. Ms Flood is to prepare and circulate a draft report for consideration at the next meeting.

NEXT MEETING: 5 November 12-3.30pm.