ONE FOR BOXBASHER

[Bahco]

Reported a water leak from an overflow pipe to Severn Trent 6 weeks ago.

Apparently this pipe has been leaking for 15 years and I myself have noticed it for about 2 years. I phoned for an update and was told that it is council owned property and is their responsibility.

They have told me to pursue this matter to the council which I feel is not good enough, after all it is THEIR water that has been wasted for a number of years.

I was previously told that the owner would be served with a section 75 notice requiring them to put the matter right but no such notice has been served and the water company do not seem too bothered



Are the water companies legally obliged to ensure unnecesary waste of resources

 

[Agile]

The Water Supply companies have an obligation to reduce leaks and wastage.

Thames were fined, I think £190,000, for missing their target.

I recommend you make a formal written complaint to S-T and if they do not act then on receipt of their reply within 10 days make a further complaint to the Water Regulator.

Tony

 

[BoxBasher]

Are the water companies legally obliged to ensure unnecesary waste of resources

YES - Water Co's have a statutory duty to ensure that leaks are repaired -in a timely fashion - be it their own or private leaks.

The girls in the call centre wouldn't have a clue what you were on about if you started stating statutory duties at them, what they do understand is "complaint" and "I'm calling the paper"

If it is private then ST should enforce the repair of a leaking overflow. Local authority tend to be pretty slow when it comes to repairing leaks, but the ones near me are starting to learn because we're hitting them hard and fast and not backing down.

I'm not sure what the ST procedure for s75 is like but I do know they'll sh*t their pants if you mention press contact. "It won't look very good in the paper will it, especially if its going to be a hot summer?" is always a good line.

You could give them another call and try the big guns, if they still don't play ball then do as Tony says and write in. If there is an email facility on their site then use that, make sure you include the word complaint in your email. Water Co's get monitored on written complaints and have to deal with them within 10 days.

Chances are if they haven't dealt with it by now, they won't unless they get a kick up the a'rse. Knock up a nice letter (or email) to CCW stating that you aren't happy that ST are telling you to use water carefully and that they don't seem to give a stuff about this leak.

It might be a lot of hassle to get something sorted that they should deal with properly first time but if they're p'ing about then they could do with a kick.

If it's keeping you awake at night - I always find a cork works very well in problem overflows...

Thames were fined, I think £190,000, for missing their target

A leaking overflow is hardly going to make a difference to a leakage target. Leakage targets are measured in megalitres/day (millions).

 

[Agile]

Thames were fined, I think £190,000, for missing their target

A leaking overflow is hardly going to make a difference to a leakage target. Leakage targets are measured in megalitres/day (millions).

Its true that ONE leaking overflow will not but multiply that by 100,000 and.....

Anyway its not the actual leakage rate but the principle that matters, a leak is a leak....

Whilst I have your attention I was wondering about a leak in a 12" c.i. iron pipe a few months ago which made quite a mess and took a lot of clearing up in the area. It was mended by splicing in a couple of metres of plastic.

Last week it started leaking again in what looked like the same location.

Would the contractor get paid the full price for the second repair or is there some element of not having done it properly the first time?

Tony

 

[BoxBasher]

75.—(1) Without prejudice to any power conferred on water undertakers by regulations under section 74 above, where a water undertaker which provides a supply of water to any premises has reason for believing—

(d) that water which has been or is to be so supplied is being or is likely to be wasted or, having regard to the purposes for which it is supplied, misused or unduly consumed,
the undertaker may exercise the power conferred by subsection (2) below in relation to those premises.

(2) The power conferred by this subsection in relation to any premises is—
(a) where the case constitutes an emergency, power to disconnect the service pipe or otherwise to cut off the supply of water to those premises; and
(b) in any other case, power to serve notice on the consumer requiring him to take such steps as may be specified in the notice as necessary to secure that the damage, contamination, waste, misuse or undue consumption ceases or, as the case may be, does not occur.

(5) A water undertaker which fails, without reasonable excuse, to serve a notice in accordance with subsection (3) above shall be guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale

 

[BoxBasher]

Last week it started leaking again in what looked like the same location.

Would the contractor get paid the full price for the second repair or is there some element of not having done it properly the first time?

It depends on the mechanics of the leak. If the water is escaping from the edges of the fitting indicating that it was insufficiently tightened then they probably wouldn't get paid. With it being a few months later then it would be hard to prove whether the initial work was defective - could be ground conditions causing the pipe to shift (especially if it is drying out after a leak causing heave).

Timescale is another factor, its usually easy to spot defective work pretty quickly. If there was water showing there within a week or so then they'd be going back to inspect. Pipes can quite often burst repeatedly in a very localised area, usually once it bursts it can go again due to the pipe being in a poor condition, then being subject to stresses from the repair fittings, then re-instatement etc. Water also finds its way easier through MOT and tarmac joins than solid clay and rolled Tmac so will occasionally show at the edge of the tarmac repair patch despite leaking many meters away.

 

[Agile]

It was probably about 10 weeks.

Very luckily it was on the wide verge although about 2 m deep.

Very odd to me but the main repair was being done during the evening/night although it was all off the road!

It looked like a pretty expensive operation even the second time.

The first time it covered a car park with about 150 mm of clay mud for about 300 m².

Tony

 

[BoxBasher]

We've had a 15" go about 3 times in 6 metres within a matter of weeks. You've got to feel sorry for the gang repairing it getting shouted at, it just happened, wasn't down to poor repairs -was actually due to power failures at treatment works, when the power is restored the pumps kick in and send a massive surge. Imagine what water hammer is like in a 15" diameter pipe...

Second time it burst the water was chucking bricks through a double glazed conservatory about 30-40 metres away (not bad pressure)

Had a pumped borehole main go in a dipped road when on call one night. Police closed the road because of the water. Left 4" deep wet sand (from the borehole) across whole carriageway.

When they go they can make a hell of a mess....

 

[Agile]

-was actually due to power failures at treatment works, when the power is restored the pumps kick in and send a massive surge. Imagine what water hammer is like in a 15" diameter pipe...

Are the pumps allowed to come back on automatically?

If so then thats a bit risky if they dont have a soft start !!!

If they were manually restarted they should be brought on with the outlet valve closed and then manually open it slowly.

Tony

 

[keego]

When they go they can make a hell of a mess....

Got to agree with you on that one BB, don't know if you know the Liverpool area but we had 2 trunk mains in Knotty Ash ( 36 & 42") that went on a regular basis, every time they went it flowed down hill straight into the entrance of a sheltered housing scheme. Poor old dears, no sooner had they pumped out & cleaned up from one flood then they got it again, cost a fortune in claims. And all this after they had spent a million or so on scraping & lining the main with concrete.

 

[BoxBasher]

When they go they can make a hell of a mess....

Got to agree with you on that one BB, don't know if you know the Liverpool area but we had 2 trunk mains in Knotty Ash ( 36 & 42") that went on a regular basis, every time they went it flowed down hill straight into the entrance of a sheltered housing scheme. Poor old dears, no sooner had they pumped out & cleaned up from one flood then they got it again, cost a fortune in claims. And all this after they had spent a million or so on scraping & lining the main with concrete.

They're owed a big burst on the NLTM's soon - not had one for a while.

 

[ChrisR]

When they go they can make a hell of a mess....

Not to mention shot-blasting their way into any adjacent gas pipes.

Have been called to a tenant with "boiler broken down" to find the street full of gas blokes, and one Water Co van.

 

[BoxBasher]

If they were manually restarted they should be brought on with the outlet valve closed and then manually open it slowly.
Tony

I know that, you know that - the guy that restarted them knew that (you think they'd have learnt after the first time) and he swears blind that he did...

...answers on the back of a postcard please...

 

[Bahco]

Thanks for advice.

Its still annoying me and still leaking too so I will be writing in to ST to complain.

Let you know the outcome

 

[Bahco]

UPDATE

I have phoned Severn Trent yet again last friday and indeed threatened them with media exposure if the matter was not looked into.

Just had a phone call back from them saying the matter had been passed to their B.O.P.S. dept who are investigating and WILL be issuing a section 75 notice very shortly.

Amazing how things get done when you threaten them with the papers