plan for collapse of Thames Water

[Abraxaz1]

Don’t worry lads the same company that ran Thames water into the ground is now in charge of national high pressure gas transmission systems…

I contract for them regularly and the guys are all fed up/looking to leave or being head hunted by countries like Australia or Canada

 

[darkgen]

Load up the company with debt through various parent / shell and subsidiaries via bank loans taken out against the infrastructure under the guise of service development and upgrades of said infrastructure. In reality, it's just another wheeze to funnel money to the shareholders through creative accounting practices. hohum.

 

[Murphy]

As many have said

Yes, i understood it after @Kenai explained it in a way a layman like me understood, hence the like of his post.

e: Just to add, to me as a layman i still see it as a bit of an accounting trick but in order to not offend the accounts out there I'll rephrase it as being financially, morally, questionable as like other have said they seem to be loading up on debt while still taking money out of the company, debt that i suspect the owners will eventually walk away from leaving the tax payer to pick up the bill.

 

[ttaskmaster]

I've never understood why the water industry is privatised.

Because at the time the water standards were so low that the UK (as well as several other countries) was being prosecuted by the European Court of Justice*, and the cost of raising standards to meet the minimum requirements was more than the British government could afford. The only way they could secure enough funding to avoid further prosecution was through private investment.

Thames Water leaks 24% through it's pipes. They don't invest enough. There isn't the incentive to do so.

The amount that water companies can invest is tightly restricted by the regulator, as it can impact shareholder investments and customer bills.
Thames Water wanted to invest £16 billion into its infrastructure during this AMP, but OFWAT limited it to £3 billion. After much compromising, they were allowed £4 billion.
Thames is also unique in that much of its infrastucture became inaccessible as London expanded and grew up on top of everything, meaning there sometimes isn't anything that can be done without first demolishing a couple of city blocks.


*https://www.newscientist.com/articl...n-joins-the-queue-for-prosecution-over-water/

 

[413x]

Don’t worry lads the same company that ran Thames water into the ground is now in charge of national high pressure gas transmission systems…

I contract for them regularly and the guys are all fed up/looking to leave or being head hunted by countries like Australia or Canada

Wish I was great hunted by a company from any of those countries! I'd be gone!

 

[413x]

im lucky with welsh water, is run as a not for profit business, not saying doesnt make a profit, but nothing compare to those cowboys in england just ripping folk off with silly bills, as i work and on me own i only pay £14pm

Depsite this.. DCWW isn't in the best financial state

 

[Kenai]

Depsite this.. DCWW isn't in the best financial state

Nor does it perform well against it's performance commitments for things like leakage, water quality, treatment compliance etc.

 

[413x]

Nor does it perform well against it's performance commitments for things like leakage, water quality, treatment compliance etc.

No it does not.
It also doesn't pay very well. Pension is fairly good. But base pay is not competitive

 

[Murphy]

and the cost of raising standards to meet the minimum requirements was more than the British government could afford

Sovereign currency issuing nations can always afford to pay their bills, they may not want to issue a load of new money because of how it devalues the value of the currency (creates inflationary pressure) but they can always service their debts.

The amount that water companies can invest is tightly restricted by the regulator, as it can impact shareholder investments and customer bills.
Thames Water wanted to invest £16 billion into its infrastructure during this AMP, but OFWAT limited it to £3 billion. After much compromising, they were allowed £4 billion.

Makes one wonder why the government doesn't change/remove that restriction.

 

[Kenai]

Makes one wonder why the government doesn't change/remove that restriction.

Because that money would ultimately need to come from customer bills one way or another and people are too used to paying the current prices for their water, they simply wouldn't tolerate paying what it would cost to deliver that level of investment

I know people like to complain but frankly I think water is too cheap - Thames for example is fixed charges of about 25p per day, £1.77 per 1,000 litres of treated water delivered to your tap and £1 to take away and treat the associated wastewater.

 

[Murphy]

Ultimately but not immediately, restricting short-term investment just leads to short-term savings.

 

[Abraxaz1]

Wish I was great hunted by a company from any of those countries! I'd be gone!

They released their monthly survey details yesterday, 68% of operations staff saw the company in a negative light.

I suspect there’s going to be an attempt at firing and rehiring at a worse rate.

A lot would go to a different company, already jobs on the board that they haven’t been able to fill for a year because the pay is pathetic, hence why I get work for them.
They want a 132kv sap but only want to pay £60k a year for them. When the going rate is nearer £100k a year

 

[StriderX]

It'll turn out like the the construction industry where the knowledge base dies off and we're left paying magnitudes more for 'consultants' to conclude that yes the pipes don't work and we need to hire magnitudes more from countries that do actually value their infrastructure.

 

[Murphy]

left paying magnitudes more for 'consultants' to conclude that yes the pipes that's a pipe

FTFY.

 

[413x]

They released their monthly survey details yesterday, 68% of operations staff saw the company in a negative light.

I suspect there’s going to be an attempt at firing and rehiring at a worse rate.

A lot would go to a different company, already jobs on the board that they haven’t been able to fill for a year because the pay is pathetic, hence why I get work for them.
They want a 132kv sap but only want to pay £60k a year for them. When the going rate is nearer £100k a year

Same in Welsh water. They were wanting decent azure based skills for 40k. You're only going to get the dregs.

 

[Diddums]

It'll turn out like the the construction industry where the knowledge base dies off and we're left paying magnitudes more for 'consultants' to conclude that yes the pipes don't work and we need to hire magnitudes more from countries that do actually value their infrastructure.

Bring it on, I'll be bathing myself in crisp fifties.

 

[Nasher]

What should happen is the government takes ownership and keeps it, goes after the previous owners to recover the debt..

Same in Welsh water. They were wanting decent azure based skills for 40k. You're only going to get the dregs.

Seeing this everywhere with IT jobs now. Ads asking for years of experience in a list of stuff (likely no one will meet all of it) and wages which don't get anywhere near where they need to be.

Then they auto reject anyone who doesn't meet it. Jobs still listed after a year...

Companies want to take IT back in-house, but for some reason think they don't need to pay wages equivalent to other professions.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Sovereign currency issuing nations can always afford to pay their bills, they may not want to issue a load of new money because of how it devalues the value of the currency (creates inflationary pressure) but they can always service their debts.

It was reckoned to be the modern equivalent of £430 Billion... That sounds like an awful lot of money to invent, especially if finances were already pretty bad in the 80s...

Makes one wonder why the government doesn't change/remove that restriction.

Something to do with a company borrowing too much putting it at too great a risk of collapse, as it is obliged to repay loans (with interest) and still has to make good on expected levels of return on any investments. I skimmed that section of the report, as was pretty technical.

 

[PlacidCasual]

I've never understood why the water industry is privatised.

There is no competition between companies so they balance between making a profit vs investing.

Thames Water leaks 24% through it's pipes. They don't invest enough. There isn't the incentive to do so.

Privatisation worked in some areas and less so in others. The Conservatives in the late 80's began to fetish-ise the idea that the market knows best. The natural monopolies like water should probably never have been privatised. Some like telecoms have taken a long time but on balance we're probably better for having broken the BT monopoly.

 

[Sythe79]

I wouldn't say telecoms has worked either really other than for the shareholders, it was sold off on the cheap just before two big telecommunication booms, and we are still subsidising broadband roll-outs with taxpayer money by the billion for example