Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water ordered to make 'urgent' changes
Of these, 132 were from sewerage assets and 23 related to water supply.
Nadia De Longhi, head of regulation and permitting at NRW, said: "We've seen a huge deterioration in the performance of Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water since 2020, and despite repeated warnings and interventions they've been unable to reverse this concerning trend.
"This has left us with no choice but to pursue a number of prosecutions against the company which have recently concluded."
Sewage-related incidents have risen steadily, up from 89 in 2022 and 107 in 2023, marking a 42 per cent increase over the past decade.
Of the total, six were classified as serious, though this was down from seven last year.
NRW says most incidents originated from foul sewers (423), storm overflows (168), and water treatment works (166) over the past 10 years.
The regulator has taken several actions, including securing prosecutions related to pollution on the Gwent Levels and a tributary of the Afon Llwyd.
NRW has also pushed for record environmental investment between 2025 and 2030 through the Ofwat price review and issued new guidance on when storm overflows are breaching environmental permits.
In 2025, NRW will introduce a team to increase monitoring of water company discharges and begin implementing Pollution Incident Reduction Plans under new legislation.
The regulator will also tighten annual performance assessment criteria, in collaboration with the Environment Agency, starting January 1, 2026.
Ms De Longhi said: "This is not the outcome we want, nor the best outcome for the environment – our priority will always be to bring companies into compliance and prevent environmental damage from happening in the first place.
"We continue to do everything we can to drive improvements, but Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water must address the root cause of these pollution incidents and take preventative measures before more harm is done to the water environment."
Hafren Dyfrdwy, which provides drinking water and wastewater services to some of the mid and north Wales border counties, was responsible for five pollution incidents – two of which were from sewerage assets. This also represents an increase from one sewage pollution incident in 2023 and four in total.
Neither company met NRW's 80 per cent target for self-reporting incidents, though Dŵr Cymru improved from 70 per cent in 2023 to 74 per cent in 2024.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
2 days ago
- Spectator
A new water regime must still reward private investors
The weekend's torrential Yorkshire rain amid a hosepipe ban offered a handy metaphor for the chaos that has befallen the privatised UK water industry. Sir Jon Cunliffe's Independent Water Commission report – aiming for a 'fundamental reset' to restore public confidence, clean our waterways and ensure future supply – is welcome for the clarity of its central conclusion: that unfit-for-purpose Ofwat and a jumble of other regulators should be replaced by a single body with more teeth and comprehensive oversight of the sector. So far, so good. Cunliffe – a veteran of the Treasury, the Bank of England and Brussels – can also be applauded for his bureaucratic cunning in tabling no fewer than 88 recommendations, in the hope that perhaps eight of them might actually be adopted. But one reform he was forbidden from contemplating was the renationalisation of water companies, whatever the alleged extent of their failures and dividend-gouging under foreign and private-equity ownership. And that means future investment in leak-free pipes and reservoirs, supply to new housing and elimination of sewage slicks remains dependent on the willingness of private investors to put capital at risk – a mechanism widely misunderstood by consumers and campaigners who believe all shareholder rewards from water supply are somehow exploitative and wrong. Cunliffe's report talks about creating a stable regime that reduces uncertainty and thereby attracts 'low risk, low return' long-term investors, rather than (though he doesn't quite put it this way) the fast-buck financiers who gamed Ofwat so effectively in an era when successive governments were far less concerned with infrastructure improvement than the voter optics of lower water bills. In the Commons, Environment Secretary Steve Reed gave grudging spin about 'fair' returns for shareholders who meet their obligations. I note his previous career in educational publishing and hope he has texts in praise of capitalism on his bookshelf, because having ruled out state ownership he must now embrace investors who will naturally be sceptical of Labour promises. At least Cunliffe has given him a blueprint. Man of secrets David Alliance, who has died aged 93, was a man of secrets. An Iranian immigrant trader who started buying up Lancashire cotton mills in the 1950s, he eventually controlled, in the Coats Viyella combine of the 1990s, most of what remained of the British textile industry. That he liked to hold his cards close to his chest made him a potent deal-maker but a difficult client for his ghostwriters, of whom for a year or so I was one – though my version of his memoirs remained unpublished, eventually to be overtaken by Ivan Fallon's A Bazaar Life (2015). 'You research it,' Alliance would say with a hint of irritation when I tried to probe him about his takeover battles or his clandestine role in rescuing Falasha Jews from persecution in Ethiopia. So inscrutable was he that in the end I missed the core objective of my commission, which was a book saying that treacherous boardroom colleagues had thwarted his efforts to sustain Coats Viyella as a global competitor against cheap foreign rivals, before forcing his 1999 resignation. I suspect neither a nine-digit fortune from his second business empire in mail-order, nor a Lib Dem peerage, nor his name on what is now the Alliance Manchester Business School, brought consolation to his rather lonely later life. He seemed to have few real friends and I was never one of them, but I salute him as a remarkable entrepreneur. Sinking flagship 'The knives are out for BP's Norwegian chairman Helge Lund,' I wrote in April. This followed the energy giant's shareholder-driven U-turn, refocusing on fossil fuels and dumping the commitment to renewables for which Lund and his former chief executive Bernard Looney were largely responsible. Sure enough, Lund's own plan to step down 'most likely during 2026' has been accelerated to this October. His successor, Albert Manifold, previously ran the Irish building materials group CRH whose product range, embracing concrete, aggregates and bitumen, demonstrates a relatively low level of ambition to approach net zero any time soon. Tellingly, its share price has more than doubled over the past three years while BP's has stayed exactly where it was. Underlying that difference is the fact that CRH also led the current fashion for seeking higher valuations elsewhere by shifting its primary listing to New York in 2023. As the activist BP shareholder Elliott Management shouts about a need for decisive leadership to counter chronic underperformance, watch whether this sinking flagship of the FTSE 100 follows CRH across the pond. In one dramatic move, I fear that would nullify most of Chancellor Rachel Reeves's recent initiatives to inject new life into London's capital market. Storm warning I set off for my summer sojourn in France with a nagging concern about relative values. The Financial Times reports that the global cryptocurrency market has reached $4 trillion (£3 trillion) and is likely to go higher as funds flood in following the passage of Donald Trump's pro-crypto legislation. The market capitalisation of Nvidia, the Californian AI microchip giant, has also passed $4 trillion and here too pundits say there's further to go. Both those markers easily surpass the combined market value of the FTSE 100 – the top one hundred London-listed companies – at £2.1 trillion, which itself reflects an all-time high for the index at 9000. Yet economies flatline, inflation ticks up, government debt soars and geopolitics are in perpetual turmoil. Something surely has to give, maybe next month, maybe in the more traditional crash month of October. Ah well, fine French lunches should keep me sanguine – and, I hope, beguile you when I write about them.
Spectator
2 days ago
- Spectator
How private equity ruined Britain
What has happened to Britain's rivers isn't a mistake. The fact that serious pollution is up 60 per cent on the year, or that only one in seven rivers can be called ecologically healthy, is the result of corporate tactics. It is effluent from the murky world of private equity. Some 2.5 million people in the UK now work for a business that is ultimately owned by private equity. Since the 2008 financial crisis, Britain has become a prime target for takeovers, driven by low company valuations, favourable exchange rates and a pliable regulatory environment. Everything from Bella Italia to the Blackpool Tower, Travelodge to Legoland, the AA to Zizzi, has been owned by private equity. Today, it claims to make around £7 in every £100 generated for the British economy. In the first half of last year, 60 per cent of the total invested in UK firms via private equity was from abroad. Many will see this as a success story: British ingenuity attracting international money. Those who worry about foreign investment are seen as misguided and a little jingoistic. The emphasis should be on the investment, rather than worrying that our high streets and infrastructure have been sold off to foreign buyers looking for a good deal. The reply to these free marketeers can be seen floating down our rivers and in the balance sheets of our creaking water companies. Back in 1991, water firms had a debt-to-equity ratio of 4 per cent. Today it's around 70 per cent, with some firms having neared 95 per cent. Where did that money go? Clearly not enough of it has been funnelled into infrastructure. Take Thames Water, which serves a quarter of all British households. In 2006, the utility was bought by a consortium led by the Australian private equity firm the Mac-quarie Group. Over the next 11 years, Thames Water's debts grew from £3.2 billion to £10 billion, while £2.8 billion was paid out in dividends. Macquarie borrowed against the value of the business – reservoirs, treatments works, even future cash flow – to pay out even more to shareholders. Thames Water's parent company became enmeshed in a complex web of intercompany loans and shell structures in places like the Cayman Islands. During the period of Macquarie's ownership, the company paid just £100,000 in corporation tax. Thames Water is now so heavily indebted, its infrastructure so degraded, that there are serious discussions about renationalisation. Macquarie defends its behaviour, arguing that they did invest in infrastructure and that Thames Water was never publicly criticised by Ofwat during its tenure. To which one might reply, so much the worse for the regulator. Perhaps that's why Labour announced this week that they will scrap Ofwat. As it happens, Macquarie also owned the Hampshire ferry company Wightlink, which under its control saw borrowing increase to pay shareholders, with corresponding timetable reductions, the near doubling of ticket prices and a lack of investment in ferry upgrades. It's almost as if Macquarie has a strategy. Of course, not all private equity works in this way. Some companies really do improve the target firms. Pret A Manger is an obvious example, where Bridgepoint helped Pret expand to hundreds of locations before selling it for five times the purchase price, giving every employee £1,000 in the process. But plenty of people within the world of high finance have expressed concern about some of the practices of private equity. Luke Johnson, the former chairman of Gail's and former owner of the Ivy, said that in private equity, 'attention is not directed towards the common wealth, but enriching the management, buyout partners and their institutional backers. That is the nature of the game. To argue otherwise is bogus'. The former CEO of one of the largest institutional investors in the US, Theresa Whitmarsh, says she was told by one private equity founder that the industry is 'a zero-sum game, a blood sport'. This is because growing a business is much harder than squeezing one. If you don't plan on holding on to a company for the long term, making money can be devilishly simple. First, identify an undervalued business, one that may have struggled but has hard assets that could be flogged on. Then take out loans of up to 80 or 90 per cent of the value of the target company's assets. Crucially, load the target company with that debt and make them pay the cost of their own acquisition. Next, send in your partners, who will either try to juice the company's income or slash spending, all while charging fees for these services. Within the first two years of a public-to-private equity takeover, around 13 per cent of the workforce tends to be laid off. Expert negotiators are brought in to bid down suppliers and assets are sold. There is a laser-like focus on shifting the balance sheet: spend less, earn more, cash in what you can. Never mind the fact that a lack of investment will create problems down the line, that staff turnover rises as wages are squeezed and suppliers abandon the company. Such problems are for the next owner to discover. Private equity is reaching ever deeper into British life. Take the village of Little-bredy in Dorset. It was recently acquired wholesale by a firm called Belport, which bought all 32 properties in the village from Sir Philip Williams, whose family had owned it for seven generations. One resident who had lived in Littlebredy for 21 years was evicted to make way for an office, while part of the village has been closed to public access. Belport insists that rumours of a mass eviction in January are incorrect. But no one is quite sure what they plan on doing with the estate. Perhaps the village will be turned into a private members' club like Soho Farmhouse, or maybe it'll become a high-end holiday park or wedding venue. When private equity comes to town, every asset is sweated for all its worth. It's strange to see an English village bought up in the name of shareholder value. But things get much stranger when we look at unloved parts of the British state. The number of children's care homes that are operated by private equity has more than doubled over the past five years. Many of the larger operators have profits in the tens of millions of pounds and margins sit at more than 20 per cent. According to the Local Government Association, children's care homes are charging the taxpayer as much as an annual £3.2 million per child – and fees are growing well above inflation. Meanwhile, many local authorities are themselves close to bankruptcy as they scrabble to pay for these services. An independent review into the sector recently found that 'there are few indicators to suggest that high prices are leading to better quality homes for children'. Local councils are legally bound to ensure that children with serious disabilities and those without parents are looked after. Most of the time, councils meet these obligations by outsourcing. That means costs can be locked in for the length of the contracts, which makes cash flow easier for local authorities to manage. But it also gives civil servants plausible deniability. When something goes wrong, they can point to the private company and shift the blame. And the likelihood of something going wrong is much higher with private equity, because the portfolio companies are highly leveraged. For every £1 in debt these children's homes are, there's just 5p of cash flow for debt servicing. For non-private-equity homes, that figure is around 40p. This is exactly how private equity is supposed to work – spare cash is a form of inefficiency. So instead that money is redeployed or used to pay shareholders. The problems come with economic uncertainty, when rates spike or credit availability shrinks. It's a pattern we see repeated again and again. Southern Cross, a care group for the elderly, collapsed in 2011. Its previous owners, Blackstone, the largest private equity firm in the world, had performed a classic industry trick: sell off the properties, then lease them back and pocket the difference. (Morrisons' new owners are currently using this sale and leaseback strategy having said during the buyout that they wouldn't.) Meanwhile, Blackstone expanded the group through debt finance. When the 2008 crash came, social care budgets were squeezed and Southern Cross was unable to repay its debts. Blackstone had already cashed out, making £500 million in the process, while 31,000 residents were thrown into limbo. The group was broken up and sold off, with councils footing the bill for higher operating fees and transition costs. In many private-equity-run care homes, everything is cut to within an inch of what regulations allow. Workers are kept on minimum wage or brought in from agencies, and the staff-to-residents ratio is kept as low as is permitted. Food is purchased in bulk and for the lowest possible price while maintenance on buildings is deferred. A study in the United States found that care homes owned by private equity have a mortality rate 10 per cent higher than those managed by medical professionals. Private equity firms tend to have large and diverse portfolios, meaning that expertise doesn't necessarily translate across the different companies they own. Knowing how to run an efficient biscuit factory doesn't mean you know how to run an efficient chain of veterinary clinics. The one thing that all businesses have to worry about is tax, meaning this tends to be what private equity firms actually focus on. One study found that up to 40 per cent of the savings brought by private equity come from tweaking tax arrangements. The large amounts of debt often helps. Target companies offset the cost of servicing debts against their tax bill. Gatwick Airport didn't pay a penny in corporation tax for the six years it was owned by private equity, because its buyout loans were tax deductible. Selling a company isn't always even necessary to make a profit. When Toys 'R' Us filed for bankruptcy, it emerged that the private equity firms which bought it still ended up in the black. They'd charged Toys 'R' Us fees that more than recouped the relatively small amount of capital they'd put up for the acquisition. The staff, meanwhile, saw their pension contributions disappear. Most of the money for acquisitions is paid by institutional investors like pension funds. Repayments to these limited partners are fixed, but the upsides for private equity can be huge. The irony, of course, is that pensions are supposed to create stability for workers. Yet these savings are being used to acquire companies and often cut costs, sometimes even dismantling pension pots. Take the Yorkshire mattress manufacturer Silentnight. In the late 2000s, the family-run firm was facing cash-flow problems. It found salvation in HIG Europe, an affiliate of the Miami-based private equity firm HIG Capital. This gave Silentnight a line of credit, allowing the company to weather the effects of the 2008 recession. That was, until HIG suddenly removed it, demanding the debt be repaid. Within days, Silentnight went into administration and was snapped up by HIG. It's a classic example of what's known as loan-to-own. In the process, the private equity firm jettisoned the company's hefty pensions obligations. Instead, the state-run emergency Pension Protection Fund had to pick up the tab, suddenly making Silentnight an attractive, solvent company once again. The regulator twice accused HIG of engineering an unnecessary insolvency in order to shift pensions on to the public purse. Eventually, after more than a decade, HIG settled for £25 million but did not accept any liability. Staff pensions had been cut by a third, the equivalent of £50 million. HIG was still quids in. Perversely, the state-run Pension Protection Fund is a major investor in private equity firms, some of whom have been accused of offshoring profits to avoid tax. No one could object to genuine investment, but this type of business practice gives capitalism a bad name. In Britain's desperation for foreign money, we've invited in a whole class of savvy corporate raiders who know how to loot UK Plc – and get away with it. The result is that we've been left, quite literally, in the shit.
Telegraph
3 days ago
- Telegraph
How to get up to £2,000 by complaining to your water company
Water companies must now pay households up to £2,000 in compensation for service failures as part of wider government efforts to reform the sector. Payout rates have increased by as much as tenfold, marking the first rise in 25 years. The industry has come under mounting scrutiny, as bills have soared and firms have failed to invest adequately in ageing infrastructure. Leaking pipes, repeated sewage discharges into rivers and seas, and unfair executive bonuses have fuelled widespread public anger. Following an investigation by Jon Cunliffe, former Bank of England deputy governor, the Government has announced that it is scrapping Ofwat, the current regulator. Instead, a new regulator will oversee all water functions across Ofwat, the Environment Agency, Natural England and the Drinking Water Inspectorate. The news comes as water bills are estimated to rise 30pc over the next five years. Following reforms earlier in the year, as set out by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and enforced by Ofwat, customers affected by poor service are entitled to significantly higher compensation. Here, Telegraph Money explains how much you could receive and when, and what to do if your water company refuses to pay. What can you be compensated for? How do you make a claim? How much compensation could you get? What if your water company won't pay out? What can you be compensated for? Households are entitled to compensation if their water company fails to meet minimum service standards, as set out by the guaranteed standards scheme (GSS). These include: Failure to provide at least 48 hours' notice of a planned interruption to a water supply lasting more than four hours. Persistent low water pressure. Sewerage flooding, both inside your property and outside (such as gardens and driveways). Failure to restore a water supply on time. Missed or delayed appointments by your water company, or changes to scheduled visits without 24 hours' notice. Delays in dealing with complaints, requests for payment changes or account queries. The Government is also working with water companies to expand the list of circumstances that will trigger compensation payments. From October, customers will also be entitled to compensation if they are asked to boil their water due to a contaminated supply or their smart meter isn't read at least once in a 13-month period. How do you make a claim? In most cases, compensation payments should be automatic. If a company fails to meet the necessary minimum standards, it must make a fixed payment or credit the amount to your account. Automatic payments should usually be made within 20 working days of the incident occurring. This is reduced to 10 working days for delays in dealing with account enquiries, payment changes or issues with appointments. The exception is if you experience external sewerage flooding. In this instance, you will need to claim compensation via your water company. Most companies have claims forms on their websites, or you can get in touch with your provider for more information. How much compensation could you get? The recent changes mark the first time compensation rates have increased in 25 years in recognition of the 'urgent need to bring payments in line with inflation and properly compensate households for poor service', according to Defra. The table below outlines the amounts all water companies in England must now compensate households, and how they compare to previous rates. There are separate rates of compensation for businesses. What if your water company won't pay out? If you believe you're entitled to compensation and haven't received it, or if your issue isn't covered by the GSS (such as billing errors), start by raising a complaint directly with your water company. Currently, a water company must respond within 10 working days. If it doesn't, you can escalate the complaint, and the water company has a further 10 working days to respond. If the issue isn't resolved or you're not happy with the outcome, you can take your complaint to Consumer Council for Water (CCW), which will investigate. You can do this by email or letter, by filling in an online form or over the phone. Currently, there is no ombudsman for the water sector, although this could change as part of the planned overhaul, creating a new body with enhanced legal powers. Be prepared to supply the relevant information, including copies of any communication with your supplier. A spokesperson for CCW said: 'Where CCW cannot resolve disputes relating to GSS payments, the case can be referred to Ofwat, which has the power to make a final decision.'
