| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Another Thames Water blunder or just plain arrogance? | |
| Posted by: | Steve Taylor | |
| Date/Time: | 08/06/06 21:35:00 |
| "All this criticism of Thames seems to forget that it is a public company with shareholders and the primary responsibility of the directors is to meet their needs." Interesting opinion from Mr Hardacre - but NOT APPLICABLE. Never forget that Thames Water is a 'regulated' utilities company and is bound by Ofwat's various enforcement powers. In general terms the Director General of Water Services (replaced by the Water Services Regulation Authority on 1 April 2006) has the duty to exercise various powers imposed on it under statute calculated to further the consumer objective and to ensure that companies holding appointments under the WI Act as undertakers are able to secure "reasonable" returns on their capital and to finance the proper carrying out the functions of the water undertaker. As a regulated company having to calculate and submit its determination to the Authority - who then determines the increases Joe Public will have to endure - the consumer cannot be accountable for errors and omissions the utilities company may have made. It certainly is not acceptable for the directors of a 'regulated' company, being financed with rate payers money, to meet the shareholders needs as their primary responsibility. Yes, if the company performs well and makes bundles of money - let the shareholders have their dividends but if the company performs so badly as to be slated in the House of Lords - lets be critical and hold those responsible fully accountable. Today on Radio 4, Ofwat DG Philip Fletcher had as much to say about Severn Trent who have been accused recently of many things amongst which was overcharging and its failure to deal with customer complaints. Speculation today is that Severn could be fined up to £90 million but Mr Fletcher would not be drawn on that figure. The figure being bandied around on what Thames Water could be fined is £100 million. If the shareholders don't like it they should look to their directors for answers and why they allowed things to go so terribly wrong. |