Six water companies banned from paying bonuses to senior bosses
Six water companies have been banned from paying bonuses to senior bosses, under new rules that come into force on Friday.
Thames Water, Yorkshire Water, Anglian Water, Wessex Water, United Utilities and Southern Water have been told that they cannot issue bonuses for the financial year 2024/25, which concluded in April.
They have all been banned under new rules which prevent bonuses from being paid if a water company does not meet environmental or consumer standards, does not meet financial resilience requirements, or is convicted of a criminal offence.
The six companies are not under an indefinite ban, and those firms may be able to offer rewards for the 2025/26 year, provided they stick within the Ofwat rules, under the Water (Special Measures) Act which comes into force on Friday.
If a company pays a bonus while it is under a ban, the water regulator Ofwat has the power to get the money back.
According to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, more than £112 million in bonuses and incentives have been handed out by water firms in the last ten years.
Water companies set their own salary and reward packages, and it is understood that if firms that are banned from offering bonuses increase salaries to try to compensate, then officials may look into it.
Environment Secretary Steve Reed said: 'Water company bosses, like anyone else, should only get bonuses if they've performed well, certainly not if they've failed to tackle water pollution.
'Undeserved bonuses will now be banned as part of the Government's plan to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas for good.
'Promise made, promise delivered.'
Under the new rules, Yorkshire Water, United Utilities, Thames Water, and Southern Water will all be unable to pay bonuses to the chief executive or chief financial officer, for the 24/25 financial year.
Anglian Water will be banned from paying their chief executive a bonus, but their chief financial officer will not be banned.
Wessex Water will be banned from paying their chief financial officer any extra, but their chief executive will be exempt.
The exemptions are because people were not in post when the incident that broke Ofwat's rules happened.
Campaign group River Action have called the move a 'welcome step' but said that increased salaries should be prevented.
Chief executive James Wallace said: 'We won't end pollution for profit until water companies are refinanced and governed for public benefit.
'Any attempt to inflate base pay as a workaround must be stamped out.
'The era of rewarding criminal leadership must end. No more cream for the fat cats.'
Wessex Water have said that under their own rules, 'which require the achievement of specific customer and environmental performance targets', neither the chief executive nor chief financial officer would receive any bonus.
A spokesperson added: 'Looking ahead, we are planning a step change in the maintenance of our sewerage infrastructure, with a proposed investment of approximately £300 million by 2030.'
A Southern Water spokesperson said: 'We note the Government's announcement and await full details of how this will impact our existing approach to performance-related reward.
'This is already closely tied to the delivery of improvements in customer satisfaction and environmental performance.
'Any bonuses are paid by shareholders, not customers, and are overseen by an independent committee.'
A Yorkshire Water spokesperson said: 'Our chief executive, Nicola Shaw, had already made the decision that it would not be appropriate for her to receive an annual bonus this year, due to the company's performance on pollution, and a recognition that we need to do better for the communities we serve and earn trust.
'She has also taken the decision to waive her entitlement to an additional bonus that would have vested under our longer-term incentive scheme.
'We are determined to make improvements to our performance so we can deliver our part in creating a thriving Yorkshire, doing right for our customers and the environment.'
It comes after Thames Water were fined £122.7 million, the largest penalty the water watchdog has ever issued, after two investigations into wastewater and dividend payments.
The utility giant will pay £104.5 million for breaches of rules relating to its wastewater operations, and an extra £18.2 million for breaking rules related to dividend payments.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
PA bill would create grant program to help police solve violent crimes
PENNSYLVANIA (WTAJ) — A Pennsylvania senator is hoping to introduce legislation that would help provide law enforcement with tools to help solve serious crimes like homicide. Senator Joe Picozzi (R-Philadelphia County) argues that in Pennsylvania, over a quarter of homicides go unsolved, and only over one-third of crimes like robbery and burglary are solved. In a memo to lawmakers, he claims these problems can be attributed to a shortage of police personnel and the lack of investment in technology and tools that law enforcement needs. That's why he plans to introduce the Violent Incident Clearance and Technological Investigative Methods (VICTIM) Act. The proposed legislation would create a grant program through the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency. Police agencies could then apply for grants that would be used to help solve those violent crimes. PA bills will expand access to opioid overdose reversal agents Law enforcement could use the grants for the following: Hire and retain officers Upgrade technology Ensure compliance with reporting requirements Picozzi said that the legislation is 'critical' and will provide the following results: Better public safety, because higher clearance rates lead to the apprehension and incapacitation of violent criminals. Less crime, because solving homicides and other violent crimes sends a clear message that perpetrators will be held accountable. Community trust in law enforcement, because improved clearance rates demonstrate the effectiveness of police in solving crimes and maintaining public safety. More justice for victims and families because solving homicides and other violent crimes provides closure and justice, helping victims and families heal. 'This bill supports our law enforcement by increasing the tools available to them to solve more violent crime, and by solving more violent crimes, we also build trust in our justice system. Ultimately, we make neighborhoods…safer places to live and raise our families,' Picozzi added. You can read more about the proposed Victims' Act here. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
New York Post
13 hours ago
- New York Post
How NYC renters could begin saving thousands in fees
If a new New York City rental law goes through as expected, New Yorkers can expect to pay a lot less to rent an apartment. Unless there is a last-minute reversal by a judge, the Fairness in Apartment Rental Expenses (FARE) Act is scheduled to take effect on Wednesday. The law will end the process of passing along the broker's fee to tenants. From now on, unless a tenant explicitly hires a broker to find an apartment, the landlord will have to eat this cost, which ranges from one month's rent to up to 15% of the annual cost of renting an apartment. What brokers think about the new law 'There has been a lot of talk about this issue. As a broker, I am glad that there will be no commission charge by a landlord if someone wants to lease their apartment,' Sonia I. Christian-Bendt, a broker with Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices New York Properties, tells 'I think this is a win-win move for both sides.' 4 It's forecasted that broker's fees will not longer be passed to tenants once this law goes into effect. Getty Images/iStockphoto She says the broker's fee was so onerous that even the wealthy weren't happy with it. 'In the past two rentals that an owner called me to represent, [the landlord] offered to pay the commission without even being asked,' says Christian-Bendt. 'It made it easier to lease her units—and attracted a lot of qualified renters who didn't mind paying a high rent, but who were relieved they didn't have to pay one month's rent commission or 15% of the annual rent as a broker's commission.' Nor does she think landlords will raise the rent to regain the fee. 'They have to remain competitive,' she says. But Douglas Elliman top 1% rental agent Keyan Sanai, who spoke in front of the City Council about the measure, disagrees. He asserts that tenants will end up paying more in the long run than if they'd simply paid a one-time flat fee, because landlords will not only raise rents the first year to regain the fee, but also keep it higher. 4 Even wealthy apartment owners were unhappy with the excessive broker's fee. Getty Images 'If you stay in an apartment for more than a year, then you've just paid more in rents than if you'd paid that broker's fee,' he tells Couldn't landlords raise the rent for a year until the fee is repaid, then lower the rent? 'We're talking about landlords here,' he says. Additionally, he says that while higher rents will affect all tenants, the broker's fee can be avoided, as only about half of the rentals in the city carry it. 'If you want to live on Perry Street in the West Village and have your 'Sex and the City' lifestyle, then that apartment probably has a broker's fee because the demand is higher to live in the West Village,' he says. 'But if you want to live in Hudson Yards, you probably won't have to pay a fee.' He concludes: 'The law is a short-term gain for long-term pain.' Danielle Nazinitsky, founder and CEO of Decode Real Estate, agrees the fallout won't be good for anyone. 'For landlords, there's now a new fixed expense in a declining-value market where they're already dealing with rising property taxes, wages, and insurance costs,' she tells 4 Only about half of the rentals in New York City carry broker's fees. Getty Images/iStockphoto 'For real estate agents and brokerages, this means lower margins in an already high-turnover, low-margin segment, and that means you will get lower quality agents over time. For tenants, the broker's fee cost doesn't disappear; it will get absorbed into upfront premiums and rent increases.' The cost of the broker's fee for tenants The broker's fee hit about half of the 2.3 million apartments in the city, including those units that are rent-stabilized. When nonprofit attorney Elizabeth Gyori and her partner were apartment hunting in Brooklyn last year, they coughed up about $4,000 to a broker—or 12% of their annual rent. 'We could have used that money for other things,' Gyori tells 'It could have gone toward savings to buy our own place, an emergency fund, or a higher general rent for a place that would have suited us better. 'I'm sad we don't get to take advantage of the change in law, but it will be really helpful for other people,' she says. 'I think it's fantastic that the law was passed.' What New York City renters can expect While the final word on the new law will be up to a judge overseeing the lawsuit filed by the Real Estate Board of New York and some brokerages, the board seems to expect the shift to happen. On its website is a fact sheet preparing landlords for what appears to be the inevitable. According to the new law, brokers representing a landlord can no longer charge tenants a fee in connection with a rental transaction. The exception is when the tenant specifically hires a broker to find them an apartment, and landlords are allowed to pay the tenant's broker. 4 The broker's fee hit about half of the 2.3 million apartments in the city, including those units that are rent-stabilized. Christopher Sadowski Additionally, rental listings must include all fees paid by the prospective tenant for the rental of the unit. This could include lost key, pet, first and last deposits, and move-in/move-out costs. Violations of the FARE Act may result in financial penalties of up to $2,000 and will be enforced by the New YC Department of Consumer and Worker Protection. (Complaints can be filed at 311.)
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Yahoo
DOJ: Trump can abolish protected monuments set aside by past presidents
President Trump can abolish national monuments that were protected from energy development and other activities by past presidents, the Justice Department (DOJ) has determined. The department issued a legal opinion this week that Trump can shrink or eliminate national monuments, overturning a 1938 opinion saying presidents did not have the power to abolish them. 'The Antiquities Act of 1906 permits a President to alter a prior declaration of a national monument, including by finding that the 'landmarks,' 'structures,' or 'objects' identified in the prior declaration either never were or no longer are deserving of the Act's Protections,' the new DOJ opinion states. While this opinion does not in itself overturn any national monument boundaries, it sets the stage for doing so in the future. The document specifically names two national monuments set aside by the Biden administration, the Chuckwalla National Monument and the Sáttítla Highlands National Monument. These monuments, located in California, encompass a combined 848,000 acres of particular significance to Native American tribes in the region. The White House told The Washington Post that it planned to eliminate them after saying in a later-scrubbed fact sheet that it was 'terminating proclamations declaring nearly a million acres constitute new national monuments that lock up vast amounts of land.' President Trump has, in the past, sought to shrink monuments designated by past presidents, including Utah's Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante monuments. The legal opinion issued Tuesday said the prior 1938 opinion, named for monument Castle Pinckney, made reducing the size of those monuments more complicated. 'The ongoing existence of Castle Pinckney has needlessly complicated litigation challenging the President's authority to alter the declarations of his predecessors,' it stated. 'Following President Trump's 2017 decision to substantially reduce but not eliminate the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments, the parties spent considerable resources litigating whether those actions should be considered revocations … in no small part because Castle Pinckney opined that reduction but not elimination of a parcel was permissible.' Environmental advocates criticized the new opinion. 'The Trump administration can come to whatever conclusion it likes, but the courts have upheld monuments established under the Antiquities Act for over a century. This opinion is just that, an opinion. It does not mean presidents can legally shrink or eliminate monuments at will,' Jennifer Rokala, executive director of The Center for Western Priorities, said in a written statement. 'Once again the Trump administration finds itself on the wrong side of history and at odds with Western voters,' she added. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
