DOCSLIB.ORG

Anglian Water PR19 Part G: Reply to Ofwat's Response on Cost Issues

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Anglian Water PR19 Part G: Reply to Ofwat's Response on Cost Issues Anglian Water PR19 Part G: Reply to Ofwat's Response on Cost issues (re-issue 4 June 2020) i Part G: Reply to Ofwat’s Response on Cost issues Table of Contents Contents Page Part G.1: Reply on Uplift in totex from AMP6 to AMP7 and previous outperformance 1 1 Expenditure uplift 1 2 Outperformance 4 Part G.2: Reply on Capital Maintenance 12 1 Overview 12 2 Ofwat has no established framework to monitor companies’ serviceability 14 3 Anglian is forecasting higher capital expenditure than historical levels 16 4 Ofwat incorrectly assumes that companies' long-term capital maintenance requirements are constant over time 17 5 Ofwat misrepresents the evidence Anglian provided in support of its base cost requirements 27 6 Ofwat fails to engage with the evidence provided on the impact on resilience 28 Appendix 1 29 Part G.3: Reply to Ofwat's response on facilitating sustainable economic and housing growth 34 1 Overview 34 2 Introduction 34 3 Updated expenditure requirements 35 4 Anglian's proposed investment costs are efficient and have not been assessed properly by Ofwat 36 5 Growth-related costs are not appropriately captured by Ofwat's base cost models 37 6 Ofwat incorrectly asserts that its Developer Services Revenue Adjustment ("DSRA") offers "considerable" protection against the risk of higher growth 38 7 Anglian's proposed true-up mechanism 38 Part G.4: Reply on Enhancement cost efficiency 40 1 Overview 40 2 Introduction 41 3 Lack of evidence provided by Ofwat in relation to each of its efficiency arguments 42 ii Part G: Reply to Ofwat’s Response on Cost issues 4 How Anglian has developed its view of appropriate costs for delivery of its AMP7 Enhancement 45 5 Information asymmetry 49 6 Impact of Ofwat's FD on Anglian's Enhancement programme 49 Part G.5: WRMP Supply-side decision-making process 50 1 Overview 50 2 Introduction 50 3 Development of WRMP supply-side options for Anglian's Plan 51 4 Full engagement with Ofwat 55 5 Best available guidance taken into account when preparing Anglian's Plan 56 6 Concluding remarks 57 Part G.6: Reply on Frontier shift 59 Part G.7: Reply on Opex/Capex Misallocation 62 1 Overview 62 2 Ofwat does not contest that it has misallocated opex as capex 62 3 Ofwat's allocation is not consistent with Anglian's business plan approach 63 4 Ofwat's FD does not provide sufficient justification for why base and growth costs should be considered together for cost recovery 64 5 Furthermore, Ofwat does not engage with the impact of the misallocation 65 Amendment Date Para 15 replaced £157m with £86M 4 June 2020 Para 71 addition of text to end of sentence. 4 June 2020 Table 6 – restated table to reflect IFRS changes introduced from 2015/16. iii Part G: Reply to Ofwat’s Response on Cost issues Part G.1: Reply on Uplift in totex from AMP6 to AMP7 and previous outperformance 1 Expenditure uplift1 (i) Ofwat has misrepresented the variance between Anglian's Botex expenditure in AMP6 and AMP7 by reinstating the error it made at IAP and subsequently corrected at DD, of including enhancement opex in base costs. (ii) Anglian previously noted a 1.9% uplift on base costs for its plan versus AMP6. However, adopting Ofwat's treatment of the costs of transferred sewers and pumping stations, Anglian's plan for Botex in fact shows no material uplift from its expenditure in AMP6. Botex for AMP7 is essentially the same as Botex for AMP6. (iii) The uplift in Anglian's expenditure proposals compared to AMP6 is almost entirely in its enhancement programme and results from the materially increased scope of that programme relative to AMP6. Ofwat has consistently failed to acknowledge this when presenting totex comparisons. (1) Ofwat repeatedly states that Anglian requested a larger increase in its totex allowances, relative to PR14 levels than any other company.2 Anglian does not dispute this.3 Ofwat also says that any company should be able to provide convincing evidence to support the claims it is making.4 Anglian does not dispute this either. Ofwat's implicit suggestion is that this increase in totex means Anglian's costs are inefficient and that the Company is therefore subject to a high evidential bar to justify any of its expenditure needs.5 And the suggestion of inefficiency is something Anglian does dispute. (2) In order to understand the increase in Anglian's proposed expenditure compared to AMP6 two things are necessary. Firstly, it is necessary to decompose the overall expenditure plan into smaller parts. The variance from past expenditure will differ from one area of the programme to another, and the explanations for those variances are also area-specific. Totex-level comparisons are not informative without this context, and an understanding of what is being offered for the expenditure proposed. Secondly, it is necessary for those variances to be assessed on a truly like-for-like basis to enable a meaningful comparison. (3) Throughout the PR19 process Ofwat has resisted Anglian's attempts to explain its Plan through decomposition and comparability. It has preferred to engage in simplistic, high-level terms, implicitly inviting stakeholders to form the view that a large uplift must equate to gaming and inefficiency. This is both misleading and a weak and inadequate response to the shortcomings which Anglian and others have highlighted in Ofwat's models. It certainly does not support the output of Ofwat's flawed models. (4) Where Ofwat has decomposed the variance, it has done so in a highly misleading way, and repeats this in its Response to Anglian's SOC. Regrettably, other stakeholders have then relied on Ofwat's flawed 1 Note – all analysis in this paper makes use of the forecast expenditure for 2019-20 that Anglian submitted in its DD Representation (SOC168) in August 2019. The audited outturn figure for 2019-20 expenditure will become available during the course of the re- determination, which will allow Anglian to update its analysis. Anglian does not expect the difference between its August 2019 forecast and audited outturn figure to make a material difference to the key messages of this paper. 2 See for example Response to Anglian, para. 1.15. 3 Para. 1.7. 4 Ibidem. 5 Ibidem. 1 Part G: Reply to Ofwat’s Response on Cost issues presentation to shape their views.6 This Reply provides the correct presentation, which the CMA is invited to consider in its redetermination. (5) Anglian decomposed the uplift in its plan for AMP7 between enhancement costs and base costs, and explained this in its SOC.7 For this purpose, Anglian defined "base costs" in the normal sense of the term (that is, opex plus capital maintenance, or "Botex") rather than the new concept of "Botex Plus" which Ofwat switched to during the PR19 process. "Botex Plus" incorporates components of expenditure which Ofwat (and companies) have always in previous price controls regarded as enhancement expenditure. These components mainly relate to growth, but also include low pressure, sewer flooding and transferred sewers. (6) Anglian stripped out these added components in its Botex uplift analysis to allow for a like-for-like comparison between AMP6 Botex expenditure (where these elements were previously treated as enhancement) and its planned AMP7 Botex expenditure. (7) The reason these elements were previously treated as enhancement expenditure is because growth is subject to cyclical variation, relating primarily to economic forces, and the scale of expenditure on sewer flooding and low pressure depends on the views of a company's customers about the extent to which it should prioritise these service improvements. In other words, the scope of a company's enhancement programme (and hence its cost) can vary significantly from one period to another according to the obligations it is required to deliver. In its SOC, Anglian explained how its AMP7 enhancement programme differed from its AMP6 enhancement programme because of, for example, significant increases in the size of its WINEP programme and the scale of its WRMP.8 (8) Because of this inter-period variance in the scope and drivers of enhancement programmes, it is highly misleading to draw conclusions about a company's overall efficiency on the basis of the relative scale of expenditure between periods. For the same reason, one company's enhancement programme can be very different from another's in the same period and so inter-company comparisons are equally misleading. To illustrate this, in its SoC Anglian explained how its AMP7 WINEP programme included 19% of the total national obligations and more than any other company.9 (9) Similarly, historical expenditure on Botex (representing the combined base opex and capital maintenance required to maintain the asset base to the historical service standards achieved) provides only one component of any benchmark for assessing the efficiency of any future Botex costs. Account also needs to be taken of the general upward pressures on capital maintenance that result from an ageing and growing asset base and additional service obligations, as well as any efficiency challenges applied by the company to offset these increasing costs. (10) Anglian showed in Table 1 of its SOC10 95% of its variance between AMP6 and AMP7 related to enhancement expenditure. Below is a summary of Table 2 to illustrate this: 6 For example, CCW's submission to the CMA about Anglian's SOC, para. 6.3, available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5ebebe3986650c27955a89bb/The_Consumer_Council_for_Water__Anglian__submissi on_redacted_.pdf. 7 Anglian's SOC, Chapter B.3: Anglian's Plan and how it was built, Section 2.1, paras. 292 to 304.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Climate Change Adaptation Report Consultation
    Climate Change Adaptation Report Consultation 1 Online questionnaire responses Please note: all consultation responses have been published verbatim without edits. Do you support Are there any further Do you agree our adaptation opportunities to Comments in response to further Type of with our Comments in response to Anglian Water’s Comments in response to Anglian Water’s Anglian Water’s (brief) response to Organisation strategy and collaborate and opportunities to collaborate and solve Organisation assessment of assessment of climate risks adaptation strategy and proposed actions consultation comments the actions we solve problems in problems in partnership climate risks? propose to take? partnership? University Cardiff University/ Y None Y An important element of future plans is Y Following on from our previous comment. We agree. For the past three years we have Centre for demand reduction. We strongly support this There is an opportunity to research how been trialling a second generation of smart Climate Change strategy. However, it also appears that a smart meters may help (or not) reduce meters, in two areas: Newmarket (Suffolk) and Social substantial section of demand reduction will water demand. It may also be interesting and part of Norwich. The Newmarket trial has Transformations be driven by smart metering. It is not clear to examine how different elements of the been combined with a whole-town focus on how successful this will be. Studies on energy demand reduction strategies can work in water efficiency and wider communications smart meters has shown that it may lead to parallel and therefore lead to greater savings about water.
    [Show full text]
  • Service Connections User Guide
    Service connections user guide March 2021 Developer Services Service connection user guide About South Staffs and Cambridge Water South Staffordshire Water PLC (‘South Staffs Water’) is part of the South Staffordshire Plc group of companies, a privately-owned integrated services group concentrating on regulated water supply and complementary specialist service businesses. We operate across two regions under a single water supply licence, providing clean water services to more than 1.7 million people and around 43,000 businesses in Staffordshire, parts of the West Midlands, and in and around Cambridge. Our South Staffs region extends from Ashbourne in the north to Halesowen in the south, and from Burton-upon-Trent in the east to Kinver in the west. Our Cambridge region stretches from Ramsey in the north to beyond Melbourn in the south, and from Gamlingay in the west to the east of Cambridge city. Cambridge region South Staffs region 1 Developer Services Service connection user guide Contents About South Staffs and Cambridge Water ................................................................................ 1 Contents .................................................................................................................................... 2 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 3 2. Who can complete this work?............................................................................................... 5 3. What is the process
    [Show full text]
  • Completed Acquisition by South Staffordshire Plc of Cambridge Water Plc
    Completed acquisition by South Staffordshire plc of Cambridge Water plc ME/5254/11 The OFT's decision on reference under section 32(b) given on 5 January 2012. Full text of decision published 9 January 2012. Please note that the square brackets indicate figures or text which have been deleted or replaced in ranges at the request of the parties or third parties for reasons of commercial confidentiality. PARTIES 1. South Staffordshire Plc ('South Staffordshire') is a public company limited by shares and incorporated in the United Kingdom. South Staffordshire owns South Staffordshire Water Plc ('South Staffordshire Water') and is the holding company for a number of non-regulated service businesses that operate predominantly in the UK water sector. South Staffordshire is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of investment funds management by Alinda Capital Partners LLC. 2. South Staffordshire Water is a water company whose assets include a network infrastructure (mains infrastructure, water treatment works and pumping stations) for the supply of water in the South Staffordshire area and does not have regulated sewerage businesses. South Staffordshire also has a number of subsidiaries providing non- regulated business activities. The turnover for the year ended 31 March 2011 for both South Staffordshire and South Staffordshire Water was £159.5 million and £87.8 million respectively. 1 3. Cambridge Water plc ('Cambridge Water') was a wholly-owned subsidiary of HSBC Bank Plc ('HSBC')1 (until its acquisition by South Staffordshire Plc on 3 October 2011). 4. Cambridge Water is also a water company that owns a network infrastructure (mains infrastructure, water treatment works and pumping stations) for the supply of water in the Cambridge area and does not have regulated sewerage businesses.
    [Show full text]
  • All Company Working Group Joint Document
    Representations: Strategic regional water resource solutions joint statement Document Reference: J007a This document is the joint representation with the other companies with strategic water resources schemes: Affinity Water, Anglian Water, Severn Trent Water, Southern Water, South West, Thames Water, Wessex and Water Resources South East. In this document general matters, which reflects the agreed position of all the companies United Utilities Water Limited Strategic regional water resource solutions Affinity Water, Anglian Water, Severn Trent Water, Southern Water, South West, Thames Water, United Utilities, Wessex Water 30 August 2019 Joint Company Statement Following the Draft Determination (DD) the working group has met several times to continue to work collaboratively to optimise the processes for developing the next set of strategic water resource solutions. The DD has added some additional options into the mix of schemes as well as increasing the number of companies working across the schemes from six to eight. These additional companies and schemes are welcomed as they will help provide additional choices when deriving the best value plans for customers, stakeholders and the environment. Our engagement with the regulators during the development of the plan have continued to help and shape this response. The recent meetings with RAPID, EA and Ofwat (in July and August) have been very encouraging and we look forward to working collaboratively to align the gated processes, national framework timetables and statutory planning processes. We want to ensure that the timetables and processes are efficient and co-ordinated, and we believe we can achieve this through a few simple re-alignments of some of the gates during the process.
    [Show full text]
  • Wildlife-Sites-Guide.Pdf
    o er’s A Guide t at Sites W life n ild Anglia W O io Our Sites Our Region ur Reg n 1 Alton Water p6 Holbrook Road, Stutton, Suffolk, IP9 2RY 14 2 Covenham Reservoir p9 Bull Bank, Louth, Lincolnshire, LN11 0PA 2 3 Dereham Rushmeadow p10 Rushmeadow Road, Dereham, Norfolk, NR19 2NW Foxcote Road, Buckingham, Buckinghamshire, 4 Foxcote Reservoir p13 MK18 1QQ Grafham Water Fishing Lodge, West Perry, Huntingdon, Grafham Water p14 5 Cambridgeshire, PE28 0BX 8 3 13 6 Hollowell Reservoir p17 Guilsborough Hill, Hollowell, Northampton NN6 8RN 12 7 Lexden Gathering Grounds p18 Cooks Lane, Colchester, Essex, CO3 4DB 6 11 10 8 Marham Fen p21 Hoggs Drove, Marham, King’s Lynn, Norfolk, PE33 9JW 5 9 1 Woodbridge Lane, Newbourne, Ipswich, Suffolk, 9 Newbourne Springs p22 IP12 4NY 4 7 Brixworth Rd, Northampton, Northamptonshire, 10 Pitsford Water p25 NN6 9BN Teeton Rd, Ravensthorpe, Northampton, Ravensthorpe Reservoir p26 11 Northamptonshire, NN6 8EJ Rutland Water Nature Reserve, Egleton, Oakham, 12 Rutland Water p29 Rutland, LE15 8BT Taverham Mill, Costessey Rd, Taverham, Norwich, Taverham Mill p30 13 Norfolk, NR8 6TA Key Icons Parking Cafe No dogs allowed Permit required 14 Tetney Blow Wells p33 Church Lane, Tetney, Grimsby, Lincolnshire, DN36 5JX Accomodation WC Toilets Guide Dogs Only Dogs on leads 2 Anglian Water Services Limited A Guide To Anglian Water’s Wildlife Sites Anglian Water Services Limited A Guide To Anglian Water’s Wildlife Sites 3 Whether you’re a keen explorer and bird watcher or just like getting out of the house, you may be surprised to hear about the number of sites we are responsible for.
    [Show full text]
  • Delivering Outcomes for Customers Policy Appendix
    Contents Executive Summary 3 Internal sewer flooding enhanced outperformance rates 4 Customer views 4 The recommended industry approach to estimating enhanced rates 4 Other companies’ rates 6 Early Certainty Principle 6 Ofwat approach to benchmarking positive externalities 6 Summary 7 Leakage performance commitment rates 8 Supporting Information 8 Priority Services Register reporting guidance 9 Part one of the data-checking element of the common performance commitment 9 Recommendation 10 Pollutions 10 D-MeX 11 Compliance Risk Index (CRI) 12 2 Executive Summary 1. In the publication of the July Draft Determinations for slow-track companies, Ofwat has made some adjustments to Outcome Delivery Incentives (ODIs). 2. We are pleased that on the whole our ODI’s in the round remain broadly in line with our Draft Determination following some changes at the Initial Assessment of Plans (IAP) stage with the Early Certainty Principle (ECP) providing some protection in this area. 3. This view of our ODIs is based on retaining the internal sewer flooding enhanced outperformance rate, which we represented on at our Draft Determination in April. The intervention at Draft Determination if applied would have a material impact on our outperformance payments (up to £1m outperformance a year). 4. We are restating our initial Draft Determination representation regarding internal sewer flooding enhanced outperformance rates and there are some clarifications and observations that we are making within our representation as follows on: • Leakage performance commitment rates • Priority services register reporting guidance • Pollutions • D-MeX • Compliance risk index (CRI). 3 Internal sewer flooding enhanced outperformance rates 5. We consider our proposed internal sewer flooding enhanced rate to be based on customers’ views, appropriate and balanced and not an outlier compared to other companies enhanced rates.
    [Show full text]
  • Anglian Water PR19 Executive Summary: Reply to Ofwat's
    Anglian Water PR19 Executive Summary: Reply to Ofwat's Response to Anglian's Statement of Case 1 Overarching Comments (1) Part 1 of this Executive Summary sets out some overarching comments that are relevant for the CMA's consideration of Ofwat's Response in the round. 1.1 Anglian Water: a company with social and environmental purpose at its heart (2) Anglian does not recognise the company which Ofwat has portrayed to the CMA in its response to the Company's Statement of Case ("SOC") and in its subsequent presentation. Ofwat has sought to portray Anglian as being focused on gaming the regulatory regime, paying very large and unjustified dividends to shareholders, and seeking additional costs only to pay dividends in AMP7. It sums this up by claiming that "Anglian Water's case is that customers should pay more and receive less".1 (3) In fact, Anglian's Business Plan would have enabled customers to pay less in bills, whilst receiving more. Its Plan is focused on doing the right thing for customers and the environment, now and in the future, and is in line with customers' clearly expressed preferences. Ofwat's FD, by contrast, would give customers less of what they want, and force Anglian to implement a series of sub-optimal short-term solutions that will, in the long-term, cause overall costs to be greater. Future customers will be left facing bigger costs, and bigger risks, than they should. (4) Anglian is a leading performer overall in the sector, innovating to become the industry-leader on leakage reduction, leading on drinking water quality measures and capital carbon reduction, highly regarded by peers, stakeholders, its supply chain and most importantly its customers and colleagues.
    [Show full text]
  • Revised Draft Water Resources Management Plan 2019
    REVISED DRAFT WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN 2019 Executive Introduction The scale of Water Resource Demand Supply-side Preferred plan Forward look Glossary Summary the challenge Zone integrity management strategy strategy CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 • Introduction 4 • The Scale of the challenge 5 • How customers have shaped our plan 7 • Water Resource Zone Integrity 8 • Best Value decision-making 9 • Demand management is our priority 9 • Supply-side investment is also required 9 • Our Preferred Plan 10 • Ambitious and deliverable demand management 10 • Smart metering 10 • Ambitious leakage reduction 11 • Water efficiency 11 • The scale of our ambition 11 • Maximising using of existing resources through a strategic grid 12 • Water Industry National Environment Programme (WINEP) mitigation options 13 • Alignment of plans 13 • Cost of our plan 13 • Forward Look 14 CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION 16 • 1.1 Guide to this submission 16 • 1.2 Our planning objectives 18 • 1.3 Our business today 18 • 1.4 Developing our dWRMP 20 CHAPTER 2 – THE SCALE OF THE CHALLENGE 25 • 2.1 Introduction 25 • 2.2 Problem characterisation 25 • 2.3 Impacts on our supply-demand balance 25 • 2.3.1 Population growth 27 • 2.3.2 Sustainability reductions 29 • 2.3.2.1 Impact on deployable output 30 • 2.3.3 Climate change 32 • 2.3.4 Severe drought 34 • 2.4 Baseline supply-demand balance 38 • 2.5 Resource challenges and Water Resources East 40 • 2.6 Local challenges 41 CHAPTER 3 – WATER RESOURCE ZONE INTEGRITY 42 • 3.1 Introduction 42 • 3.2 What is a Water Resource Zone? 42 •
    [Show full text]
  • Service Delivery Report 2019-20 Introduction
    Service delivery report 2019-20 Introduction The service delivery report provides comparative information on both the total expenditure (totex) and the outcomes delivered to customers, as reported by the 17 largest companies within England and Wales. This report provides comparative information on important areas of performance. It should not be read as a final statement on performance, but is intended to supplement the more detailed information in companies’ Annual Performance Reports (APRs). This information will help us – and stakeholders such as customer groups, environmental groups and investors – to hold companies to account. This report is based on performance data for the last year of the 2015-20 price control period and also demonstrates trends in totex and outcomes across the five-year control period. Similar to the report in 2018-19, we: • provide comparative ranking of companies’ performance • present overall performance on total expenditure and outcome delivery in a single, tabulated view; and • examine longer-term changes on key indicators For 2019-20 we also include per capita consumption in our assessments of outcome delivery. We present an assessment of the shadow customer measure of experience (C-MeX) instead of service incentive mechanism (SIM) and include commentary on the developer services and business retail markets. This year, we also focus more closely on two areas – leakage and environmental performance. For environmental performance, we set out a selection of some of the company specific performance commitments companies were set for 2015-20 and how they have performed. By their nature these are less comparable across companies. Improving life through water | Gwella bywyd drwy ddŵr | 2 Key messages Our analyses of companies’ relative performance in 2019-20 demonstrates that Wessex Water is a better performing company for a second consecutive year.
    [Show full text]
  • You Need to Know. Asset and Property Analysis
    Your order reference: G2452258-1 Property search address Your client reference: SA1120336-11203364 1St Floor, 18A, Ronald Park Avenue, Westcliff-On-Sea, Date of report: 10 July 2019 SS0 9QL Water provider: Essex & Suffolk Water Sewerage provider: Anglian Water Services Limited All you need to know. Asset and property analysis Public sewer within property Public water mains within Public pumping station Risk of internal sewer Risk of low water pressure boundaries property boundaries within property boundaries flooding Yes No No No No Water and sewerage connections Need some help or advice? If you have any queries about this CON29DW search please contact our drainage and water experts on: 0800 085 8050 [email protected] Water connection Foul water drainage Is there a water meter connection at the property? Yes Yes No Next Page Associations © Geodesys 2019 Dashboard Summary Maps Drainage Water Charging Appendix Information All you need to know - understanding the CON29DW report To understand why the information included in this report is important, it's useful for you to understand a few basic definitions and responsibilities you may have as a property owner. You may find it useful to review the key points below - this applies particularly to first-time buyers, who may have limited experience of drainage and water issues. Definitions Foul water Foul water is the water from the household (i.e. from toilets, sinks and baths). If the foul water does not drain to a public sewer, the property may rely on a cesspit or septic tank. This needs to be checked before the property purchase goes ahead.
    [Show full text]
  • Northumbrian Water Transforming Field Service with Mobile Workforce Management
    Best Practices Northumbrian Water Transforming Field Service with Mobile Workforce Management Roberta Bigliani Jean-François Segalotto IDC ENERGY INSIGHTS OPINION Northumbrian Water Limited (NWL) is a water and sewerage company supplying water and wastewater services to 2.7 million customers in the northeast of England as Northumbrian Water, and water services to 1.8 million customers in parts of Essex, Suffolk, and Norfolk as Essex & Suffolk Water. As part of its vision to be the U.K.'s leading water and wastewater company, in 2012 NWL embarked on a program aimed at transforming field service operations. The objective was to implement significant and sustainable improvements to field service operations by designing and implementing changes to NWL processes and technology to ensure that the company delivers work at the right time with the right people in the right place. Key features of the program include the following: . The development of a transformative operational business vision of field services jointly executed by business and IT in four months as the foundation for change. The deployment of a consistent end-to-end field service management process across the serviced territory. The implementation of a new mobile workforce solution executed in about 15 months by Infosys in collaboration with NWL using Oracle Utilities Mobile Workforce Management (OUMWM) software. The solution has been in operation since November 2014. While still in deployment the field service program generated financial benefits of about £1.2 million. Even more is expected in the future considering the project is improving productivity in planning, scheduling, execution, and completion of works.
    [Show full text]
  • Core Customer Information the Levels of Service We Provide for Household Customers Core Customer Information
    Core customer information The levels of service we provide for household customers Core Customer Information Contents 5 How to contact us 37 Section 5 Making the most of your water meter 6 Hartlepool Water customers 44 Section 6 Leakage: 7 Section 1 responsibility for pipes, leakage Your water supply: information, tips to prevent burst pipes quality, demand, keeping the water flowing and new connections 50 Section 7 17 Pipelaying: Section 2 a summary of our Code of Practice Water receycling services: treatment, responsibility for pipework, sewer flooding and new connections 53 Section 8 Our guaranteed service standards for household customers 23 Section 3 Understanding your charges: water and water recycling/sewerage 58 Section 9 charges, alternative tariffs, moving What to do if you have a complaint house 63 Section 10 30 Section 4 How we look after your personal Paying your bill: information how to pay and what to do if you need help to pay, queries about your bill, assistance for customers in vulnerable circumstances 2 Core Customer Information Purpose of this document This document sets out the levels of service that we strive to provide to our household customers and the levels of compensation that we offer if things go wrong. It also contains key information for customers who want to know more about the services that we provide and the various ways that they can get in contact with us. The quality of our customer service and the prices we are able to charge our customers are regulated by the Water Services Regulation Authority or Ofwat as it is more commonly known.
    [Show full text]