Households to receive up to £2,000 compensation for water service failures
Compensation payments will increase up to tenfold from July 2 for problems such as low pressure, disruptions to supply or sewer flooding.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said the move marked the first increase in compensation rates in 25 years in recognition of the 'urgent need' to bring payments in line with inflation and properly compensate households for poor service.
Severe issues such as flooding will see customer compensation double from £1,000 to up to £2,000, while households suffering consistent low water pressure will be automatically eligible to receive up to £250, up from the previous compensation rate of £25.
Payments will automatically be credited to the accounts of eligible customers with immediate effect.
The announcement comes as the Government attempts to grapple with the problems engulfing the water sector in the face of high public anger over the degraded and polluted state of rivers, lakes and coasts, rising bills, bosses' bonuses and shareholder payouts.
Environment Secretary Steve Reed said: 'Too many water companies are letting down their customers – with leaking pipes, poor water supply and low water pressure.
'The Government is holding water companies to account by making them put money back into people's pockets when they fail their customers.'
Defra said it was working with water companies to expand the list of circumstances that would trigger compensation payments.
Compensation for when customers are asked to boil their water due to contaminated supply will come into force later this year, it said.
The standards, outlined in the Guaranteed Standards Scheme, set out a baseline for customer service in the water sector and include providing timely restoration of water supply following an interruption, responding to written complaints and managing the risk of sewer flooding.
Action already announced to cut sewage spills and attract investment in the sector includes: strengthening regulation to ensure polluting water bosses who cover up their crimes now face two-year prison sentences; the banning of 'unfair' bonuses for bosses of six polluting water companies; and 81 criminal investigations into sewage pollution.
Mike Keil, the chief executive of the Consumer Council for Water (CCW), said: 'Customers expect to be treated fairly when their water company lets them down, so we're delighted the Government has moved at pace to strengthen service standards.
'This should give people peace of mind they now have far stronger protection from a much broader range of water company service failures – from the slow installation of water meters to the mishandling of debt recovery.
'As well as bolstering payments for thousands of customers, these changes mark an important step towards restoring trust in the water sector which is at an all-time low.'
Ofwat chief executive David Black said: ''We welcome these improvements to guaranteed standards and payments for customers.
'When customers suffer from problems like low pressure, disruptions to supply or sewer flooding, they can experience major stress and inconvenience, and payment amounts must recognise the disruption to their lives when standards are not met.
'These new changes are another way to make sure customers are protected when companies get it wrong.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
When you can retire as state pension age rises in 2026
The state pension age will officially rise next year, meaning millions of workers will have to wait longer for retirement. Increasing from 66 to 67, an individual's exact date of birth will affect when they can start claiming, with some having to delay their retirement by a month compared to someone born just a day earlier. The planned changes have been set since 2014, and will affect men and women equally. While people can choose to retire earlier than this date, and may choose to do so if they have a private pension, the state pension age is the earliest anyone can begin claiming the government-supplied pension. This also won't be the last state pension age increase most UK workers see in their lifetimes. Current legislation will see the age rise from 67 to 68 between 2044 and 2046. However, there is speculation that this could be brought forward following Labour's upcoming pension review. Announced by work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall in July, the statutory review must give ten years' notice of any changes to the state pension age. With at least 18 years to go until the next one, this gives the government scope to bring forward the point when state pension age hits 68. Understanding how the state pension age changes is vital for workers to plan for their retirements. Since 2015, campaigners for the Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI) group have called for successive governments to provide compensation due to the inadequate communication of state pension changes for women born between 1950 and 1960. In 2026, all workers born after April 1960 that will start to see their state pension age rise. Here's what that could mean for you: The exact date of birth is important, with 5 April 1960 the last birthday to keep the 66 years retirement age. For those born on or after 6 April 1960, this will rise to 66 years and one month, and will continue to rise by an extra month on the 6th of every month. This will continue until 6 March 1961, with those born on or after that day having a retirement age of 67. Under current plans, this will apply for those born before 5 April 1977 – the last date of birth with a retirement age of 67. After this, it will increase monthly in a similar process to what is planned next year. However, this is liable to change at any upcoming pension review. When workers can retire in 2026 based on when they were born: 5 April 1960 and before – 66 years. Retirement date: 5 April 2026 6 April 1960 – 66 years, one month. Retirement date: 6 May 2026 6 May 1960 – 66 years, two months. Retirement date: 6 July 2026 6 June 1960 – 66 years, three months. Retirement date: 6 August 2026 6 July 1960 – 66 years, four months. Retirement date: 6 November 2026 6 August 1960 – 66 years, five months. Retirement date: 6 January 2027 6 September 1960 – 66 years, six months. Retirement date: 6 March 2027 6 October 1960 – 66 years, seven months. Retirement date: 6 May 2027 6 November 1960 – 66 years, eight months. Retirement date: 6 July 2027 6 December 1960 – 66 years, nine months. Retirement date: 6 August 2027 6 January 1961 – 66 years, ten months. Retirement date: 6 November 2027 6 February 1961 – 66 years, 11 months. Retirement date: 6 January 2028 6 March 1961 – 67 years. Retirement date: 6 March 2028
Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
Council tax bills could be about to change - and you would pay less each month
At present, council tax bills are normally spread over ten months every year - but a new shake-up wants to make 12 months the default Council tax bills will be spread out over 12 months by default under Government proposals that are currently being discussed. It means you would pay less each month, although your overall council tax bill for the year would remain the same. At present, council tax bills are normally spread over ten months from April to January every year. This is because when you pay in ten instalments, you don't pay a council tax bill in February and March. You can request your payments be split over 12 months but the proposals, which were first announced in June, want to make this the default. The average band D household would pay approximately £38 less each month if they paid over 12 months, according to figures from the the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. The average council tax bill for a band D property is currently £2,280. You will still be able to request to pay your council tax bill over ten months if you want to. The consultation is also proposing slowing down the debt collection process for when someone has missed a council tax payment. If you miss just one council tax payment, you can be asked to pay the rest of your yearly bill upfront. Councils can then send in bailiffs if you continue to not pay, which results in added legal costs being added to your bill. The consultation is looking at capping additional costs and ensuring households are given information about what help they could be entitled to, if they are struggling to pay. It will also become easier to challenge your council tax band, if you believe you may be paying too much. There are also proposals to change the name of the "severe mental impairment" discount to "significant cognitive impairment" discount. The consultation on these changes to the council tax system is due to end on September 12, with any changes set to be confirmed in autumn. Minister for Local Government and English Devolution, Jim McMahon OBE said: 'As part of our Plan for Change, we're putting working people first. 'We are listening and taking action to make council tax fairer, more transparent and easier to manage. Under our plans, local government will be there to support, and not to punish, people who fall behind.' Cut your council tax bill Check if you're eligible for some sort of council tax discount. For example, your bill is reduced by 25% if you live alone, or if you are classed as severely mentally impaired, or you claim benefits, you may be entitled to 100% off your bill. If you're in too high of a council tax band, you may be able to challenge this and get thousands of pounds back, plus lower bills going forward. But do your research first, as if you're in too low of a council tax band, your future bills will go up.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Labour is coming for your family home
Given the likely size of the fiscal black hole the Chancellor is facing in her autumn Budget, the summer was always going to be filled with speculation about which taxes she will put up. With the repeated insistence from ministers that the Government will not increase them for 'working people', much of this speculation has been on how to squeeze as much as possible out of the wealthier in society. I wrote for The Telegraph a few weeks ago that although a specific wealth levy has been ruled out, there were plenty of other ways the Chancellor could target richer households, highlighting inheritance tax (IHT) as one of the other options. So it is not that surprising that, in the last few days, it has been reported the Treasury is looking at capping the amount that can be given IHT-free during one's lifetime. This is something that is often examined inside the Treasury – but it hasn't been pursued, because it would raise relatively little and be incredibly hard to actually enforce. What is more surprising is that other, much more significant and politically toxic changes hinted at in recent stories have so far been ignored. The Labour source who started all this speculation said something far more worrying than a cap on unlimited tax-free gifts. They said: 'With so much wealth stored in assets like houses that have shot up in value, we have to find ways to better tap into the inheritances of those who can afford to contribute more.' This is a major steer that the Treasury is looking at how to make us pay more tax on the family home that we might inherit. When I was at the Treasury, we looked very hard at IHT. Not to increase it like Labour will, and indeed have, but at ways to cut it. In the run-up to the autumn statement of 2023 and the spring Budget of 2024, we examined all of the options for reforming the various thresholds, bands and exemptions. Treasury officials were in favour of widening the scope of IHT so that more people paid it. We would only even contemplate that if the money raised was used to reduce the overall rate. In the end, however, we prioritised cutting National Insurance and didn't think it was fair to make some people pay IHT who wouldn't otherwise have done so, even if they would be paying at a lower rate than before. We've seen the terrible consequences inflicted on the farming community of a government that made a different choice in this regard. But it wasn't just agricultural property relief on the list of exemptions or thresholds officials suggested reforming. The residence nil-rate band was also always in these discussions. It is this residence band that is clearly now in the firing line. Getting rid of it would be the easiest way to tax 'houses that have shot up in value'. But it would also be political suicide. At the moment, IHT is not levied on assets worth up to £325,000. On top of this basic nil-rate band, there is a £175,000 residence nil-rate band, which is applied if someone leaves their home to their direct descendants. So an individual leaving their house to their children won't pay IHT on their assets worth up to £500,000, and for a couple this is doubled to £1m. Scrapping it would mean that rather than a £1m estate being IHT free, this would fall to £650,000. Roughly 30,000 additional families a year would be brought into the IHT net, and the Treasury would raise about £2bn a year – but it would be catastrophic for grieving families up and down the country. It is worth remembering that it was introduced to fulfil the Conservative pledge to exempt the family home from IHT. If someone has worked hard all their life, their family home shouldn't go to boost government coffers. It should go to their family. If anything, the band should have increased in line with inflation, as many family homes will now comfortably breach the current rate, and so at least in part have IHT levied on them. But ominously, at the time the IHT-free threshold was raised to £1m, it was described by Rachel Reeves as a ' tax break for a wealthy elite '. That showed a misunderstanding of the importance of the family home back then, when property prices were much lower than today. Now, after a decade of rising house prices, far more people will feel that leaving an estate worth £1m that includes their family home is well within their reach. The idea that after they have passed away, when their children are still grieving, HMRC would come and grab 40pc of it is horrific and a massive attack on aspiration. Which is something Labour don't understand, and why we should all fear they'll do exactly that.
