plan for collapse of Thames Water

Surely company money = loan
And loan needs to be paid back... From customers?

It doesn't take a genius to work out where the cash comes from at the end of the day.
 
Last edited:
darkgen said:
Evidently, these fines for service failures and continued corporate greed are nothing new for this or other water companies.
Click to expand...
Or other non-water companies.
The only difference is that if some other company eventually goes under, it's not an essential life service at risk, but the supply of branded jeans, designer beverages, corner sofas and other such crap.
Corporate bonuses are jumping massively, even in companies where the share values are dropping and fines are beling levvied, and the link between such payouts and business performance are mostly non-existent these days.

Tram said:
Lol, this is a well run company. They should have fined them more for the dividend payments. Why not force them to pay for clean up operations.
Click to expand...
Just LOL, because you don't understand what happened or why. The rules breached were a failure to comply with new regulations from the EA, which required a large investment, which was prohibited by OFWAT. There was no winning that part due to the two conflicting regulators.
As for paying for the clean-up... most wastewater spills are a result of blockages caused by customers. TW already clear more than 200 blockages per day, most of which are so large they require teams of men shovelling stuff out by hand... how about the customers actually pay for the damage done and the time taken to fix it?
 
ttaskmaster said:
Or other non-water companies.
The only difference is that if some other company eventually goes under, it's not an essential life service at risk, but the supply of branded jeans, designer beverages, corner sofas and other such crap.
Corporate bonuses are jumping massively, even in companies where the share values are dropping and fines are beling levvied, and the link between such payouts and business performance are mostly non-existent these days.


Just LOL, because you don't understand what happened or why. The rules breached were a failure to comply with new regulations from the EA, which required a large investment, which was prohibited by OFWAT. There was no winning that part due to the two conflicting regulators.
As for paying for the clean-up... most wastewater spills are a result of blockages caused by customers. TW already clear more than 200 blockages per day, most of which are so large they require teams of men shovelling stuff out by hand... how about the customers actually pay for the damage done and the time taken to fix it?
Click to expand...
I admire your defence and the rationale you’ve presented, almost to the point of resignation, as though this is simply how it works and we should just accept all the other instances of malfeasance in other service sectors.

However, my frustration is not directed at you, the workers, subcontractors, or anyone else in the supply chain who actually does the work. As you rightly point out, water is not a frivolous sector; it is a critical infrastructure supplying a life-giving product. Yet, while I acknowledge that blame can be placed on regulators or governing bodies for failing or hampering a proper water strategy, this only goes so far. Thames Water and its executives seem to be prioritising self-interest at all costs, clearly to the detriment of the company’s long-term survivability (as evidenced by the increasing debt burden).

I fully agree that history plays a role; there has been a complete failure of regulation, perverse conflicts with other governing bodies, and an incoherent, invalid strategy for development and improvement. I understand all of this. What I struggle to comprehend, however, is the seeming inability of anyone or anything to drive meaningful, positive change in the industry.

It seems blatantly obvious to me, a simpleton, that the government should consolidate the Environment Agency, Ofwat, and perhaps Defra into a single unified entity and MAKE IT WORK!

We seem to be stuck in an endless loop, as seen in this thread, debating options like nationalisation or whatever else. Meanwhile, Thames Water continues to act and behave in ways that harm the company’s future without facing meaningful consequences or incentives to reform.
 
ttaskmaster said:
Or other non-water companies.
The only difference is that if some other company eventually goes under, it's not an essential life service at risk, but the supply of branded jeans, designer beverages, corner sofas and other such crap.
Corporate bonuses are jumping massively, even in companies where the share values are dropping and fines are beling levvied, and the link between such payouts and business performance are mostly non-existent these days.


Just LOL, because you don't understand what happened or why. The rules breached were a failure to comply with new regulations from the EA, which required a large investment, which was prohibited by OFWAT. There was no winning that part due to the two conflicting regulators.
As for paying for the clean-up... most wastewater spills are a result of blockages caused by customers. TW already clear more than 200 blockages per day, most of which are so large they require teams of men shovelling stuff out by hand... how about the customers actually pay for the damage done and the time taken to fix it?
Click to expand...

I know what when on, btw the regulators were indirectly controlled by either x water employees or future x water employee. I never believed any regulator are ever independent.

Thames water sold off a lot of land, from pumping stations to reservoirs etc... the money went straight to investors via special dividends.

If they can manipulate it they will, asset management has a very dark side to the business.

I would nationalise this, no monopoly should be privatised.
 
Last edited:
darkgen said:
I admire your defence and the rationale you’ve presented, almost to the point of resignation, as though this is simply how it works and we should just accept all the other instances of malfeasance in other service sectors.
Click to expand...
It's not a defence and certainly nothing that should be accepted... but it is a wider issue that should be examined in its entirety. The people doing this will get their money and then move on to do the same sort of thing at other companies, because they can and already did so before they came here. This needs addressing.

darkgen said:
However, my frustration is not directed at you, the workers, subcontractors, or anyone else in the supply chain who actually does the work.
Click to expand...
They're the ones who will lose their entire careers over it, though. That's why there must be a clear difference highlighted between what "Thames Water" do, what their holding companies do, and what their owners do.

darkgen said:
I fully agree that history plays a role; there has been a complete failure of regulation, perverse conflicts with other governing bodies, and an incoherent, invalid strategy for development and improvement. I understand all of this. What I struggle to comprehend, however, is the seeming inability of anyone or anything to drive meaningful, positive change in the industry.
Click to expand...
That history, including various payments of dividends, loan interests and so on, often takes years to catch up. Some of the payments you'll hear about date from as far back as 2007. Similarly, we're booked to work on some Thames and Network Rail assets... in the year 2039.

darkgen said:
It seems blatantly obvious to me, a simpleton, that the government should consolidate the Environment Agency, Ofwat, and perhaps Defra into a single unified entity and MAKE IT WORK!
Click to expand...
We've been saying that for decades, and it's even echoed by The Times this morning.

Tram said:
I know what when on, btw the regulators were indirectly controlled by either x water employees or future x water employee. I never believed any regulator are ever independent.
Click to expand...
Yes, they're all lizard people from the planet Arcturis... a secret cabal of illuminati.
Or would you prefer a regulator that has no actual experience of the industry and just blindly slaps rules down without understanding the impact?

Tram said:
Thames water sold off a lot of land, from pumping stations to reservoirs etc... the money went straight to investors via special dividends.
Click to expand...
Firstly, this was long ago.
Secondly, the land and reservoirs had long been out of use.
Thirdly, people needed the land to build houses.

What's your issue? Or are you just throwing mud without context, hpoing people will assume this was something to do with the more recent Macquarrie asset-stripping?

Tram said:
I would nationalise this, no monopoly should be privatised.
Click to expand...
And you'd be lynched if you did. The whole reason this industry got privatised was because the government had already failed to invest and the UK got prosecuted over its performance.
Do you really think that, with the abysmal performance of the NHS, a massively under-performing Police service, and all the other public services vying for some semblance of funding, that adding a knackered water industry into the same money pot will somehow be a good idea??!!
This is the same government already running two conflicting regulators, and one of the main reasons we currently have so many problems.
 
ttaskmaster said:
It's not a defence and certainly nothing that should be accepted... but it is a wider issue that should be examined in its entirety. The people doing this will get their money and then move on to do the same sort of thing at other companies, because they can and already did so before they came here. This needs addressing.


They're the ones who will lose their entire careers over it, though. That's why there must be a clear difference highlighted between what "Thames Water" do, what their holding companies do, and what their owners do.


That history, including various payments of dividends, loan interests and so on, often takes years to catch up. Some of the payments you'll hear about date from as far back as 2007. Similarly, we're booked to work on some Thames and Network Rail assets... in the year 2039.


We've been saying that for decades, and it's even echoed by The Times this morning.


Yes, they're all lizard people from the planet Arcturis... a secret cabal of illuminati.
Or would you prefer a regulator that has no actual experience of the industry and just blindly slaps rules down without understanding the impact?


Firstly, this was long ago.
Secondly, the land and reservoirs had long been out of use.
Thirdly, people needed the land to build houses.

What's your issue? Or are you just throwing mud without context, hpoing people will assume this was something to do with the more recent Macquarrie asset-stripping?


And you'd be lynched if you did. The whole reason this industry got privatised was because the government had already failed to invest and the UK got prosecuted over its performance.
Do you really think that, with the abysmal performance of the NHS, a massively under-performing Police service, and all the other public services vying for some semblance of funding, that adding a knackered water industry into the same money pot will somehow be a good idea??!!
This is the same government already running two conflicting regulators, and one of the main reasons we currently have so many problems.
Click to expand...
. If the company had been managed effectively, it wouldn’t be facing these problems.
 
ttaskmaster said:
Yes, they're all lizard people from the planet Arcturis... a secret cabal of illuminati.
Click to expand...

You're talking to someone who wants to leave the country for Spain, all rather suddenly, because the evil government is coming for his gold bars and coins.

Clearly this is someone who not only lacks the ability to research things properly, but also makes life-changing decisions despite not having the relevant research, and I suspect also gets all his info from places like Infowars and 4Chan. Critical thinking isn't his bag. Not at all.

Still, I hope he at least tries to break the world record for most golden ferrets stuck up his bum.
 
Tram said:
. If the company had been managed effectively, it wouldn’t be facing these problems.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter how it was managed, these problems result from decisions made by their owners, by the government, and by the regulators.
Ask yourself this - Why are fines, supposedly being levvied for environmental damage, going to the Treasury instead of being used to repair that damage...?

Diddums said:
You're talking to someone who wants to leave the country for Spain, all rather suddenly, because the evil government is coming for his gold bars and coins.
Click to expand...
Oh... is he a former water industry CEO too, then? :D
 
ttaskmaster said:
Doesn't matter how it was managed, these problems result from decisions made by their owners, by the government, and by the regulators.
Ask yourself this - Why are fines, supposedly being levvied for environmental damage, going to the Treasury instead of being used to repair that damage...?


Oh... is he a former water industry CEO too, then? :D
Click to expand...

If you notice this happens to all areas not just the water regulator. The victim's get noting or almost nothing. The compensation for anything is too low in the UK, so they pay up because it is cheaper.
 
ttaskmaster said:
Better get going, then... Good luck finding a better deal elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Lol what deal, all these water companies are the same. I don't think they are as bad as Thames water. There have been times when we in our area were told not to drink the water. These types of events were not common but more common lately.
 
Last edited:
ttaskmaster said:
And you'd be lynched if you did. The whole reason this industry got privatised was because the government had already failed to invest and the UK got prosecuted over its performance.
Do you really think that, with the abysmal performance of the NHS, a massively under-performing Police service, and all the other public services vying for some semblance of funding, that adding a knackered water industry into the same money pot will somehow be a good idea??!!
This is the same government already running two conflicting regulators, and one of the main reasons we currently have so many problems.
Click to expand...
Not to worry soon to be a train service too "Great British Railways" yet another govt dept with no money that will soon be left to decay into decrepitude just the good 'ol BR used to be. Ah, progress.
 
Blackjack Davy said:
Not to worry soon to be a train service too "Great British Railways" yet another govt dept with no money that will soon be left to decay into decrepitude just the good 'ol BR used to be. Ah, progress.
Click to expand...
Yet all privatisation has brought us is a franchised rail service heavily subsidised by the taxpayer, with skimmed 'profits' ending up in private companies' coffers. Surely there must be a middle ground somewhere, anywhere, that is better than nationalisation and less perverse than the privatisation of regional monopolies.
 
The trains were never privatised, they were outsourced on relatively short term contracts to private providers.

They were never sold off, they have always been within the overall control of the government. It’s more akin to your local council outsourcing bin collections to Biffa, the council still controls what gets picked up from where and when.

It’s completely different and not even remotely comparable to the water or electricity sectors. Can we please stop making the comparison.
 
Tram said:
Lol what deal, all these water companies are the same. I don't think they are as bad as Thames water. There have been times when we in our area were told not to drink the water. These types of events were not common but more common lately.
Click to expand...
You're clearly not old enough to remember the 1970s pre-privatisation...
 
throwaway4372 said:
and there goes my water bill up 31%
you called it
Click to expand...
I just read they are going to stack bills based on usage a progressive and seasonal adjustments.. probably push out nationwide, higher bills I guess.
Could not read the full article
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom