AGENDA
CONSUMER COUNCIL FOR WATER
BOARD MEETING IN PUBLIC AT 11.00AM
TUESDAY, 1ST APRIL 2014
VICTORIA SQUARE HOUSE, VICTORIA SQUARE, BIRMINGHAM
PLEASE SEE OVERLEAF FOR CUSTOMER CASE FOR APRIL
Item no.
Agenda Item
Time
Paper No.
Lead
Dame Yve
Buckland
STANDING ITEMS
1
Apologies and declarations of interest
(5 mins)
11.00
Verbal
2
Listening session – items of interest
identified by the public
(15 mins)
11.05
Verbal
3
Approval of Minutes of the Public Board
Meeting held on 1st October 2013 and any
matters arising.
(5 mins)
11.20
CCW 01 04 01
Dame Yve
Buckland
11.25
CCW 01 04 02
Tony Smith
STRATEGY AND POLICY ITEMS
4
Chief Executive’s Report on
i)
CCWater Achievements and
Performance 1st Sept 2013 – 28th Feb
2014; including update on the price
setting process for the next 5 years.
(15 mins)
5
Update On CCWater’s Achievements 2013/14
(10 mins)
11.40
CCW 01 04 03
Tony Smith
6
CCWater Public Relations Strategy
(15 mins)
11.50
CCW 01 04 04
Kate Eccles
12.05
CCW 01 04 05
Jane Morris
GOVERNANCE
7
CCWater Finance Report and
Confirmation of 2014/15 Budget
(10 mins)
…cont
…cont
8
Board Objectives for 2014/15
(10 mins)
12.15
CCW 01 04 06
Dame Yve
Buckland
9
CCWater Local Committee Minutes and any
matters arising.
(10 mins)
12.25
CCW 01 04 07
Jan Mitson
10
CCWater Governance Paper (Including Public
Board Outstanding Actions)
(10 mins)
12.35
CCW 01 04 08
Jan Mitson
11
Any Other Business
(15 mins)
12.45
Verbal
Meeting Closes 13.00pm
CCWater Customer Case for April
Issue
A customer called us as a last resort. Since March 2013, a blocked drain outside her
house had frequently flooded onto the footpath outside her house; the smell was
terrible. She had called her housing association, her council and Severn Trent – all
parties denied responsibility. In 2013 Severn Trent had attended and unblocked the
drain, but still denied responsibility so would not come out again now the problem
had recurred.
What we did
We called Severn Trent and the company agreed to look at the issue. It found
another blockage and jetted it clear to alleviate the immediate problem. After
jetting clear the blockage, Severn Trent found a drop in the pipe that needed
fixing to prevent the problem happening again. Still certain it was not its asset,
the company told the housing association of this and asked it to fix it. A week later
no action had been taken, so Severn Trent agreed to undertake the repair itself, as
it was a relatively minor piece of work clearly causing a customer a great deal of
distress.
Outcome
Whilst the pipe is not Severn Trent’s responsibility, it still undertook the repair to
make sure the problem did not recur. The company also refunded the costs of the
customer’s mobile phone calls to it when she was reporting the issue.
Lessons Learnt
The outcome in this case was very positive for the customer, even though strictly
speaking it was not something the water company had to resolve. The lesson we
can take from this case is that even if something sounds like there’s nothing we
can do it’s still worth speaking to the company. In the name of good customer
relations sometimes companies will be prepared to take relatively small actions
that can make a huge difference to an individual.
Agenda Item P3 – Paper No CCW 01 04 01
Meeting in Public of the BOARD of the Consumer Council for
Water. Held at 11.00am on Tuesday 1st October 2013 at
Victoria Square House, Birmingham.
PRESENT:
Dame Yve Buckland (Chair)
Diane McCrea – Wales Chair & Vice Chair
of the Board
Andrea Cook – Regional Chair
Bernard Crump – Regional Chair
Charles Howeson – Regional Chair
Tony Redmond – Regional Chair
Mike Barnes – Independent Member
Timothy Hornsby – Independent Member
Narendra Makanji – Independent Member
Tony Smith – Chief Executive
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE:
Jan Mitson – Board Secretary
Carl Pegg – Head of Consumer Relations
Jane Morris – Head of Corporate Services
Deryck Hall – Head of Policy and Research
Steve Hobbs – Senior Policy Manager
Hannah Williams – Senior Policy Manager
15.0
WELCOME, LISTENING SESSION, APOLOGIES AND DECLARATIONS OF
INTEREST
15.1
The Chair opened the meeting and welcomed those present. No members
of the press or public were in attendance and there were no apologies
for absence.
15.2
There were no declarations of interest submitted, other than those
previously recorded in the register.
16.0
MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC BOARD MEETING HELD ON 9TH APRIL 2013
AND ANY MATTERS ARISING
16.1
The Board received the Minutes of the Public Board Meeting held on 9th
April 2013.
16.2
Deryck Hall provided the Board with an update on responses received
from Water Companies, following a request from CCWater for them to
clarify their corporation tax arrangements and to what extent these
arrangements were beneficial to customers.
16.3
CCWater had received 15 responses to its request. Most companies
commented that they made full use of Capital Allowances to defer tax
payments until a future date. This was entirely in accordance with HMRC
rules and resulted in lower bills for customers.
16.4
Some companies, at the group level, had set up financing companies in
so-called ‘tax havens’ to channel loans to the regulated companies.
Companies maintained that this was entirely with the rules laid down by
the UK tax authorities, and provided regulated companies with access to
1
Agenda Item P3 – Paper No CCW 01 04 01
debt finance often at a lower rate than they could raise in the UK. This
is because the lender pays corporation tax (or equivalent) on the interest
earned at the rate prevailing in their country of domicile which is often
lower than the UK rate of corporation tax.
16.5
CCWater would develop a line to take on the issue prior to the
announcement of the interim financial statements of companies in
November and December 2013.
16.6
It was noted that the practices of the regulated companies were legal;
however in light of increasing public interest in the matter, CCWater
should press companies to be open about their arrangements and explain
to their customers, how their tax arrangements are beneficial to
customers, in clear language.
AGREED:
i)
ii)
That a line to take be developed on the issue prior to the
announcement of the interim financial statements of
companies.
That the Minutes of the Private Board Meeting held on 2nd
July 2013 be approved as a correct record and signed by
the Chair.
17.0
CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S REPORT ON CCWATER ACHIEVEMENTS AND
PERFORMANCE APRIL – AUGUST 2013
17.1
A report on CCWater achievements and performance April – August 2013
was submitted by the Chief Executive to the Board for noting.
17.2
The Board was informed that final report from the Debt Task and Finish
Group would be circulated by email shortly for their information.
Agreed that:
i)
The achievements and performance of CCWater April –
August 2013 be noted.
18.0
CCWATER COMPLAINT HANDLING PERFORMANCE REPORT
18.1
Carl Pegg introduced a report on benchmarking CCWater complaint
handling time and consumer satisfaction against other organisations.
18.2
To highlight work done on speaking up for consumer, it was suggested
that CCWater could use information on the performance and
achievements in relation to customer satisfaction with complaint
handling, in other areas of our work, for example the Forward Work
Programme.
18.3
It was suggested that a method be explored of demonstrating
comparative costs of organisations with whom CCWater benchmarks its
performance with. The Board discussed the difficulty of comparing
organisations who undertake complaints and dispute resolution, as the
approach and scope of powers of redress vary between organisations.
The Board was informed that to make the figures comparable, CCWater
2
Deryck Hall
Agenda Item P3 – Paper No CCW 01 04 01
‘normalises’ the statistics of other organisations where possible.
18.4
The Chair had recently met with Consumer Futures who had shared with
her a copy of the Scottish Water Ombudsman’s report that had been
submitted to Ofwat. The Chair informed the Board she would share a
copy of the report in order to highlight any areas of good practice in
terms of reporting complaint handling performance.
Agreed that:
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
The Board notes the performance.
Information contained in the report would, where
appropriate be used in other CCWater publications, for
example the Forward Work Programme, to highlight the
good performance of the organisation.
To demonstrate good value for money, CCWater should
explore the possibility of showing the comparative costs of
organisations identified in the report.
The Chair would circulate a copy of the Scottish Water
Ombudsman’s report to Board Members.
19.0
DRAFT FORWARD WORK PROGRAMME FOR CONSULTATION
19.1
Hannah Williams submitted a report on the Draft Forward Work
Programme, prior to the document being issued for consultation.
Agreed that:
i)
ii)
The Forward Work Programme be supported subject to a
further decision on the Informing Consumers project.
Delegated authority be given to the Chair and the Chief
Executive to approve the final draft prior to opening for
consultation.
20.0
CCWATER FINANCE REPORT APRIL – AUGUST 2013
20.1
Jane Morris submitted the Finance Report (April – August 2013), a copy
having previously been circulated to each Member of the Board.
Agreed that:
i)
The report be noted.
21.0
ACTIONING OF OUSTANDING PUBLIC BOARD DECISIONS
21.1
The schedule of Outstanding Public Board Decisions was submitted to the
Board for consideration indicating the present position in relation to
each of the actions listed. The Board Secretary informed the Board of
the latest position in respect of action 2.3 and it was agreed that the
item would be discharged as the customer concerned was now pursuing
the matter with another organisation.
3
Carl Pegg /
Hannah
Williams
Carl Pegg
Yve
Buckland /
Jenny
Grant
Agenda Item P3 – Paper No CCW 01 04 01
AGREED that:
i)
ii)
Item 2.3 would be discharged from the list.
The completed Outstanding Public Board decisions be
discharged from the list.
22.0
SCHEME OF DELEGATION
22.1
An updated Scheme of Delegation, which delegated powers from the
Board to the Chief Executive and from the Chief Executive to other
members of the organisation, was noted
22.2
The Board noted that following consideration by the Audit and Risk
Management Committee, the NAO’s Annual Management Letter and
Internal Audits end of year report should be submitted to the Board for
receipt.
Agreed that:
i)
ii)
23.0
The reservation of powers, including the submission of
reports, be noted and agreed.
The detailed scheme of onward delegations by the Chief
Executive be noted.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
Narendra Makanji
23.1
The Board paid tribute to Narendra Makanji, whose appointment as
CCWater Independent Member would come to an end on 31st October
2013. The Chair paid particular thanks to Narendra for his work on
championing vulnerable customers, customers from minority
backgrounds; and for his work as Chair of the Remuneration Committee.
The Board valued his local authority insights and he would be missed
greatly. Narendra thanked the Board for all their support and wished the
organisation well for the future.
Confirmation of Confidentiality of Private Meetings
23.2
The Chair moved and it was subsequently noted, that in accordance with
the Public Bodies (Admissions to Meetings) Act 1960, further meetings of
the Board held in Private Session would exclude members of the press
and public, on the grounds of confidentiality.
THE MEETING CLOSED
4
Jan Mitson
Mike
Barnes /
Jan Mitson
Agenda Item P4 - Paper No CCW 01 04 02
CONSUMER COUNCIL FOR WATER
BOARD MEETING IN PUBLIC – 1st April 2014
CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S REPORT
REPORT OF: TONY SMITH
1.
Delivering benefits for water customers
1.1
The Consumer Council for Water (CCWater) continued to deliver major benefits for customers in
2013-14, addressing those areas that customers tell us are the most important for them. A
summary of our achievements is as follows:
We have helped improve value for money and affordability of water services by
-
Negotiating with companies to invest over £1bn to benefit customers.
Playing a central role in the 2014 Price Review, challenging companies’ business plans.
The result is that 18 companies proposed increases at or below the level of inflation and
only two companies intended raising bills higher than inflation.
Continuing to push companies to make sure they have plans in place to help those
customers who are less able to afford to pay their bills.
We have spoken up for water customers by
-
Giving customers’ views to the House of Commons and the House of Lords during the
passage of the Water Bill through parliament, particularly on the new market reform
proposals for business customers.
Continuing to inform consumers through our media work, new website and customers
support site and offer assistance to those customers looking at whether they would
benefit from switching to a water meter.
1.2
The rest of this report provides more detail on these and other initiatives for water customers.
2
Improving Value for Money of Water Service
2.1
Getting water companies to share the benefit of their financial success with customers
2.1.1 During the last 12 months or so CCWater has negotiated with companies in England to return
over £1billion of benefits, through additional investment, not claiming for costs incurred, or
help for vulnerable customers. CCWater continues to press each water company, and Ofwat, to
create a regime of fair profits in the water sector.
2.1.2 We have kept stakeholders and Government aware of the work we have done with water
companies to secure this investment and of the benefits to customers as a result.
2.1.3 Through the work of our chair in Wales, Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water has agreed to be more
transparent about the way it reinvests its profits for the benefit of customers.
2.2
Customers driving the PR14 water price review
2.2.1 CCWater challenged all water companies to develop business plans and to set out price and
investment proposals for 2015-20 that are acceptable to customers.
2.2.2 Following our efforts through local ‘Customer Challenge Groups’, and directly with each water
company, ten companies presented business plans on 2 December 2013 with price increases
-1-
Agenda Item P4 - Paper No CCW 01 04 02
below the level of inflation, a further eight companies proposed increasing bills by inflation
only and only two companies intended to raise bills higher than RPI each year.
2.2.3 We set out our expectations to companies about how Business Plans should be tested through
customer research for customer acceptability. We conducted our own research to explore
customers’ views of what should be an appropriate level of customer acceptability companies
should achieve when they ‘test’ their Business Plans. As a result of this research, we pushed
for companies to achieve a minimum of 70% customer acceptance for their plans, with
mitigating actions to address the concerns of customers who reject the plan. Companies found
that their plans achieved between 56% and 95% acceptability. We will be considering
conducting our own research into the acceptability of draft determinations to resolve some of
the concerns we had about the consistency of companies’ own acceptability research.
2.2.4 We provided Ofwat with a view on what we felt the level of returns (the so called ‘cost of
capital’) should be, as they have been too generous in the past. Building on the good work that
we have done in challenging companies to deliver more for less, Ofwat announced a lower cost
of financing which marks another important step in keeping future water bills as low as
possible.
2.2.5 Following Ofwat’s additional Risk & Reward guidance, issued on 27 January 2014, we have
commissioned research to understand customers views on Ofwat’s proposal in that guidance to
allow company incentives, whereby penalties and rewards determined by the level of service
delivered by companies could have an impact on the price customers pay through their bills.
Customers were generally very negative about the concept, and we are strongly pressing Ofwat
and the water companies to take these views into account.
2.3
Water company Corporation Tax
2.3.1 CCWater has written to each water company asking the company to clearly show that their tax
arrangements benefit customers and do not disadvantage them in any way.
2.4
Social Tariffs
2.4.1 We are continuing to work with water companies on the development of customer funded
tariffs and research to test the acceptability of proposals.
2.4.2 Affinity, Sutton and East Surrey and Thames Water introduced schemes on 1 April 2014, adding
to three schemes launched in 2013. A further ten companies are currently considering
implementing schemes in April 2015.
2.5
Charges Scheme Approval
2.5.1 Water companies’ charges schemes for 2014/15 have now been approved by Ofwat. We were
successful in influencing companies on a number of issues including setting assessed charges at
an appropriate level and reflecting customer views in the development of tariffs.
2.5.2 A report will be presented to the Board at the May 2014 meeting.
2.6
Household Bills 2014/15
2.6.1 Water UK announced average household bills for 2014/15 on 10 February. As a result of a
decision by some companies to not take up their allowed increases, or to bring forward
expected future bill reductions, increases were below inflation for all companies except
Thames, Bristol and Dee Valley Water.
-2-
Agenda Item P4 - Paper No CCW 01 04 02
2.7
Water companies promoting insurance and plumbing services provided by third parties
2.7.1 Following our research into suppliers of water related services (such as Homeserve) using water
companies to promote their services, we are pressing all water companies through our local
offices to make sure that any specific marketing material is tailored to meet customers’ needs
and:
 clearly references the third party or private company
 provides clear easy ‘opt out’ of future direct mailings information
 provides clarity on the cancellation options for advertised policies.
2.8
Cost of Customer Debt
2.8.1 We responded positively to the Welsh Government consultation on Tackling Bad Debt within
the Water Industry in Wales. This consultation was specifically about the development of the
Regulations to allow the implementation in Wales of the provision originally included in the
Floods and Water Management Act 2010 which provides for landlords to be liable for water
charges if they do not pass the details of their tenants to water companies. With unpaid
charges currently adding around £15 to all customers’ water bills, this could help reduce these
costs in the future.
2.9
Frozen Pipes
2.9.1 Many water companies have worked with us to ensure that the messages from the research we
did last year around identifying customers’ preparedness for winter have been included in their
respective frozen pipes campaigns and that the messages aligned with our advice to customers.
3.
Getting Water Companies Resolving Customer Problems: Right first time
3.1
CCWater Complaint handling and Customers’ satisfaction with our service
3.1.1 In the year to date to the end of the third quarter, of 2013-14 we received 4% fewer
complaints to CCWater about water companies than over the same period in 2012-13. Billing
and charges complaints are the most frequent cause of complaint for consumers, accounting
for 51% of all complaints that we received in quarter one.
3.1.2 CCWater negotiated £1.46 million of compensation and rebates for customers up to the end of
the third quarter. This is 15% less than the same period last year but is a consequence of
companies fixing more errors first time. Our office in Cambridge recently had great success in
securing nearly £34,000 of charges for a Severn Trent business customer.
3.1.3 We have improved our performance since the first quarter of the year and we expect to meet
our Operational Business Plan targets for resolving complaints in 20 and 40 working days, for
which we are achieving 83.7% and 93.3% respectively.
3.1.4 Overall consumer satisfaction with our service currently stands at 69% against a target of 75%.
We have put actions and additional staff in place to address this. We are looking closely at
individual customer comments in the survey to identify further opportunities.
3.2
Examples of help we have given customers with complaints
3.2.1 A Thames Water customer suffered loss of his toilet facilities over the Christmas break due to a
blockage in the sewer. Following our involvement, Thames Water and its contractor sent
letters of apology to the customer and made a goodwill payment of £50 in recognition of their
poor service and inconvenience this caused. The customer thanked our case handler for her
-3-
Agenda Item P4 - Paper No CCW 01 04 02
help, saying “…I believe your involvement lent a great deal of weight to my complaint, my
husband and I are grateful to CCWater for your help.”
3.2.2 An Affinity Water customer was unhappy with her rateable value charges of £93 per month.
She felt that the company was not responding to her concerns about findings ways to reduce
her bills. After taking some advice from CCWater, the company arranged to install a meter
and the customers charged dropped to £12 per month and raised a credit of £156.82. The
customer was very happy.
3.2.3 A Yorkshire Water customer spent five hours unblocking a sewer, which he believed to be his
property. Later he found out that Yorkshire Water was responsible for the sewer and he asked
for compensation for his trouble. The company refused on the grounds that the customer had
not raised the problem with them earlier. We pressed Yorkshire Water to reconsider and
recommended a payment equivalent to what it would have cost them to clear the sewer.
Yorkshire Water agreed to a goodwill payment of £250.
3.3
Assessing water company complaint handing and debt management
3.3.1 Each year CCWater visits water companies which, based on our analysis of complaints, are not
performing as well as we would expect in terms of customer service. We scrutinise the way
they have handled 25 of their complaints. We also select a sample of customers, from a water
company in each region, who are in debt in order to look at how the company has managed the
debt. These assessments help us to identify how water companies should be improving their
service to customers.
3.3.2 In the period, we have carried out one debt assessment at Anglian Water. The company had
improved their performance since their previous assessment. Even so, the panel recommended
that the company review their Debt Collection Agency activity as it appeared to be doing no
more than repeating Anglian’s process of issuing reminders. There were also inconsistencies
with their timescales.
4.0
Water on tap – customers receive a safe, reliable water supply
4.1
Water Resources
4.1.1 We took the opportunity of the public meeting of our local committee in the South East of
England, which took place in London in February, to get each of the five local water companies
with compulsory metering programmes, underway or planned, to share their experience and
details of their programmes. This was helpful in highlighting differences and similarities in
their approaches. Thames has now started its programme in Bexley, South East London.
4.2
Water Meter Calculator – helping customers decide if a water meter would save them
money
4.2.1 CCWater’s Water Meter Calculator is the most popular area of our website. Consumers use the
calculator to make an informed decision on whether they would make a saving by switching to
a water meter. Many companies, including Severn Trent Water, Cambridge Water, Bristol
Water and Sembcorp Bournemouth Water refer their customers to use our calculator from their
own websites. In this period the calculator was used 88,182 times, saving customers a
potential £2m.
4.2.2 Customer feedback tells us that 92% of users said they found the calculator very easy or easy to
use. 87.9% thought the calculator a useful tool.
4.2.3 Money Saving Expert continues to be the top referring website to our calculator and other
visitors come through various consumer blogs and newsletters.
-4-
Agenda Item P4 - Paper No CCW 01 04 02
5.
Clearing up – a sewerage system that works
5.1
ConnectRight Website
5.1.1 We have been working with the Environment Agency (EA) and Water and Sewerage Companies
(WaSCs) on the redesign and launch of the ConnectRight website. This is part of our work with
the National Misconnections Strategy Group to reduce water pollution and flood risk from
misconnected drains and sewers. This enables customers to check if their pipework is
connected properly and gives them information about what to do to fix any problems.
5.1.2 Other areas of work with the group include challenging the EA’s position that WaSCs should
take over legal powers of enforcing customers to correct any issues with misconnections from
the EA and Local Authorities, improving the investigation process to limit costs and pressing for
better evidence that misconnections are a “serious water management issue”.
6.
Speaking up for water consumers
6.1
Business Customers – choice of water supplier for business customers
6.1.1 In addition to our continuing work with business customers, which includes handling their
complaints and our twice yearly meetings with business customers, we are active in the
programme to deliver the introduction of competition in England for businesses in 2017.
6.1.2 We are in close contact with representative groups of business customers, such as the
Federation of Small Businesses and are also carrying out research with business customers of
all types and sizes so we can help make sure this new retail market is designed to satisfy
customer’s requirements and expectations.
6.1.3 We will continue to influence the government’s Open Water Programme throughout the market
design phase to represent business customers’ interests and ensure that those customers that
will not be able to choose retailer are not disadvantaged.
6.1.4 In Wales, where many business customers will not have a choice of supplier, we have
contributed to the development of the Welsh Government’s research on business customers,
innovation and market reform.
6.2
Water Bill update
6.2.1 The Water Bill had its first reading in the House of Commons in June 2013. In anticipation of
the Bill’s second reading in the House of Commons, we briefed MPs from all parties who have
previously shown an interest in the water industry. We focused on the issues that could cause
detriment to water customers – particularly those who won’t be able to switch water retailer.
6.2.2 We were invited to speak on behalf of water consumers at the House of Commons’ Public Bill
Committee where we reiterated our key messages on the Bill, which are:



To include the vital principle of no detriment to householders due to competition in
the Water Bill;
To state in the Water Bill that further de-averaging of the price of water based on
geographic location should be avoided; and
Ensuring CCWater continue to be consulted on water companies’ charges schemes.
6.2.3 We were also given the opportunity to give consumers’ views on an industry-wide social tariff;
the take-up of the WaterSure tariff; issues surrounding whether water companies should be
allowed to exit the non-household retail market; allowing metering where it is needed, with
-5-
Agenda Item P4 - Paper No CCW 01 04 02
help provided to those who see large bill; changes from being metered; and our work to get
companies to do more for customers due to generous regulatory assumptions made at the last
price review.
6.2.4 In January 2014, we briefed Lords of all parties with a water interest, as the Water Bill moved
into the House of Lords.
6.2.5 The debates in the House of Lords brought some important statements from Government which
address the issues we have raised on behalf of water consumers. We also welcomed cross-party
words of support for our continuing work.
6.3
In the Media
6.3.1 CCWater has maintained a high profile in the national and regional media during the period,
through our press releases on key issues and journalists seeking our views on behalf of water
customers. Nearly 94 million people have had opportunities to see our messages since last
April, against our annual target of 50 million.
6.3.2 The publication of our annual written complaints report in October attracted a large amount of
media interest both nationally and regionally. We publicly welcomed Ofwat’s decision to block
Thames Water’s proposal to increase prices above the regulatory settlement in 2014/15.
December’s submission of company business plans for 2015 to 2020 sparked further media
interest. During the winter a number of local newspapers ran stories informed by our Don’t
pour Turkey Fat Down the Drain press release, while the Met Office featured our advice on
protecting water pipes from the cold on their winter weather blog.
6.3.3 We have had coverage on these topics through a wide variety of media channels including BBC
One’s Breakfast News, Radio 4’s Today programme, You and Yours and MoneyBox, BBC Radio
5Live, Sky News, ITV, the Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, Daily Mail, Financial Times and The
Times.
6.3.4 Our research and views continued to regularly feature in the industry magazine Utility Week,
along with other specialist publications. This included a full page feature in the Institute of
Water magazine on our customer perceptions of leakage research and articles in Utility Week.
6.3.5 CCWater’s website received 136,058 visitors, which is a 6% decrease on the same period last
year. Money Saving Expert remains the top referring site, followed by Ofwat.
6.3.6 Our consumer support website, which includes practical information on water and sewerage
issues and advice on how to complain, received 17,500 visitors. These visitors made 2,300
searches, viewed over 26,000 answers and submitted 368 complaints or enquiries. Most visitors
found what they were looking for in our answers and less than 2% felt they needed to use our
online form to contact us.
7.
Research
7.1.1 We are currently undertaking a number of pieces of research:

Market reform – This research will help us to understand the views of business customers
relating to the impending changes to introduce competition in England, which we can use
to influence the design of the market.

Small and Medium Business Tracker – Research with business customers to understand how
satisfaction with value for money and service from water companies has changed since the
last survey in 2012 and identify where we need to bring pressure where improvements can
be made.
-6-
Agenda Item P4 - Paper No CCW 01 04 02
8

Annual household tracking survey – Our 2013 annual tracker explored and investigated
changes in customer views on water issues since 2006-07 and those areas we need to
address with water companies or regulators.

Customer perspective of the transfer of supply pipe ownership - We will be making a small
contribution to UKWIRs research project to understand customer views on the transfer of
supply pipes.
Governance
8.1.1 Three independent board members - Mike Barnes, Timothy Hornsby and Narendra Makanji retired from the Board during this period. I would like to record in my Chief Executive’s report
my thanks to each of them for the help they have given me and CCWater in representing
customers. We welcomed two new independent board members. Julie Hill and Philip Johnson
have been appointed from 1 February 2014 for four years as independent non-executive
members and will play a key role on the board of the Consumer Council for Water for England
and Wales.
8.1.2 We received a good review of our Internal Audit reports with all areas being classified as Green
or Good Progress.
9.
Recommendations
9.1
The Board is asked to note this report.
TONY SMITH
Chief Executive
-7-
Agenda Item P4a – Paper No: CCW 01 04 02
Consumer Council for Water: Performance ‘Scorecard’ (September 2013 – February 2014)

Benefits for Customers
Negotiated over £1billion of benefits for customers from 11 water companies’
financial out-performance.
Price Review
 Delivered much greater customer involvement in the Price Review.
 All but 2 companies proposed future bill rises that were at or below RPI.
 Business plans achieved high levels of customer acceptability following our
pressure.
 Our pressure on Cost of Capital encouraged Ofwat towards a lower figure
equating to approximately £7 off a water bill
 We are continuing to raise issues with Ofwat and companies about incentives,
based on our customer research.
Our complaint handling performance:
Actioned within
Performance
5 days
Target*
99.5%
Year to date
Customer
satisfaction
with our
Target*
Year to date
Closed within
20 days
79%
Closed within
40 days
91%
83.7%
93.3%
99.9%
Service
Outcome
Speed
Courtesy
75%
61%
80%
93%
69%
57.4%
78.1%
92.9%
Governance and Financial Performance
Financial




CCWater costs 21p per customer (down from 23p in 2010/11).
A total budget of £5.63m for 2013-14.
Between April and the end of Jan 14 we spent 79% of our budget (£4.446m)
We will be within budget at year-end.
Governance



CCWater complies fully with all government’s spending restrictions.
Between September 2013 and February 2014 CCWater received 9 Freedom of
Information (FOI) requests. All FOI were responded to within the 20 day
deadline.
Audit reports have not identified any issues.
*Operational Business Plan Target





Staff
Absence due to sickness – 356 days for the period (222 days long term). Average
4.74 days per person compared to the CIPD public sector average of 8.7 days.
10 members of staff left CCWater (including 3 retirements) = 8.9% staff turnover.
This is lower than the CIPD median turnover rate which is 9.4% for the public
sector.
We provided 21 training courses, involving 53 staff, and 93 training
‘opportunities’ in total.
The staff survey took place in October and an action plan has been produced to
address some of the issues raised.
The Staff Council has recruited some new members and is currently looking at
the Terms of Reference.





Reputation and External Activities
So far this year, 94 million people have had the opportunity to see our
messages (OTS) in the media, against an annual target of 50m OTS.
We advised MPs and Lords on the Water Bill and our evidence on the Bill was
widely used in debates.
Our annual written customer complaints report received high media
coverage along with our messages on the Price Review and a range of other
issues.
There were almost 140,000 visitors to our website and the number of people
following us on Twitter increased to 1900.
The water meter calculator generated potential customer savings of over
£2million.
Agenda Item P5 – Paper No: CCW 01 04 03
CONSUMER COUNCIL FOR WATER
BOARD MEETING TUESDAY, 1st APRIL 2014
UPDATE ON CCWATER’S ACHIEVEMENTS 2013/14
REPORT OF: CHIEF EXECUTIVE
1
Purpose of Report
1.1 This is to update the Board on CCWater’s achievements between April 2013 and
February 2014 and progress against CCWater’s Operational Business Plan. A more
detailed document, aimed at consumers, will be published in June. Although the
Chief Executive routinely reports progress on CCWater’s achievements to all
CCWater meetings held in public, this report is the yearly review of our
achievements.
2
Recommendations
2.1 The Board is asked to note CCWater’s achievements to February 2014 and our
progress against our Operations Business Plan targets.
3
Detail of the Report
Achievements for customers up to February 2014:
3.1 Since 2005, CCWater has had a number of successes including:

Helping return £130 million through getting companies to make additional
investment, giving rebates and providing assistance for those in water debt.

Negotiated £18 million to be paid to domestic and business customers in
compensation and rebates from water companies.

Contributing to the £1 billion benefit to customers at the last 2009 price review
compared to the 2004 review.
Along with these headline financial successes, CCWater everyday helps individual
water customers:

300,000 – complaints and enquiries about water companies handled by us since
2005.

45% reduction from the 2007-08 peak in customer complaints to water
companies due to CCWater’s continued pressure on water companies to get it
right first time.

A 350% increase by March 2013 in the numbers of customers registered for the
WaterSure scheme for vulnerable customers since CCWater’s project in 2007 to
rebrand the scheme and introduce a standard simplified application form.

Almost 120% increase in consumers registered on companies’ Special Assistance
Registers since 2008, when we focused on encouraging companies to raise
awareness of the availability of the registers.

342, 556 customers have visited our water meter calculator in the last two
years. In 2013/14 the total potential saving to customers that used the
calculator was estimated at over £3.6 million.
1
Agenda Item P5 – Paper No: CCW 01 04 03
2014 Price Review
CCWater’s key achievements to date, arising from the 2014 Price Review include:




Delivered much greater customer involvement in the Price Review.
All but 2 companies proposed future bill rises that were at or below RPI.
Business plans achieved high levels of customer acceptability following our
pressure.
Our pressure on Cost of Capital encouraged Ofwat towards a lower figure
equating to approximately £7 off a water bill.
Performance against CCWater’s Operational Business
3.2 At the beginning of the year CCWater published its Operational Business Plan
explaining how we will deliver our Forward Work Programme. Our Operational
Business Plan contains 147 specific targets.
3.3 At the end of February we had:
 29 Actions were completed.
 57 actions were on target for completion.
 1 action had been delayed.
 1 action had been discontinued
 2 can not be completed or superseded
3.4 Summary of Progress
Priority Area
Value for Money
Right First Time
Water On Tap
Sewerage
System That
Works
Speaking Up For
Consumers
Operational
Activities &
Monitoring
TOTAL
%
3.5
Total
Actions
41
12
5
Cannot be
Completed
0
1
0
Delayed
On Target
23
5
4
Completed

15
5
1
Discontinued
x
0
0
0
0
1
0
7
0
0
4
3
0
6
0
0
4
2
0
19
1
0
17
0
1
90
-
2
2
1
1
57
63
29
33
1
1
Actions that cannot be completed
There are two items identified as unable to complete.


Consumer satisfaction with water company delivery of water and
sewerage services reduced rather than increased in our latest tracking
survey.
Staff confidence in internal communications fell from 66% to 57% in latest
Staff Survey.
2
Agenda Item P5 – Paper No: CCW 01 04 03
3.6
Delayed actions
Our customer satisfaction service achievements are slightly below our targets for
outcome and quality.
Customer Satisfaction with all aspects of
CCWater’s complaint handling to Quarter 3
OBP
Target
Achieved
Outcome
61 %
57.4 %
Speed
80%
78.1 %
Service
75%
69 %
Courtesy
93 %
92.9 %
3.7
Superseded actions
There is one discontinued action to report. Two objectives were merged into one by
agreeing that all Public Board papers, regardless of whether they were agendas or
papers, would be available on our website within seven days of the meeting.
4
Conclusion
4.1
CCWater continues to deliver significant and tangible benefits for customers at cost
of approximately 21p per customer.
4.2
On our Operational Business Plan we expect to deliver all of the actions, where we
have control. We also expect to substantially deliver against those actions which are,
in part, dependent on others. Some of these actions will roll forward into 2014-15
Tony Smith
Chief Executive
3
Agenda Item P6 - Paper No: CCW 01 04 04
CONSUMER COUNCIL FOR WATER
PUBLIC BOARD MEETING TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY 1 APRIL 2014
PR STRATEGY 2014-15
REPORT OF: PR MANAGER
1.
Purpose of the report
1.1
This paper provides an overview of:



achievements against the Public Relations (PR) Strategy for 2013-14;
proposed activity in line with our Forward Work Programme (FWP) and Operational
Business Plan (OBP) commitments in order to deliver PR objectives for the coming year;
and
resource implications and risks to consider.
2.
Recommendations
2.1
The Board is asked to:
 note the outcomes delivered in 2013-14; shown in Appendix 1,
 discuss and agree the proposed 2014-15 PR Strategy; and
 note that the Board will receive a future quarterly report on PR work and outcomes
delivered during the year.
3.
2013-14 PR Review
3.1
As seen in Appendix 1, the majority of targets in the PR Strategy agreed by the Board in June
2013 have been achieved. Encouragingly we have surpassed our media targets by a long way;
94m people (against a target of 50m people) have had the opportunity to see our messages. We
have generated £2.4m of adverting value equivalent coverage (against a target of £1m) and are
firmly established in the minds of our key target journalists as a strong consumer voice.
3.2
We have delivered a new website and driven visitor numbers up to almost 300,000. Our public
affairs work ensured that our points were raised during the passage of the Water Bill and our
evidence was used following written and face to face briefings with MPs and Lords.
3.3
The review of 2013-14 does not yet include final figures. An update of the year end figures will
be produced for board by the end of April 2014.
4.
2014-15 PR Strategy
4.1
Our 2014-15 strategy is focussed around achieving target driven outcomes, in line with our
Forward Work Programme work stream.
4.2
Its aim is to build on last year’s success in the media, address internal communications issues,
strengthen our links with stakeholders and focus on improving our digital communication,
including our website content and use of social media.
1
Objective
External Communications
Gain media coverage for each of the
main CCWater priority areas in the
Forward Work Programme.
Agenda Item P6 - Paper No: CCW 01 04 04
Key Milestones
Strategic Actions
Our focus for 2014/15 will be:
Tracking Survey results – May
2014

Achieve at least 75m Opportunities
for the public to see our messages in
the media
Challenging water companies to close the gap in customer
satisfaction with value for money and service, to be more
transparent and to improve complaint handling.

Deliver over £1.5m Advertising Value
Equivalent
Challenging Ofwat and water companies through the media at all
stages of the Price Review process

Reinforcing our messages on the introduction of competition
through appropriate media
Use research to make sure customers’
views are considered.
Deliver specific messages to consumers
in Wales through Welsh media and in
Welsh language where appropriate.
E-Communications
Develop and improve our ecommunications including the website,
social media and the water meter
calculator.
Use the water industry calendar of announcements to proactively deliver
our key messages and maximise the opportunity of unplanned events and
announcements.
Build on existing relationships with key media and journalists and identify
new channels for our messages.
This will be delivered through:

Providing information to customers enabling them to assess the
performance of their water company and make comparison.
Written complaints report –
October 2014
PR14
- Draft determinations –
June/August 2014
- Final determinations –
December 2014
Market Reform
- research results – April
2014
- high level market design
plans published –
April/June/September
2014
Recruit full time e-comms officer
- June 2014
Website survey – July 2014
Increase the number of visitors to the
website (300,000 in 2013-14)

Ensuring website and social media content is relevant, accurate
and frequently updated.
Develop new e-comms plan –
September 2014
Increase Twitter followers and our
interaction with consumers (1,900
2013 - 2014)

Effective use of our social media platforms in line with messages
on our website and generated through media coverage and public
affairs activity.
Tracking survey - May 2014
An overall total of 500,000 visitors to
the water meter calculator
Undertake benchmarking and consumer research.
Written complaints report –
September 2014
Revisit the Water Meter
Calculator – December 2014
2
Agenda Item P6 - Paper No: CCW 01 04 04
Informing Consumers
Increase the number of consumers who
are aware of CCWater and our role.
Work in partnership with stakeholders
to share consumer focussed
information
Establish a baseline for measuring
progress
Working with stakeholders and the media, maximise opportunities to raise
the profile of the name, role and contact information.

Undertake consumer research.
Identify opportunities for
working with stakeholders – April
2014

Collaborative project work providing consumers with information
on identified topics.
Website and social media
developments – December 2014

Improve and expand website to include new consumer facing
sections.
Measure improvement in
awareness – March 2015
Public Affairs, Stakeholder Relations, Industry Articles and Events
Proactively communicate to
Deliver effective programme of government and stakeholder
government and stakeholders on key
communications.
issues using research and evidence
 Engage in external industry events to inform opinion
Ensure stakeholders and government
 Respond to relevant parliamentary activity
have positive view of the work we are
doing on behalf of consumers
 Deliver a shared stakeholder database and conduct a stakeholder
survey

Internal Communications
Improve on the number of staff who
agree that the information they need
to do their job is readily available
(70% staff survey 2013)
Improve the view that staff feel that
they are kept informed when changes
occur within the organisation (57%
staff survey 2013)
Improve content and frequency to
meet staff need (66% 2013)
Research results - April 2014
Stakeholder database – June
2014.
Stakeholder survey - October
2014
Use research projects- March
2015
Through written and face to face briefing ensure customer
opinion is relayed to Westminster in the lead up to the Election.
Maximise existing internal communication channels and respond to staff
feedback.
Team brief – monthly
Staff survey – May 2014

Use the new intranet to improve the accessibility of messages and
information.
Staff event – February 2015

Focus on communicating the future and vision of the organisation
to staff.
Internal Communications survey –
December 2014

Implement new processes to improve information sharing within
the organisation eg cross departmental meetings.
3
Agenda Item P6 - Paper No: CCW 01 04 04
6.
Evaluation of PR Strategy
6.1
Evaluation of our PR work and organisational success plays a key role in ensuring that the
content and frequency of communication meets the needs of consumers, staff, stakeholders and
customers. We will measure our success through:
 monitoring and evaluating media coverage;
 monitoring Public Affairs;
 external research;
 internal Surveys; and
 website feedback and social media statistics.
6.2
Our success will be reported back to the Board through the Chief Executive’s Board report and
through Team Brief.
6.3
A 2014-15 PR work progress report will be completed monthly and monitored by the Executive
Team. Board members will receive quarterly updates on progress against delivery of outcome
driven PR work objectives.
7.
Staff and resources
7.1
Staff resources to deliver the PR Strategy are:
 PR Manager – Kate Eccles;
 Press Officer, External –Tim Clarke;
 Press Officer, Internal – Rebecca Collins; and
 Press Officer, E-Communications – currently advertised
8.
Costs
8.1
The financial cost of delivering this PR Strategy will be contained within the 2014-15 PR budget
allocation.
9.
Risks to consider
9.1
Risks
Water Companies
Any public pressure
on sensitive issues
could cause some
negative reaction
from the water
companies and the
regulator.
Government and
Parliament
We will continue to
inform government of
our views and those
of customers and
keep them updated
on any developments.
How we will mitigate this
 Raising the majority of big issues in private prior to any publicity.
 Continuing to adapt a no surprises policy allowing companies time
to comment if they have strong feelings about our press
statements prior to publication.
 Where this is not possible, for example where a statement
contains sensitive financial information, we ensure sufficient
background briefing is given to those in contact with the media or
handling customer contact, plus careful placement of messages in
order to limit any negative impact.
 If we receive any negative reaction from government about any of
our plans or initiatives we will be in a position to revise our
approach on any project and reconsider its benefits for water
consumers and whether it is considered appropriate to continue.
 Government in England and Wales are part of our no surprises
strategy which gives them early sight and opportunity to comment
prior to publication.
 In the lead up to the election we will ensure our available to all
parties fairly so there is no risk of lobbying.
 We will keep Defra involved in what information we are sharing.
4
External Pressure
There is significant
pressure on the water
industry and a
heighted interest in
the sector.
Comparisons with
energy could be
damaging if
reputations are
linked. We are coming
under increasing
pressure from both a
public affairs and
public relations point
of view.






Agenda Item P6 - Paper No: CCW 01 04 04
Carefully plan and regularly discuss our priorities.
Point out at industry events, to stakeholders and through the
media that we do not want water to ahead in the same direction
as energy.
Continue to use our research through the tracking survey to push
companies to close the gap between customer satisfaction with
value for money and service.
Ensure we have strong on going relationships with key journalists
and stakeholders.
Be very clear internally and externally about our key priorities for
customers and make sure we have enough staff who are briefed
and media trained sufficiently to respond appropriately.
Be clear with the public about our role as the consumer watchdog
through our profile raising work.
10.
Conclusions
10.1
A clear PR strategy to complement our 2014/15 FWP and OBP objectives, with measurable
outcomes, will help us to achieve the successful delivery of CCWater’s work for consumers.
10.2
Listening to what consumers tell us through research and using this to inform the work we do in
representing the consumers’ voice to stakeholders, government and to the media is crucial. We
must continue to explore and develop new channels of communication.
10.3
It is key to our long term success that CCWater staff understand our objectives and how we
propose to achieve them and all are part of the planning process through intelligent information
sharing and internal communication. All of these factors will help secure the future of the
organisation.
10.4
The PR team will continue to work closely across the whole organisation to bring about the
effective delivery of our outlined PR Strategy.
Kate Eccles
PR Manager
5
Appendix 1
PR Key Measures 1 April 2013 – 31 February 2014
Targets
Achieve at least 50m Opportunities to See
Status
Over-achieved
Delivered
94m
Deliver over £1m Advertising Value Equivalent
Over-achieved
£2.4m
Deliver timely and appropriate media coverage for PR14
Achieved
Featured in high profile media
Ensure customers’ views are heard
Deliver informing consumers paper to Board in Sept
Achieved
Achieved
Reflected in national and regional media
October
Provide evidence and support to All Party Parliamentary Achieved
Water Group (APPWG)and EFRA committee
Evidence that our voice is being heard through relevant Achieved
amendments, changes and considerations through the
Draft Water Bill and Water Strategy for Wales
No EFRA review of water, spoke at Public Bill Committee and APPWG
Increase the number of people visiting the website to Achieved
over 200,000 per year.
Increase number of followers on Twitter from 1,200
Achieved
300,000
Engage in relevant external industry events to inform Achieved
opinion
Attended a wide range of events giving our opinions on protecting
consumers interests, sustainable financing, customer expectations,
adding value in a deregulated market, the Water Bill and PR14.
Use our research to inform and press water companies to
improve their service to customers
Used research specifically to inform work on perceptions of customer
satisfaction with value for money versus satisfaction with service,
also to push companies to improve leakage.
Achieved
Improve
content
and
frequency
of
internal Achieved
communication to meet staff need (from 58%)
Improve on the number who agree that information they Did not achieve
need to do their job is readily available (from 71%)
Maintain the view that staff feel that they are kept Did not achieve
informed when changes occur within the organisation
(from 66%)
Our points were mentioned as the Bill passed through both Houses.
The Environment and Sustainability Committee, National Assembly
for Wales, acknowledged our evidence in recommendations.
1,900
66%
70% - plan in place to address in 2014/15 strategy
57% - plans in place to addres in 2014/15 strategy
Agenda Item P7 – Paper No: CCW 01 04 05
CONSUMER COUNCIL FOR WATER –
BOARD MEETING 1st APRIL 2014
FINANCE REPORT –
FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE UP TO 28 FEBRUARY 2014
1.
Introduction
1.1
The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of financial performance to the Board.
1.2
Detailed reports and supporting information are provided to all our budget holders and users of
financial information on a monthly basis for the purpose of continuous budget management.
Formal budget reviews are held quarterly or earlier if required.
2.
Recommendation
2.1
The Board is asked to note the contents of this report.
3.
Income and Budget 2013-14
3.1
CCWater is funded by water customers via Licence fees levied on the water and sewerage
companies. The Licence fee for this year is £5.13m. These Licence fees are collected by OFWAT
but are held by our sponsor departments Defra and WG. We draw down our funds from DEFRA
and WG, based on need on a quarterly basis.
3.2
Our budget for 2013-14 is £5.630m including £500,000 from prior year’s savings that we
accumulated by managing the business tightly in previous years. The capital budget is subject
to DEFRA approval.
4.
Performance against Budget 2013-14
4.1
In the period April to February 2014 we consumed 67% of our research budget and 89% of our
total budget - see table 1.
Table 1
Summary CCWater’s financial performance from 1 April 2013 to 28 February 2014:
Expenditure Type
Administrative costs
(excl Research
Services)
Research Services
TOTAL ADMIN COSTS
Depreciation & Non
Cash items
OVERALL TOTAL
Spend to
February
Budget to
February
Variance
0
%
Spend
of the
Budget
89
57
12
67
621
4,775
37
1
87
5,469
150
150
0
0
93
161
4,888
4,925
37
1
87
5,630
£000s
4,324
£000s
4,304
414
471
4,738
Page 1 of 4
%
Variance
£000s
(20)
Total Budget
2013-2014
£000s
4,848
Agenda Item P7 – Paper No: CCW 01 04 05
4.2
The overall under spend is £37k or 1%
On Annex 2
Over spends


Staff Costs 0% or (£5,504) mainly due to extra hours worked by Chairmen for CCG’s which will
be funded.
Over spend –Accommodation (1%) or (£4,616) mainly due to balance in service charge for the
Birmingham office and recycling costs which will be funded.
Under spends

Research Services 12% or £57,349 mainly due to slippage in Consultancy projects.
Profiling

Under spend Personnel Overheads 1% or £1,631, overall the budget is likely to break even in
March.

Over spend - Publicity Library & Parliament (9%) or (£7,247) this mainly due the cost of the
Forward Work Programme document which has substantially increased in the amount of
pages - the overall the budget is likely to break even in March.
Over spend - Computer Services (2%) or (£3,504) due to correct later in year.
Over spend –Office support services (1%) or (£1,964) the overall the budget is likely to break
even in March.


Detailed expenditure reports are enclosed. Annex 1 details expenditure by cost centre and Annex 2
by activity.
5.
Review of Budget Allocations
5.1
Each quarter Finance reviews the budget allocation and expected spend with the Principle Budget
Holders. Any true under spends are moved into the contingency budgets and any unbudgeted
expenditure is funded.
Due to unexpected delays in research projects we are projecting a year end under spend of
approximately £150k to £200k.
6.
Work in Progress
6.1
Finance will be preparing the twelve month account for National Audit in mid April. The Finance
team will also be preparing the final budget allocations and monthly anticipated spend for review by
Principal Budget Holders.
We are pleased to confirm that the NAO, in checking our nine months account, found no issues and
were pleased with our financial and accounting processes.
Usha Nayyar - Finance Manager – March 2014
Page 2 of 4
Agenda Item P7 – Paper No: CCW 01 04 05
ANNEX 1
COST CENTRE TITLE
SPEND TO
% OF
PROFILE TO
VAR
VAR
FULL YR
OFFICE
Feb 14
OFFICE
Feb 14
Feb 14
%
BUDGET
%
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE
189,157
4%
189,097
-60
(0%)
205,169
4%
BOARD (EXCLUDING WALES CHAIR)
385,482
8%
377,728
-7,754
(2%)
410,038
7%
574,639
12%
566,825
-7,814
(1%)
615,207
11%
POLICY
187,363
4%
182,263
-5,100
(3%)
198,909
4%
SOCIAL POLICY
162,991
3%
162,460
-531
(0%)
174,521
3%
ENVIRONMENT
223,173
5%
226,674
3,501
2%
245,193
4%
REGULATION
412,331
8%
461,104
48,773
11%
538,693
10%
MARKET INTELLIGENCE
362,153
7%
369,381
7,228
2%
470,619
8%
91,971
2%
91,065
-906
(1%)
99,444
2%
15,652
0%
16,627
975
6%
18,421
0%
18,730
0%
19,889
1,159
6%
21,702
0%
25,638
1%
26,335
697
3%
29,320
1%
27,145
1%
28,975
1,830
6%
31,523
1%
17,260
0%
18,502
1,242
7%
19,929
0%
1,544,406
32%
1,603,275
58,869
4%
1,848,274
33%
234,238
5%
227,739
-6,499
(3%)
273,218
5%
234,238
5%
227,739
-6,499
(3%)
273,218
5%
CORPORATE SERVICES
806,812
17%
787,834
-18,978
(2%)
862,135
15%
FINANCE & RESOURCES
142,001
3%
144,633
2,632
2%
157,808
3%
TOTAL CHIEF EXECUTIVE
WALES POLICY & CHAIR
CENTRAL AND EASTERN LCAs
NORTHERN LCAs
WALES LCAs
WESTERN LCAs
LONDON & SOUTH EAST LCAs
TOTAL POLICY
COMMUNICATIONS
TOTAL PUBLIC RELATIONS
ICT SERVICES
87,637
2%
85,864
-1,773
(2%)
106,889
2%
1,036,450
21%
1,018,331
-18,119
(2%)
1,126,832
20%
CONSUMER RELATIONS
356,224
7%
356,365
141
0%
398,877
7%
CENTRAL & EASTERN
217,177
4%
218,443
1,266
1%
239,559
4%
NORTHERN
234,853
5%
239,181
4,328
2%
262,987
5%
WALES
102,880
2%
103,282
402
0%
113,107
2%
WESTERN
140,115
3%
142,563
2,448
2%
157,469
3%
LONDON & SOUTH EAST
297,154
6%
298,949
1,795
1%
336,435
6%
1,348,403
28%
1,358,783
10,380
1%
1,508,434
27%
CONTINGENCY FUND
0
0%
0
0
0%
96,827
2%
STRATEGIC PROJECTS
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
0%
149,686
3%
149,710
24
0%
161,208
3%
4,887,822
100
4,924,663
36,841
1%
5,630,000
100
TOTAL CORPORATE SERVICES
TOTAL CONSUMER RELATIONS
DEP'N & NON CASH ITEMS
CCWATER GRAND TOTAL
Page 3 of 4
Agenda Item P7 – Paper No: CCW 01 04 05
ANNEX 2
Actual
Budget
YEAR TO
DATE
Actual to
Feb 14
Feb 14
Feb 14
Feb 14
TOTAL STAFF COSTS
273,393
266,268
2,994,099
RESEARCH SERVICES
46,064
104,145
TOTAL PERSONNEL OVERHEADS
11,337
TRAINING
PUBLICITY, LIBRARY & PARLIAMENT
MONTH
BUDGET
Budget to
Variance
Var
%
Remaining
Total
2,988,595
-5,504
(0%)
363,590
3,357,689
413,823
471,172
57,349
12%
206,968
620,791
13,246
142,144
143,775
1,631
1%
16,349
158,493
3,046
3,500
41,828
42,500
672
2%
3,172
45,000
7,764
6,307
88,044
80,797
-7,247
(9%)
21,351
109,395
COMPUTER SERVICES
15,471
18,057
230,077
226,573
-3,504
(2%)
35,923
266,000
OFFICE SUPPORT COSTS
18,493
20,351
194,542
192,578
-1,964
(1%)
19,806
214,348
ACCOMMODATION
55,122
54,841
633,579
628,963
-4,616
(1%)
63,497
697,076
430,689
486,715
4,738,136
4,774,953
36,817
1%
730,656
5,468,792
11,485
11,497
149,686
149,710
24
0%
11,522
161,208
442,174
498,212
4,887,822
4,924,663
36,841
1%
742,178
5,630,000
(Excluding Training)
SUB TOTAL
DEPRECIATION & NON CASH ITEMS
OVERALL TOTAL
Page 4 of 4
Agenda Item P7a – Paper No: CCW 01 04 05
CONSUMER COUNCIL FOR WATER
BOARD MEETING TO BE HELD ON 1ST APRIL 2014
CONFIRMATION OF BUDGET FOR 2014-15
REPORT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE
1.
Purpose of Report
1.1
2.
Recommendations
2.1
3.
Following consideration by the Board at its meeting held in private on 4th March
2014, this paper seeks confirmation of CCWater’s budget for 2014-15.
The Board is asked to formally agree CCWater’s budget of £5.698m 1 for
2014-15.
Background
3.1
In November 2013, the Board authorised the Chief Executive Officer to formally
propose a £5.698m budget for 2014-15 to the Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs and Welsh Government. This is made up of £5.13m
Licence Fees and £568k unallocated under spend for 2013-14. This represents a
flat Licence fee with no uplift for inflation. We have received agreement from
Welsh Government and Defra subject to CCWater giving a commitment to use
any accumulated savings before 2016-17.
Previous Costs
3.2
Year
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
3.3
Licence Fees (Grant in
Aid)
£5.7m
£5.92m
£6.16m
£6.34m
£5.70m
£5.13m
£5.13m
£5.13m
£5.13m
Budget
£5.9m
£6.01m
£6.57m
£6.66m
£6.144m
£5.48m
£5.605m
£5.63m
£5.698m
This would bring our available budget for 2014-15 to:
Grant in Aid Income
1
Licence Fee
+ Accumulated Underspend
£5,130,000
£567,697
Budget
£5,697,697
£5,697,697 rounded up to £5.698m
1
Agenda Item P7a – Paper No: CCW 01 04 05
4.
Risk Management
4.1
The key financial risk is that we have insufficient resources to deliver our
Forward Work Programme commitments and that we can demonstrate Value for
Money.
4.2
Each Principal Budget Holder has confirmed that sufficient funds have been
allocated to enable them to deliver their Forward Work Programme
commitments.
4.3
We will focus on securing the key FWP deliverables as early as possible and we
have reduced our Operational Business Commitments for 2014-15.
4.4
We will continue to monitor our costs compared to similar consumer
organisations and ensure that we are always able to demonstrate CCWater’s
Value for Money.
TONY SMITH
CHIEF EXECUTIVE
2
Agenda Item P8 – Paper No: CCW 01 04 06
CONSUMER COUNCIL FOR WATER
BOARD MEETING IN PUBLIC TUESDAY, 1ST APRIL 2014
REPORT OF THE BOARD SECRETARY
BOARD OBJECTIVES 2014/15
1.
Purpose of report
1.1
To put before members for discussion/approval draft objectives as
indicated in the accompanying Appendix which will also form part of the
Annual Report and Accounts Governance Statement and to confirm the
evidence against the agreed objectives for 2013/14.
2.
Recommendation
2.1
That following discussion, the draft objectives for 2014/15 be approved.
2.2
That the evidence against Board achievement for its 2013/14 objectives be
agreed.
3.
Detail of Report
Draft Board Objectives for 2014/15
3.1
In 2011, guidance by HM Treasury was issued in respect of 'Managing Public
Money'. This change required CCWater to include a Governance Statement
in our Annual Report and Accounts. This included
3.3
Board members will note that the objectives differ from their personal
objectives, set as part of the appraisals process. The Board objectives are
not intended to be comprehensive, but to focus on what the Board sees as
the most significant areas to focus on in the forthcoming year.
3.4
Members were provided with the opportunity to comment on the objectives
prior to inclusion in the paper; and comments received have been reflected
in the draft found at Appendix A.
Evidence of Achievement Against Board Objectives for 2013/14.
3.5
The Board previously considered the evidence against the 2013/14
objectives at its meeting in February. It was agreed that:
i)
ii)
iii)
3.6
The objectives and evidence should be re-ordered for clarity.
Where possible, evidence would be quantified.
The Board input to the Wales Strategy Workshop would be included.
The revised evidence, attached at Appendix B takes into account the above
changes and has been circulated to Board Members for comment prior to
inclusion in this paper and the comments and suggestions are reflected in
the evidence.
Jan Mitson
Board Secretary
1
Appendix A – Draft Board Objectives for 2014/15
No
O1
Description
Provide a clear strategic direction to the organisation; and gives
appropriate feedback and constructive challenge to officer proposals,
adding value to the organisation as a Board.
Target/Outcome



O2
Ensure CCWater continues to engage fully in the 2014 Price Review and:
i)

Represents customer interests strongly in any and all
Competition and Markets Authority referrals.
ii)
Feeds into the post-CCG process by providing appropriate
comparative information, briefing and guidance.
Shape CCWater’s input and strategy into Market Reform and ensure the
different interests of customers in England and Wales are protected.


O4
Ensure CCWater is ready to engage with an Alternative Dispute Resolution
provider; and ensures that customers are not in any way disadvantaged by
its implementation.

O5
Ensure CCWater and the Board has the correct structure and resources for
delivering for water customers now and in the future.


O3



O6
O7
Ensure that effective arrangements are in place to provide assurance on
risk management, financial management and governance.
Board to be and perceived to be ‘independent’; avoiding agency capture.





Clear vision and outcomes agreed across the complete range
of issues
Policies amended or formulated by the Board through
constructive challenge.
The Board uses hard data and evidence in its decision making
to evidence success.
CCWater maintains a key role in the Price Review and
customer acceptability exceeds 70%.
Provides robust evidence to CMA in any and all referrals.
Position CCWater in post-CCG structure at the heart of
consumer representation in water.
Through challenge, the Board ensures CCWater becomes a
persuasive voice in Open Water’s Market Reform proposals.
Customers in England and Wales not disadvantaged by any
proposals.
CCWater has in place a robust system and process, which is
aligned to that of the ADR provider; ensuring clarity and no
disadvantage to customers who could access the service.
Identify any structural or governance changes needed
Ensure adequate resources and skills sets are available to
CCWater to deliver on its commitments.
Ensure CCWater is sufficiently prepared and in a strong
position to engage with the Triennial Review.
Finance Reports considered and challenged as appropriate,
ensuring budgetary discipline.
No overspending on agreed budget.
Positive audit reports with unqualified audit opinions.
Board ensures consistency of approach.
Positive customer stakeholder feedback on independence
Appendix B - Board Performance Against Objectives 2013/14
CLEAR STRATEGIC DIRECTION; CHALLENGING OFFICER PROPOSALS AND A PLAN FOR CCWATER POST
2014 PRICE REVIEW


Board agreed that high-level principles, focussing on CCWater core functions should be used as a basis of
interaction with CCGs in the future, would allow CCWater the flexibility to continue to represent customer
interests in the future.
The Board reviewed the progress of preparation for the forthcoming Triennial Review in September 2013
and March 2014.
ADD VALUE AS A BOARD AND SUPPORT NEW MEMBERS




The Board were fully engaged in PR14 and CCWater pressure resulted in a majority of Business Plans:
o Being acceptable to customers (as confirmed by research).
o At our below the rate of inflation up to 2020
Induction for new Board members led by introductory meetings with Chair and Chief Executive.
Bernard Crump and Tony Redmond utilised their experience on stated preference research and Alternative
Dispute Resolution respectively to much benefit.
The Board quality assured the Final Case Reviews in May 2013 and agreed changes to the procedure to make
our whole complaints handling system as effective and streamlined as possible.
HAVE A CLEAR VIEW IN RELATION TO THE ROLES AND OBJECTIVES OF CCWATER AND CCGS TO MOST
BENEFIT; CONSUMER INFLUENCE ON PR14



The Board have been regularly briefed on PR14 and Regional Chairs have represented customers effectively
at CCGs and meetings with Ofwat.
Board pressure resulted in water companies returning over £1bn of extra value to customers.
The Board ensured that CCWater maintained significant pressure on companies throughout the price review.
18 companies proposed at or below inflation prices in the next price period in their submitted Business
Plans.
POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS WITH KEY STAKEHOLDERS, PARTICULARLY OFWAT; AND CHALLENGING
COMPANIES TO DELIVER BENEFITS TO CUSTOMERS
 Board paid particular emphasis on developing and improving the relationship with Ofwat and the
relationship has improved considerably over the course of the year, including the Chair and Chief Executive
attending Ofwat’s Board and holding 5 bi-lateral meetings in the last year.
 Board Members have worked jointly with Ofwat e.g. with regard to redress proposals and attended
workshops and meetings on CCGs and PR14.
 Board Member input in to the Wales Water Strategy Workshop
 CCWater’s views are regularly sought by Governments, regulators and the media and several Board
members have been active in the national and regional media, taking part in high level interviews on a
variety of issues. CCWater’s views regularly sought on water industry issues, which are logged by our media
monitoring company, Kantar. To date, this year, 94 million people have had the opportunity to see our
messages (OTS) in the media, against an annual target of 50m OTS.
INDEPENDENT VOICE AVOIDING CAPTURE AND ENSURE BUDGETARY DISCIPLINE


CCG updates were separated out at Board meetings, to maintain separation from the work of CCWater.
The Board regularly monitored what input is being made at CCGs by its representatives on behalf of
customers; together with monitoring the evolving views of CCGs. Companies are regularly challenged at
CCG meetings by CCWater members.
2

Finance and Resources Committee receives Finance Reports 3 times each year; the Board receives Finance
Reports twice a year and the minutes of the Finance and Resources Committee are presented to the next
Board meeting for noting.
3
Agenda Item P9 – Paper No: CCW 01 04 07
CONSUMER COUNCIL FOR WATER
WALES AND ENGLISH REGIONAL COMMITTEE MINUTES
AND ANY MATTERS ARISING
BOARD MEETING HELD ON 1ST APRIL 2014
REPORT OF: BOARD SECRETARY
1.
Purpose of report
1.1
To put before members any recent minutes of meetings of the Wales
and Regional Committees in so far as they are available on the date
at which reports are compiled for circulation to Board members.
2.
Recommendation
2.1
That the minutes be received and any matters arising be considered
by the Board.
3.
Detail of Report
3.1
Minutes of the English Regional Committees and the Wales Committee
were last reported to the Board on 3rd September 2013.
3.2
Meetings that have been held since September 2013 are listed below.




Western Committee – 10th September 2013
Wales Committee – 8th October 2013.
Northern Committee – 16th October 2013.
London and South East – 26th February 2014.
4.
Comments made by Policy Managers
4.1
The Policy Managers have not highlighted any items for particular
discussion.
5.
Appendices
a)
b)
c)
d)
Western Committee Minutes
Wales Committee
London and South East Committee
Northern Committee (to follow, arising from technical
difficulties)
Jan Mitson
Board Secretary
1
Unsigned MINUTES
28th MEETING OF
THE CONSUMER COUNCIL FOR WATER WESTERN REGION
TUESDAY 10TH SEPTEMBER 2013
THE CASTLE HOTEL, CASTLE GREEN,
TAUNTON, SOMERSET TA1 1NF
PRESENT:
Charles Howeson – Chairman
Local Consumer Advocates:
Ed Vidler
Dennis Osborne
Tony Denham
Tony Smith – Chief Executive, CCWater
Michael Barnes - Consumer Relations Manager, CCWater Western
Gillian Mayhew – Assistant Policy Manager, CCWater Western
Caroline Coleman – Policy Manager, CCWater Western
Apologies – Roger Harrington (SBW), Monica Read and Iain Vosper (SWW),
Philip Marshall (BRL), Kevin Bennett and Anthony Giblin (SSE Water), Jim
Griffiths (Veolia Water Projects) and the Environment Agency.
1.
CHAIRMAN’S WELCOME
1.1
The Chairman welcomed to the meeting:
Wessex Water (WSX):
Andy Pymer
Sue Lindsay
Kathy Thornton
Bristol Water (BRL):
Mike King
Sembcorp Bournemouth Water (SBW):
Tracey Legg
Richard Stanbrook
South West Water (SWW):
Sally Mills
Richard Gilpin
Angela Rose
Cholderton Water (CHL):
Anthony Fry
Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI):
Robin Halford-Maw
National Pensioners Convention:
Bernard Endacott
Bill Jones
1
1.2
The Chairman welcomed everyone to the twenty eighth meeting of the Consumer
Council for Water (CCWater) Western Region Committee and noted the apologies.
The Chairman noted that the meeting was the first with the present Committee
structure.
1.3
Opening Remarks
The meetings of the Committee in public are now held less frequently. The
priorities of our work on behalf of consumers in the region over the last two years
include:

Held individual meetings with the regional companies to discuss:
o Their Charges Schemes for 2012-13 and 2013-14;
o Their Operational Performance and progress with the delivery of
their 2010-15 investment programme, and any issues or challenges
affecting delivery of the programme.

Met with South West Water, Wessex Water and Bristol Water to discuss
their respective proposals to introduce a customer-funded social tariff from
April 2013, contributing to the companies’ customer research proposals for
such a tariff.

Attended Bristol Water’s and Wessex Water’s joint debt advice workshops
in Bath and Yeovil.

Carried out complaints and debt assessments at South West Water.

Hosted the launches of the DWI Chief Inspectorate’s annual reports on
drinking water quality in the Western region.

Attended Wessex Water’s bi-annual meetings with their area’s
Environmental Health Officers to hear how the EHO’s work with the
company on complaints they have received on environmental issues, such
as odours from sewage treatment works, and drinking water quality.

Attended meetings of Wessex Water’s Customer & Community Liaison Panel

Contributed to the meetings of the regional companies’ Customer
Challenge Groups and sub-committees, established as part of the 2014
price setting process; a subject on the agenda for today’s meeting.
Issued press notices –

To announce the relocation of our Bristol office

To publicise today’s meeting.
2
2.
MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING
2.1
The minutes of the meeting held on 20 October 2011 were accepted as a true and
accurate record.
3.
MATTERS ARISING
3.1
ACTION 27.1 (Paragraph 5.6) At the last meeting WSX and SBW had reported a
reduction in water demand. It was felt that public awareness of water resources
had increased and the reduction in use being a reaction to the dry, cooler
summer. At the Committee’s request SBW and SWW provided further information
on water demand patterns and subsequent discussions were held with the
companies. Contributing factors to the decline in demand were thought to include
customers’ changes in attitudes and behaviour around water use, the increase in
the proportion of houses being metered and on-going water efficiency advice by
the companies and other sources.
3.2
ACTION 27.2 (Paragraph 7.5) At the last meeting the EA said it had identified
locations where SWW’s assets were having an impact on bathing water quality and
where improvements were needed. Following the meeting SWW provided the
Committee with an update on the indicative costs of the work required for these
improvements. There was a further development on this in May this year when
SWW announced an extra investment programme to protect bathing water quality
at key tourist beaches. The investment programme included the bringing forward
of £20million for improvements to sewers and treatment works at Mothecombe,
Looe, Combe Martin, Teignmouth, Lyme Regis and Torbay which will help local
beaches keep their safe to swim status under the European Union’s Revised
Bathing Water Directive in 2015.
3.3
The Committee asked SWW and WSX for their views on the raising of beach
quality to Good or Excellent following on from comments made at the last
meeting as minuted at paragraph 7.4. Both companies advised that this is not an
easy improvement to make and will require a multi-agency approach as there is
no single source of pollution that requires addressing. Most visitors prioritise the
safety of the beach rather than excellent water quality and this will influence
investment decisions. CHL raised the wider issue of diffuse pollution and the
importance of wider catchment management in improving water quality.
4.
COMPLAINTS RECEIVED BY THE WESTERN COMMITTEE
4.1
The Consumer Relations Manager (CRM) referred the meeting to the paper which
showed complaint statistics for the last full year – 2012/13 - for the first quarter
of this reporting year, and for the year to date. Complaint numbers generally
continue to decline and the figures showed no surprises. SWW remains an outlier
both in terms of complaints per 10,000 connections and in the proportion of
Administration complaints. CCWater has met with the company to discuss its
complaint strategy and introduction of a new case management system and
associated training to staff. Following a review of contacts by CCWater, SWW has
revised the way contact details for CCWater are displayed on customers’ bills, to
3
encourage customers to contact the company in the first instance. No companies
are complacent about complaint performance and actively seek to reduce
numbers further.
5.
COMPANY OPERATIONAL REPORTS
5.1
The Chairman thanked companies for the reports submitted. The reports covered
year end 2012-13 and the first quarter of this reporting year supplemented with a
table showing 2012-13 performance against Ofwat’s key performance indicators
(KPIs). As usual questions had been raised with the companies before the
meeting to allow for the preparation of answers, and to ensure queries were not
duplicated during the meeting.
5.2
Companies were asked if the introduction of water trading opportunities would
impact on the tackling of leakage. Companies may be in the position that
importing water may be more cost effective than repairing leaks, or that spending
additionally on repairs could allow for greater trading and a net benefit. WSX,
SBW, SWW and CHL reported surplus supply at present and didn’t foresee trading
as impacting on their leakage policies. BRL is in water deficit and trading may
mean they do not need to work so hard on reducing leakage levels.
5.3
WSX expanded on its customer surveys. The company’s customer care team
contacts customers after operational work has been carried out at their property
to ensure they are happy with how it went and with the way the site has been
left, and that their contact is now resolved. The initiative went live in January
this year and so far 28,000 customers have been called, and of these about 50%
have been surveyed with 96% of these satisfied. Less than 1% require a return to
site. The company has also commissioned SIM replica surveys to generate a more
‘real time’ picture of its SIM performance and establish better trend information
to allow for proactive improvement where necessary. 8 replica surveys are carried
out each year to compliment the 4 which Ofwat carry out.
5.4
WSX confirmed its intention to re-launch its proactive contact with B&B
businesses with water efficiency advice. In its last project 1000 guest
houses/B&Bs were approached through a mail shot. This generated requests from
about 5% of the sample for water saving devices. SWW confirmed that it holds
workshop sessions with SMEs and that about 200 business have attended over 1015 workshop events which also include energy saving advice. SBW has targeted
large customers and local councils to distribute devices within their housing stock.
BRL has visited customers using 5Ml or more and distributes free water saving
devices through roadshows and similar events.
5.5
BRL was asked to clarify its statement of water saved as a result of supplying
12,000 water efficiency devices. The company confirmed that the stated amount,
190,000 litres/day was based on the average expected saving and the assumption
that 7% of customers will actually use the devices. All companies confirmed that
savings are generally based on approximations as it is extremely difficult to
disentangle reductions in use from water saving devices from overall measured
use.
4
5.6
SBW was asked if it would switch funds from sending out water saving devices to
subsidising water butts in future. The company advised that it is looking at more
effective ways to make people more water efficient and they intend to
concentrate on customer education in future.
5.7
Companies’ SIM performance was considered. SBW acknowledged that the drop in
its ranking was disappointing and that the company has sought to identify the
reasons behind this. The company identified a need to ensure contact issues are
closed prior to inclusion in the survey sample, and that four contacts used had
been for other companies – WSX and Southern Water. It was also concerned that
some surveys had been completed some distance outside the company’s area. The
company also advised about the replacement of its billing system, contracts for
which have been signed. The company was very aware of the issues which system
replacement has caused in other companies and has managed the process very
carefully to help ensure a smooth transition. The Committee queried if SBW had
again considered the option of joining the joint billing venture operated by BRL
and WSX. The company had, on several occasions, but considers their local service
the best option.
5.8
The Committee expressed disappointment at SWW’s qualitative scores. The
company acknowledges the need to improve and is taking the matter seriously.
Whilst year on year they are doing better, this is not reflected in relation to other
companies which are also improving. The company’s aspiration is to achieve a
score of 4.3 by year end. This will require a significant improvement in
performance. The company is looking to continue the improvements in its
sewerage score and to move towards zero ‘serious’ incidents. The company is on
track with improvement works agreed with the EA. All sewer flooding incidents
are subject to root cause analysis. The most common factors being blockages,
then mechanical failure and, less frequently, bursts or overloading.
5.9
BRL raised an inconsistency in the recording of abandoned calls. The company
records all such calls but some companies only record those abandoned after 10
seconds. Ofwat’s template says over 10 seconds but advice seems unclear. WSX is
seeking clarification from Ofwat on this point, but at present BRL is the outlier in
the region.
5.10
LCAs welcomed WSX’s comments about inconsistencies in the number of contacts
put forward for the SIM survey by water companies and the potential impact on
SIM scores. This is a concern shared by the other regional companies. Again WSX
has raised this with Ofwat. The Committee was concerned about the potential for
SIM to lose credibility and the potential for impact on customers that any
manipulation of SIM might cause. It was agreed that this issue should be referred
through CCWater to Ofwat.
Action: Policy Team
5.11
The representatives of the Devon Pensioners Convention raised the issue of
customers paying for bad debt in the industry, which contributes to bills. The
meeting agreed that this is a serious issue but that a distinction needs to be made
between those who can’t pay and those who simply won’t. The former need help
and whether this should be through customers’ bills or the benefits system is an
issue for discussion. The latter need to be pursued and companies are doing this.
Strengthening the responsibility of landlords to water companies for their tenants
5
will help in this respect. Concern was also raised about the cost of the WaterSure
scheme and the potential that the cost to domestic customers will increase if the
subsidy from commercial customers is removed.
6.
DRINKING WATER INSPECTORATE’S REPORT
6.1
The paper was welcomed by the Chair who thanked Mr Halford-Maw for attending.
The paper was accepted as read and no questions were raised.
7.
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY REPORT
7.1
The Chairman advised the Committee that the Environment Agency had submitted
its apologies due to a meeting the EA was holding the same day on River Basin
Management Plans in the South West region. The Chairman thanked the EA (in
their absence) for the paper. The paper was accepted as read and no questions
were raised.
8.
PRICE REVIEW 2014
8.1
For the benefit of the meeting the Chair outlined the purpose of the review and
the involvement of CCWater in Ofwat’s Customer Challenge Groups, and the roles
being played by him and by the LCAs.
8.2
Tony Smith expanded on these comments. Customers are being involved more
than ever before during this review. Generally customers are satisfied with the
service they receive from companies but less satisfied with value for money.
Customer research and establishing what customers want, and what they are
prepared to pay for is central to the review process, and is a key aspect of
CCWater engagement.
8.3
The Committee welcomed the comments made by companies in their papers.
Whilst in general price rises proposed are likely to be lower than in previous years
– with many being flat or below inflation – it was recognised that there may be
impact from additional costs associated with statutory schemes and requirements
placed on companies which are not yet known. These could affect the ultimate
outcome of the price review, and customers’ acceptance of it.
9.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
9.1
There being no other business, the Chairman thanked everyone for attending, and
closed the meeting.
6
Agenda Item P9b – Paper No: 01 04 07
DRAFT
CONSUMER COUNCIL FOR WATER (CCWATER)
WALES COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF THE TWENTY SIXTH MEETING
NATIONAL WATERFRONT MUSEUM, SWANSEA
8 OCTOBER 2013
Present:
Wales Committee Chair
Ms Diane McCrea
Wales Committee
Mrs Alison Warman
Miss Clare Evans
Mr Mansel Thomas
Mr Paul Roberts
Mr Ronnie Alexander
In attendance:
Policy Manager
Miss Lia Moutselou
Consumer Relations Manager
Mrs Ceri Walsh
Assistant Consumer Relations Manager
Mr Mark Hayward
Representatives:
Dee Valley Water [DVW]
Managing Director
Mr Norman Holladay
Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water [DCWW]
Chief Executive Officer
Mr Chris Jones
Head of Customer Services and
Mr Tim Hughes
Communications
Natural Resources Wales (NRW)
Strategic Environment Policy Manager
1
Mr Bob Vaughan
Agenda Item P9b – Paper No: 01 04 07
Welsh Government [WG]
Water Policy Manager
Mr Andrew Sherlock
Drinking Water Inspectorate
Inspector (Operations)
Mr Frank White
Public Gallery:
Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water [DCWW]
Delivery and Complaints Manager
Mrs Debbi Parfitt
Welsh Government – Water Policy Branch
Ceri Heywood
Glas Cymru Member
Retired Engineer
Keith Pratley
Papers for this meeting are electronically available at:
http://www.ccwater.org.uk/upload/pdf/CCWWalesSwanOct13.pdf
1
Welcome & Apologies
1.1
Apologies were received from Olwen Minney, (Welsh Government), Mr Mike Turner
(Albion Water) and Elizabeth Barlow (Water for Health Partnership, Denbighshire
Council).
1.2
Diane McCrea (Chair) and the Wales Committee welcomed Mr Ronnie Alexander to
his first meeting in public, as the newest Local Consumer Advocate to the Wales
Committee. Ronnie has an established career in Public Health and specific interest
in public health aspects of water and water efficiency.
1.3
The Chair also formally welcomed the following, it being the first time that each of
them had attended CCWales’ meeting in public in new roles: Mr Chris Jones, CEO,
Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water, Mr Andrew Sherlock, Policy Manager at the Water branch
2
Agenda Item P9b – Paper No: 01 04 07
of the Welsh Government, Ceri Heywood (in the public gallery); and Mr Frank
White, Inspector Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI).
2
CCWater Working Priorities
CCWater Wales Committee Activities
2.1
Committee activity is reported in meeting paper 13 26 02a (pages 3-7)
2.2
The Wales Local Consumer Advocates have been very busy during the reporting
period particularly attending price review related meetings and research session
with focus groups. Of particular mention was the Wales Committee’s visit to a
Rainscape project in Llanelli the previous day, hosted by Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water.
2.3
The Rainscape re-modelling project helps to regulate the entry of surface water
into the public sewerage system. In doing it could help to reduce the number of
sewer flooding and spills at times of heavy rainfall, also reducing the need for
costly infrastructure projects and attenuation tanks. Further details of the scheme
can be accessed from the following link: http://www.Dŵrcymru.com/en/NewsSummary/2013/09/Dwr-Cymru-invests-2-million-in-a-new-RainScape-scheme-inLlanelli.aspx
CCWater Consultation responses, publications and research
2.4
CCWater Wales’ consultation responses and other important reports are reported in
the meeting paper no 13 26 02b (pages 9-10)
3
Report on the Previous Prices Settlement (PR09) and Asset Management Plan 5
(AMP5) delivery
Dee Valley Water: Update
Llwyn Onn Water Treatment Works (WtW)
3.1
Dee Valley Water has completed a major rebuild of Llwyn Onn WtW and progress
went well.
The plant now houses an additional treatment stage to remove
manganese and therefore should contribute to reducing the number of discoloured
water complaints. Performance testing began on 13th August 2013 and no issues to
report.
Mains Renewal and Cleaning
3.2
On 30th September Dee Valley Water began a 5-week ‘ice-pigging’ project to clean
the Wrexham ring main. Adverts on local radio and notices posted to residents
informed the public of the work being undertaken by the company and who to
contact in case of further enquiry. This is an interim solution to help address
discolouration problems in the Wrexham area by cleaning the ring main of
accumulated manganese deposits.
3.3
The Company’s mains renewal programme continues and is on track.
Flood Defence Scheme
3
Agenda Item P9b – Paper No: 01 04 07
3.4
Dee Valley Water is working towards the construction of a large flood defence
scheme at its Sesswick intake on the River Dee. Invitations for the work are
currently out to tender.
3.5
Norman Holladay confirmed the AMP5 programme was on target for completion and
overall in budget despite some delays in the completion of the Llwyn Onn project.
Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water: Update
3.6
Mr Chris Jones, CEO, Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water, informed the meeting that the
company’s AMP5 investment plan is on target for completion.
Investment in Waste Water Treatment Works (WwTW)
3.7
To ensure the company meets WwTW compliance, the company has made
significant additional investment in its WwTW. 40 out of 50 WwTw had never
received investment; Shogden WwTW in Herefordshire is an example of where Dŵr
Cymru Welsh Water has invested £1 million in that works alone.
Glas Cymru, Not for Profit model reinvestments
3.8
Chris Jones informed the committee that due to the company’s unique “not for
profit” model, they have been able to commit to a dynamic programme of £200300 million extra investment (over and above OFWAT PRO9 settlement) in Water
Treatment Works (WTW).
Investment Progress
3.9
Continuing with the company’s profit model, Chris Jones informed the committee
that Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water is in a position to commence work sooner for work
that is planned for AMP6 costing £80-90 and does not have to wait for PR14
settlement.
3.10
Alison Warman, Wales Committee Local Consumer Advocate (LCA), welcomed the
company’s additional investment and commitment to starting work early towards
AMP6 outputs. However, she was also keen to seek reassurance that Dŵr Cymru
Welsh Water will deliver on its planned outputs and queried the company’s
flexibility towards reprioritisation of schemes with specific reference to odour
reprioritisation of investment for AMP5.
3.11
In response, Chris Jones explained that customer complaints play a large part in
helping the company to decide the prioritisation of schemes and the level of
investment required. Schemes that need to be re-prioritised and were not
completed in AMP5 would be picked up in the next price review period.
3.12
Diane McCrea stressed the importance of ensuring that customers know that they
should contact the water company to complain about such problems or to inform
the company of any particular issue so that prioritisation can consider such issues.
Action: Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water, Dee Valley Water & CCWater should work
together on their Customer Communications strategies: helping to explain to
customers their rights and responsibilities; and also their right to complain (as
a priority) which also helps to inform the companies investment priorities.
4
Agenda Item P9b – Paper No: 01 04 07
3.13
Lia Moutselou asked the company to report on progress on the Swansea Waste
Water Treatment Works that CCWater Wales Committee supported for inclusion at
the PR09. Chris Jones responding that this underground WwTW is an unprecedented
challenge for the company in terms of health and safety for staff as well as
improved operability. The company expects to complete the work at the end of
AMP5 and hopes that this will resolve the on-going problems.
3.14
The Wales Committee was pleased to visit the innovative project in Llanelli that
would contribute to the management of surface water in the area and could
contribute to mitigating flooding and environmental water quality issues in the
Loughor Estuary area.
Action: Wales Committee asked the company to identify the specific surface
water project that they are undertaking and are going to undertake and to
identify benefits for customers and the environment, and to keep the
Committee informed of these projects.
4.
Report on Current Price Review (PR14) and Customer Challenge Process
4.1
Alison Warman, Wales Committee Local Consumer Advocate (LCA), chaired this
agenda item, inviting questions from the other LCAs. CCWater’s remit is much
wider than this price review and the Committee is not attempting to repeat or
replace Customer Challenge Group (CCG)/Customer Challenge Panel (CCP)
discussions within this session. However, it was important for all LCAs to get an
understanding of the key issues and report on progress an challenges presented to
the companies during the PR14 process to date to better inform CCWater’s input to
the overall process.
Dee Valley Water - Headlines
4.2
Norman Holladay, Dee Valley Water Managing Director, MD, informed the meeting
of the following:








Customers of Dee Valley Water hold a positive view of the company
The company’s priority is to deliver wholesome water and a step up from
current performance to focus on capital investment for assets that need urgent
work.
There is support for modest price increases for investment in Operational issues
but less for customer service improvements.
Customers tend to prefer investment in long-term infrastructure repairs as
opposed to short-term quick fixes that could cost more in the long term.
Dee Valley Water has the lowest levels of leakage within the industry (90 l/per
day per property) but customers would still like to see improvements in this.
The CCP has produced a list of challenges based on the Draft Business Plan.
Ofwat’s methodology has been late and is a challenge. DVW have difficulty
reacting to things late - there has been a lot of uncertainty about how to
interpret Ofwat’s guidance.
The CCP concept is a step forward but DVW have been finding it difficult to
pitch information about its investment and business plan at the right level of
detail for the CCP.
5
Agenda Item P9b – Paper No: 01 04 07
Dee Valley Water – Customer Challenge Panel (CCP)
4.3
Paul Roberts, Wales Committee Local Consumer Advocate (LCA), and member of
Dee Valley Water’s Customer Challenge Panel (CCP), informed the meeting that
the company seems to be responsive to its customers’ concerns. For example there
was an original plan to carry out qualitative research online but noting the CCP’s
concerns, Dee Valley Water will now interview domestic customer face-to-face.
Paul also highlighted CCP’s challenges on clarity of communication on bill profile
during customer research, clarity of rationale for large expenditure items
(including alternatives explored, customer support and affordability consideration),
and special measures to help customers to pay bills.
4.4
Alison Warman stressed the importance of the company presenting a clear plan,
with clear outcomes, incentives and measures of success. This would ensure
transparency of the progress that the company is making towards delivering what it
pledges to for its customers.
4.5
Alison also challenged the company to be clearer about why it need to make higher
capital expenditure to invest on its risk assets. It is important to explain better the
company’s risk management strategy, to give more information on its large
investment plans, the alternative that have been explored to deliver the work
more cheaply and the possibility to defer some of the work to a later stage.
4.6
Mansel Thomas, Wales Committee Local Consumer Advocate (LCA) and lead on
affordability, asked what plans Dee Valley has to address hardship issues for its
customers, and namely whether there were plans to introduce social tariffs.
Norman Holladay responded that Dee Valley’s prices are amongst the lowest in the
industry and the company is considering more work over the next 5 years to
investigate the possibility of introducing a Social tariff. The Committee stressed
the importance of exploring social tariffs whilst acknowledging that the company
had good proactive debt management practice which translated to good results in
the CCWater debt and customer service assessments.
Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water- Customer Challenge Group (CCG)
4.7
Clare Evans, Wales Committee Local Consumer Advocate (LCA), and member of
Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water’s Customer Challenge Group (CCG) explained that the
CCG’s challenge towards Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water has been very robust and
meticulous. At the early stages the CCG challenged the scope, detail and the
materials used for the extensive customer research the company has undertaken.
Currently the CCG is moving to a discussion on the company’s strategy for
investment, the development of the right outcomes, measure of success and
incentives but also more specific investment issues to respond to customer and
business needs and PR14 customer research.
4.8
Similarly to Dee Valley Water, Dŵr Cymru has also included hard to reach
customers in its customer research sample. The company also engaged its wider
customer base through a public consultation of its plans for PR15 by way of a
travelling “pop-up pod” which has been to towns all across Wales. There has also
been stakeholder and political engagement in this process with events at Cardiff
Bay and Westminster for the Your Company – Your Say public consultation.
6
Agenda Item P9b – Paper No: 01 04 07
4.9
Despite the acceptability of Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water’s customers during the Draft
Business Plans in recent PR14 research, the company felt that it has to respond
better to the affordability challenges customer are presented with. The company is
hence reviewing its plan to respond to the CCG’s challenge on overall affordability
and acceptability. And in the process of seeking to understand why customers who
have rejected the plan (informed/uniformed) have done so and how the company
could address those concerns. Chris Jones, CEO, Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water,
mentioned that after an initial analysis of views it seems that those rejecting the
plan are customers are usually from disadvantaged communities. The company is
also progressing with separate engagement of stakeholder groups who could also
represent the views of such customers better in the public consultation process.
4.10
Alison Warman noted that there was little mention of the needs of business
customers in discussions reported back to the CCG. She asked that this considered
for future discussion.
Action: Business customers needs and views to be discussed at CCG and PR14
Forum.
4.11
Diane McCrea (as Chair of both Challenge Groups) informed the meeting that the
respective CCP and CCG panels will report their findings to Ofwat on 2nd December
2013, and following Ofwat’s risk-based reviews, the companies’ plans will be
categorized. There will also be consideration of the future role of CCG’s following
the prices review. Diane McCrea noted there would be further meetings and of the
WG PR14 Forum before the December deadline.
5.
Welsh Policy Update - Welsh Assembly Government
5.1
Andrew Sherlock, Welsh Government, informed the meeting of the following open
(and recently closed) consultations. For full details see the following link:
http://wales.gov.uk/consultations/environmentandcountryside/?status=closed&lan
g=en
5.2
Andrew referred to the paper from the Welsh Government Wales Water Industry
Forum which can be found here:
http://www.ccwater.org.uk/server.php?show=nav.336




WG’s Social Tariff Guidance was published back in March and the Government is
keen to see both companies explore social tariff options. The WG had a meeting
with Dŵr Cymru about its emerging social tariff and would shortly be holding a
similar meeting with Dee Valley Water.
The Consultation on Social and Environmental Guidance to Ofwat closed on 15th
July and it was intended to publish the Guidance and summary of consultation
responses to the WG website in the weeks shortly after the meeting.
Bad Debt regulations are out for consultation until 6 November. CCWater is
responding.
In response to a query from Ronnie Alexander, Andrew Sherlock confirmed that the
Water Strategy for Wales would be issued for the standard consultation period of
12 weeks (not 8 weeks as per Ronnie’s concerns).
7
Agenda Item P9b – Paper No: 01 04 07

WG arranged a meeting for the CCWater team with Cascade consultants as part of
its research into market reform. Cascade met with CCWater last week.
5.3.
Clare Evans asked to clarify whether the enforcement date for the ‘bad debt’
regulations is Spring 2014 and whether the WG had considered whether this would
be realistic and enforceable and what the impacts of non enforcement could be.
Clare also asked whether landlord representatives had been engaged in the
consultation process.
5.4
In response: Andrew Sherlock explained that subject to Ministerial Guidance, the
proposed Regulations would place a duty on owners of properties served by water
and sewerage companies operating wholly or mainly in Wales to provide details of
their own address along with a tenant’s name, date of birth and the date they
started occupancy. It is hoped that the proposed regulations would help to reduce
the level of bad debt carried by the water companies and subsequently reduce bills
for the generality of customers.
Action: Andrew Sherlock, Welsh Government to report back to CCWater with:
o
o
o
a list of groups that Welsh Government has consulted about the new
Landlord’s responsibilities,
details of the communications strategy, how this new legislation will be
rolled out, and
if approved by the Minister (Alun Davies, AM) what the enforcement date
will be next year
Action: Clare Evans to share landlord contacts with WG to enable better
engagement with their views.
6.
Company Current Update on Customer Services, Operations and Performance
CCWater Wales Complaints report, April 2013 - Sept 2013 (pages 17-21) and both
companies' complaints reports included in the electronic papers for the meeting,
paper no. 13 26 06b & c (pages 23-56)
Consumer Council for Water
6.1
CCWater’s complaints paper no 13 26 06a (pages 17 - 21) was discussed. Ceri
Walsh, CCWater Wales delivered the following headlines:



Broadly complaints to CCWater are levelling off. Year to date CCWater
Wales has handled a total of 198 complaints for the companies in Wales
and 144 enquiries. There are indications of a slight increase across the
reporting period (although figures slightly skewed due to previous years of
low complaints)
In addition, CCWater Wales has handled 186 complaints and 144 enquiries
for the English companies - as part of the case sharing agreement.
CCWater Complaints Report 2012/13 was recently published. The Welsh
Companies performed well and escaped much of the media criticism that
the English companies wer subjected to. For deails of the report see the
following link: http://www.ccwater.org.uk/server.php?show=nav.1524
8
Agenda Item P9b – Paper No: 01 04 07


CCWater Wales has reported strong ½ year results, meeting and exceeding
its own performance targets and the last trench of customer satisfaction
surveys were the best we’ve ever had.
It was noted that the company ‘Smartsource’ had recently gone into
liquidation. Dee Valley confirmed that only 2 of its customers had fallen
victim; but many more of Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water’s customers had been
affected. The company reported they were proactively contacting those
customers to arrange suitable payment plans and extended repayment
terms.
Dee Valley Water - Update on Customer Service Issues , Operations, Performance
and Investment, Paper no. 13 26 06 b (Pages 23-32)
Norman Holladay, Managing Director, Dee Valley Water, reported on the following:
Headlines
6.2
Following the implementation of a number of measures, there has been a decrease
in the number of written complaint since 2010/11. Service Incentive Mechanism,
(SIM) scores remain strong, the greatest improvement seen in the qualitative score
(currently 4.58).
6.3
Leakage levels are above last year (9.52 Ml.d versus 9.28 Ml.d) but the company is
on track to meet the anticipated regulatory compliance KPI score and target of
10.22 Ml/d at the end of the year.
6.4
The number of household customers choosing a water meter is up 2 percent on last
year to 54%. Dee Valley Water believes that metering is the most equitable
method to calculate water consumption and therefore encourages its customers to
opt for a water meter. However, Dee Valley Water does not have a specific
metering target.
6.5
Discoloured water issues continue to be addressed. Following an Action Plan which
includes changes to raw water sources, reduced output from Legacy WTW and
mains flushing, the company think they are on now track to see an abatement of
this issue.
Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water - Update on Customer Service Issues, Operations,
Performance and Investment, Paper no. 13 26 06c (Pages 33-56)
Chris Jones, CEO, Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water, reported on the following
6.6
Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water has made good progress overall. The challenges the
company faced during the initial 6 month period i.e. network failures and water
service complaints during the exceptional hot weather and larger than average
bursts in July (especially in rural networks) has now abated.
6.7
Wastewater performance is good. Sewerage complaints have decreased by 31%
year to date. This has been attributed to root cause analysis undertaken on every
job to identify failures and repeat customers. The scheduling process has been
reviewed which resulted in more effective distribution of jobs.
9
Agenda Item P9b – Paper No: 01 04 07
6.8
Water Treatment Works (WTW) however, are at a higher level of risk of failing
compliance with drinking water quality requirements, as the assets are ageing they
are less resilient to the weather patterns we are now experiencing e.g. high
temperatures and low flows. This was noted for future discussions and to report
for the next quarter.
6.9
Concerns were raised about:


the company’s failure to meet water quality iron levels compliance standards
(Ronnie Alexander), and
audit trail/recording of complaints and response tocross-border and cross company
customers (Paul Roberts). Paul Roberts has a personal example of where this
system was tested, and believes that on this occasion, the system was flawed
6.10
Chris Jones, CEO, Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water, responded that: compliance of
Polychlorinated biphenyls (Pcbs) is stable i.e. no risk to public health. The
company’s focus is on the risk of reducing service failures through innovation and
working with Academia--the company is currently working with Department of
Water studies in Exeter.
6.11
In reply to Paul Roberts concerns, Tim Hughes, Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water, responded
that he was confident that calls received from cross-border customers are recorded
correctly and allow the company to identify the caller even if he/she is not within
the Wales area with a DCWW account.
Action: Paul Roberts to share details of personal contact that caused him
concerns about the recording process and audit train cross border and cross
company customers and Tim Hughes to respond on whether this particular
instance was recorded correctly.
6.12
Mansel Thomas, Wales Committee Local Consumer Advocate (LCA), raised concern
about the reduction in customers taking up Water Direct this year compared to last
year (11,920 versus 12,247) and queried the reasons for this.
6.13
Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water reassured the committee, the reduction in take up was not
the result of a change in policy; but suggested that recent changes the government
had implemented through the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) has made it
difficult for customers to qualify for Water Direct. However, take up of the
Customer Assistance Fund (CAF) remains high (4,269 customers receiving the
company’s assistance) and there are already a number of third-party agreements in
place for disadvantaged unmeasured tenants of Registered Social Landlords.
6.14
There was further discussion about customers’ uptake of metering in Dŵr Cymru
Welsh Water area, mindful of the Welsh Government’s view that phasing in of
metering should be proportionate. Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water’s ‘Water Resources’
research shows that customers’ willingness to pay for a meter isn’t high. Details of
this particular piece of research (amongst others) can be found on the following
link: http://www.welshwater.com/en/Environment/Water-Resources.aspx
CCWater Customer Service Assessments
10
Agenda Item P9b – Paper No: 01 04 07
6.15
Lia Moutselou asked that for the record the minutes report a private discussion
between CCWater and the water companies on recommendations from CCWater’s
customer service assessments.
6.16
Both companies were asked to manage relationships with debt collection agencies
better to ensure that delays progress for actions for cases passed on from the
company to DCAs are avoided. Dŵr Cymru responded that improvements have been
made already.
CCWater’s quarterly information sheets and proforma
6.17
Diane McCrea thanked the companies for using the draft CCWater proforma as a
trial. She is hoping that it will be finalised soon. She asked that the companies
respond to Lia Moutselou’s query on annual reporting outside this meeting.
Action: Companies to respond to CCWater’s query about an annual publication
of cross company comparative data (Lia Moutselou email query).
6.18
Clare Evans and Paul Roberts asked that the final CCWater proforma:


indicates % increases or decreases for the proforma entries
includes a table so that companies can report information for sewer flooding
events of more than 1:20 years probability.
Action: Lia Moutselou to feed LCAs comments to central office.
7
Drinking Water Quality
A report on drinking water quality was included in the meeting papers (paper no 13
26 07, (Pages 57-61)
7.1
Frank White, Inspector, Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) reported on the
following:
Water Quality Performance
7.2
The total number of events (15) is down from last year (39); as is the number of
significant events, i.e. those requiring investigation are 9 year to date versus a
total of 19 last year. The indications are the trend is improving this year.
Compliance with Water Quality Standards
7.3
Dee Valley Water’s compliance at bacteriological performance from Works and
Service reservoir assets has improved compared to the same period 2012. However
DWI has concerns about the leaking roof at Llwyn Onn Water treatment Works
(WTW). The company has plans to replace the roof in 2018, but a satisfactory
solution to protect it from ingress is being looked into in the meantime.
7.4
Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water’s bacteriological performance from Works and Service
reservoirs is much the same as last year’s reporting period – a failure rate of 8
individual coliform isolations in both years.
Technical Audit Activity
11
Agenda Item P9b – Paper No: 01 04 07
7.5
There are no issues to report. Inspectors have visited 4 service reservoirs,
including Pontsticill and Llwy Onn and just had minor concerns about the presence
of mature trees was noted.
Issues of Local Interest
7.6
Frank White explained DWI’s structure has recently changed. There are currently
only 38 staff and 28 warranted officers. The cost of running the DWI is 12 pence
per household. The Inspectorate has also begun to recover the costs of some of its
inspection activities direct from the companies.
7.7
For Further information about the role of the Drinking Water Inspectorate and its
related activities, see the following link: http://dwi.defra.gov.uk/
8
Natural Resources Wales (NRW) Update
Introduction
8.1
Mr Bob Vaughan reported that in April 2013 Natural Resources Wales merged the
three legacy bodies Countryside Council for Wales, Environment Agency Wales and
Forestry Commission Wales - as well as some functions of the Welsh Government
into one body.
8.2
Water Company Environmental Performance
o
o
o
o
Environmental water quality has substantially improved
Environmental performance related AMP 5 schemes are on schedule
Natural Resources Wales is pleased with PR14 progress to date
At the end of the bathing water season for 2013 NRW is expecting positive
results compared to the previous year- a good number of beaches are
expected to be awarded blue flag status
Bob Vaughan also noted that Defra’s 2003 groundwater exemption will soon no
longer be valid-de-exemptions licensed will affect Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water.
8.3
Water Framework Directive - Consultations
o
Challenges and Choices Consultation: This is the second consultation under
the Water Framework Directive to help NRW prepare the second river basin
management plans. The consultation ends 22 December 2013.
See the following link to NRW’s for further information:
http://naturalresourceswales.gov.uk/our-work/consultations/list-of-currentconsultations/challenges-and-choices-consultation/?lang=en
9
Minutes of the Previous Meetings & Review of Action Points
9.1
Action 26.5.14a should be deleted with a clarification that specific customer
service and performance can always be followed up in private to progress solutions
for the benefit of customers.
12
Agenda Item P9b – Paper No: 01 04 07
9.2
The Chair signed the (draft) minutes of the previous meeting (25th meeting,
Wrexham) as a true record.
10
AOB
There were none.
11
Chair’s Closing Remarks
11.1
Next Meeting to be held in April 2014. Date and Venue to be confirmed.
Signed…………………………………………… Dated…………
Summary of Actions
Ownership
3.12
Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water, Dee Valley Water &
CCWater should work together on their Customer
Communications strategies: helping to explain to
customers their rights and responsibilities; and also
their right to complain (as a priority) which also helps
to inform the companies investment priorities.
Dŵr Cymru
Welsh Water,
DVW & CCWater
3.14
Wales Committee asked the company to identify the
specific surface water project that they are
undertaking and are going to undertake and to
identify benefits for customers and the environment,
and to keep the Committee informed of these
projects.
Dŵr Cymru
Welsh Water
4.11
Business customers needs and views to be discussed
at CCG and PR14 Forum.
Companies to
note
13
Agenda Item P9b – Paper No: 01 04 07
5.3
Andrew Sherlock, Welsh Government to report back
to CCWater with:
Andrew
Sherlock
o a list of groups that Welsh Government has
consulted
about
the
new
Landlord’s
responsibilities,
o details of the communications strategy, how
this new legislation will be rolled out, and
o if approved by the Minister (Alun Davies, AM)
what the enforcement date will be next year
5.3
Clare Evans to share landlord contacts with WG to
enable better engagement with their views.
Clare Evans
6.11
Paul Roberts to share details of personal contact that
caused him concerns about the recording process and
audit train cross border and cross company
customers and Tim Hughes to respond on whether
this particular instance was recorded correctly.
Paul Roberts
6.17
Companies to respond to CCWater’s query about an
annual publication of cross company comparative
data (Lia Moutselou email query).
Lia Moutselou
6.18
Lia Moutselou to feed LCAs comments to central
office.
Lia Moutselou
14
Agenda Item P9c – Paper No: 01 04 07
Subject to Confirmation
CONSUMER COUNCIL FOR WATER
LONDON & SOUTH EAST
Public Meeting
Wednesday 26 February 2014
Fleetbank House, London EC4Y 8JX
Present
Chair
London & South East Chair
Sir Tony Redmond
Committee
Local Consumer Advocate
Helen Charlton
Local Consumer Advocate
John Havenhand
Local Consumer Advocate
Jill Thomas
CCWater
Chief Executive Officer
Senior Policy Manager
Senior Policy Manager
Assistant Policy Manager
Consumer Relations Manager
Policy & Committee Support Officer
Assistant Manager
Assistant Manager
Assistant Manager
Complaints Administrator
Complaints Administrator
Complaints Administrator
Complaints Administrator
Tony Smith
Karen Gibbs
Andrew White
Alastair Lloyd
Christina Bennett
Steve Game
Jonathan Roberts
Lisa White
Simon Glenville
Russell Brummel
Elizabeth Oluwale
Jaina Vaghela
Daisy Adams
Regulatory Bodies
Environment Agency
Drinking Water Inspectorate
Ofwat
Jim Barker
Matthew Sellick
Simon Smith
Public
Water Companies
Charles Smith
Conor McGlone
Greg Edwards
Steven Lewis
Peter Gray
Nick Woolfenden
Kathleen Egan
Robin Dahlberg
Affinity Water (AW)
Affinity Water (AW)
Affinity Water (AW)
Portsmouth Water (PRT)
South East Water (SEW)
South East Water (SEW)
Southern Water (SRN)
Sutton & East Surrey Water (SES)
Thames Water (TMS)
Thames Water (TMS)
Thames Water (TMS)
Vincent Muldoon
Emma Grigson
Liz Allen
Paul Barfoot
Steve George
Steve Andrews
Darren Bentham
Jeremy Downer
Richard Aylard
Chris Vinson
Andrew Burton
Agenda Item P9c – Paper No: 01 04 07
Subject to Confirmation
1
Welcomes/Apologies – Sir Tony Redmond
1.1
The Chairman welcomed those present and noted the good level of attendance.
Apologies had been received from Water UK and GLA. He explained that the main
purpose of the meeting was to share information relating to a couple of the key
issues for water companies and consumers in the L&SE Region – metering and
affordability.
1.2
The Chairman also took the opportunity to acknowledge the work undertaken by
the CCWater team, especially the Local Consumer Advocates, who have been
heavily relied on since the last public meeting due to the demands of the Price
Review and other on-going regional activities. He noted the other issues that
CCWater had focused on in the last year and would be looking to cover at the
Autumn public meeting. These included issues around corporation tax, company
structures, governance and gearing.
1.3
Given the recent extensive flooding in the region, the Chairman welcomed Jim
Barker of the Environment Agency who was invited to give an update on the
situation.
1.4
Jim Barker explained that the past month has been challenging for all involved
and has really highlighted the importance of resilience given the weather
extremes we have seen over the past two years, moving from serious drought to
the wettest period since 1776. Although the weather forecasts were improving
groundwater levels would take some time to return to normal. He noted the good
collaborative working and the importance of building on this for the future.
2
CCWater Overview 2013/14 and future Challenges – Tony Smith
2.1
Tony Smith discussed CCWater’s achievements over the last year – focusing on the
success to date of PR14 and additional investment of £1 billion delivered by the
water companies in the current period.
2.2
In the current water price review all but two companies are proposing prices at or
below inflation between 2015 and 2020. Customer acceptability of the company
plans has also been high. CCWater has put pressure on Ofwat for being too
generous in the past in its provision for the costs of borrowing. In this price review
its good to see that customers prices in company plans will be further constrained
by Ofwat’s assumption on the cost of capital.
2.3
Before CCWater was set up, customer complaints to water companies were rising
very rapidly. To address this, CCWater put pressure on poor performing companies
and negotiated a change to the regulatory approach on complaints. This has
resulted in a 50% reduction in complaints to water companies since CCWater was
set up in 2005.
2.4
CCWater plans to continue to put customers at the heart of the industry, driving
company performance and improving service. CCWater also continues its
important role in providing independent information to domestic and business
customers about the industry, whilst keeping our costs flat at 21p per customer
per year.
3
Compulsory Metering Programmes in South East England
Agenda Item P9c – Paper No: 01 04 07
Subject to Confirmation
3.1
The Chairman introduced this agenda item and explained that water metering was
being rolled out by several companies in the region. The water companies have
chosen to call their compulsory metering programmes different names and would
set out the drivers, key features and progress to date.
3.2
Darren Bentham presented for SRN. Please find slides here. SRN were set to
complete their Universal Metering Programme next year. They had been the first
company to meter on this scale and had incorporated a range of support measures
to help customers through the transition to metered charging. The pressure on
available water supplies in their area was the driver for the programme. They had
looked to working in partnership with agencies that could help them deal with
affordability issues that emerged and help with water efficiency advice and
practical help. To date, 295,000 customers have been switched. The take up of
the change over tariff had been fairly low and may reflect the fact that 60% of
customers to date had seen a reduction in their bill.
3.3
Steve George presented for SEW. Please find slides here. SEW were approaching
the halfway stage of their 10 year Customer Metering Programme. Their
programme had several similar features to SRN’s and he mentioned particularly
the help given to customers by dealing with leakage on their supply pipes free of
charge. A measure encouraged by CCWater. Lessons had been learned in the early
stages and some refinement of the company’s communications had helped to
tackle some causes of customer contact.
3.4
Richard Aylard presented for TMS. Please find slides here. The biggest concern for
TMS was balancing customer demand with available supplies and the threat of
serious drought and its potential impact on the Capital. TMS had therefore started
its proposed 15 year metering programme in February this year in Bexley, South
East London. They had installed 100 meters at that time. The intention was to
gradually spread out across three more London Boroughs. Customers would be
given two years following the installation before being switched to metered
charges. In that time the company would provide customers with comparative
billing information so they could decide whether it was in their interests to ask to
switch early or look to make some changes to their water use. TMS was also
helping customers with water efficiency advice and help with supply pipe leakage.
They had a suite of measures to help with customer affordability issues.
3.5
Vincent Muldoon presented for AW. Please find slides here. AFW faced similar
pressures on its water supplies from customer demand but was also required to
reduce significantly the amount of water it took from certain sources as it was
causing environmental problems. They had already metered their Folkestone and
Dover area and were now planning to meter their Central area during 2015 – 2020.
Like TMS they intend to give customers two years before being switched to
metered charging. It was their aim to get the vast majority of customers to switch
early by demonstrating the benefits of the metered basis of charging.
Communications would be key to achieving this aim and the company intended to
focus its communications at community level and hopefully raise awareness of its
customers to their local water environment. The company recognised the need to
help those with potential affordability issues and was developing a package of
measures to suit different needs.
3.6
During the subsequent question and answer session Jim Barker of the EA asked
how and when companies were going to be able to share data/results to
demonstrate if metering was having the desired effect.
3.7
Darren Bentham of SRN explained that the company is working with Southampton
University looking at the effects of the metering programme. The research is due
to be published at some point this year and will be shared with all stakeholders.
There was obviously some reservation about drawing too many conclusions at such
an early stage. Some things were more certain than others for example the higher
Agenda Item P9c – Paper No: 01 04 07
Subject to Confirmation
volumes of customer contact and complaint generated by their programme.
3.8
Steve George of SEW concurred with the rise in complaints but added that the
data on customer demand was showing some early success but would have been
influenced by the drought and the imposition of temporary use restrictions in
2012 and then the more recent rainfall patterns. Once the weather is more
typical, analysis of the data should show the real effects of the programme.
3.9
Vincent Muldoon of AW explained that it would be important to provide feedback
to customers from an early stage. The water company needed to explain why
these programmes are necessary and what they are delivering. It was something
AW had started, and will continue to do as they took their programme forward.
3.10
Tony Smith asked what the companies could do to drive down complaints about
metering and metered bills. In response Vincent Muldoon of AW said that good
communication with customers at all stages is key to an improved performance in
this area.
3.11
Richard Aylard of TMS agreed and suggested that SMART meters will play a part in
improving the information they can communicate to customers and would help
with water efficiency. Complaints should go down although contact from
customers will inevitably rise as the programmes roll out. He also stressed the
need for TMS metering programme as the demand for water is going up and the
availability of water is going down. It also puts customers in charge of their bill
and will reduce the amount of water wasted.
3.12
Steve George of SEW confirmed that a key learning point from this process has
been keeping communication timely and simple. Revisions made to the original
communications plan were already having an impact on the level of complaint.
3.13
Darren Bentham of SRN furthered this by saying a smooth transition to metered
billing and clarity should keep customer complaints down.
4
New Social Tariffs
4.1
The Chairman introduced this agenda item, explaining that companies are now
able to develop social tariffs as part of a package of measures to address
affordability issues. SES, AW and TMS would be implementing their tariff
proposals from 1st April 2014 and SEW, SRN plan to pilot theirs in 2014-15 with a
view to implementing them from April 2015. The Chairman then invited the
company representatives to present their proposals.
4.2
Jeremy Downer presented for SES. Please find slides here. The company will fully
fund the tariff in year one, providing a 25% bill reduction to help up to 2,000
customers. It is expected that, in the future, this will increase to a 50% bill
reduction for around 5,000 customers at a cost of up to £2 for customers. To
qualify customers will need to receive income related benefits or have disposable
income below a maximum threshold. The tariff will be fully funded by the
company in year one with an expectation to rise to up to £2 in the future.
Customer support for the tariff was 71% acceptable, 28% ‘opposed’ for support at
a level of up to £2.
4.3
Vincent Muldoon presented for AW. Please find slides here. The company expect
to help 7,500 customers initially, rising to 30,000 by 2016/17. Bills will be capped
at £95.80 (40% reduction on the average bill). To qualify customers will need to
have an earned household income of less than £15,860. The tariff will add 40p to
other customers’ annual bills rising to £1.40 by 2016/17. 68% acceptable, 31%
‘opposed’ support at level of £1 to £1.50
Agenda Item P9c – Paper No: 01 04 07
Subject to Confirmation
4.4
Richard Aylard presented for TMS. Please find slides here. ‘WaterSure Plus’ is
expected to help 13,200 customers in 2014/15. Bills will be reduced by 50% for
qualifying customers. The company will fund administration costs in 2014/15.
To qualify customers will need to receive income related benefits or have water
and sewerage charges which currently exceed 3% of disposable household income.
The tariff will add 29p to other customers’ annual bills. This is expected to rise to
almost £2 by 2020. 64% customer acceptance for £2 cross subsidy, 24% opposed
and 12% neither agree or disagree.
4.5
Steve George presented for SEW. Please find slides here. The company plans to
implement its scheme in 2015 and will look to develop/pilot in 2014-15. Bills will
be discounted by 30%-40%. The company will look to fund the administration
costs. The company states to qualify the water bill must exceed 1% of household
income (water only bill). 30,000 customers have been deemed as potentially
eligible with an aim to have 15,000 signed up by 2020.
4.6
Darren Bentham presented for SRN. Please find slides here. The company will look
to pilot and further test their plans in 2014-15. The discount offered to customers
will be based on a banding system and eligibility will be linked to household
income. SRN plans to re-test the level of cross-subsidy once they have piloted the
current tariff design.
4.7
Robin Dahlberg (AW CCG Chair) asked if these proposed discounts were linked to a
requirement that the customer maintains payments.
4.8
Steve George of SEW indicated that the customer would need to be paying the bill
to continue to receive the support of their social tariff. SEW has a range of
support options that can assist customers as best suits their circumstances.
4.9
Richard Aylard of TMS echoed this point and highlighted further assistance
schemes that TMS offer.
4.10
Jeremy Downer of SES indicated that the aim of the social tariff is to help those
customers that most need assistance and successful targeting is crucial. Their
Social Tariff was intended to help customers avoid falling behind with payments.
4.11
Vincent Muldoon of AW indicated that customers must be paying to be on this
tariff, but the company has an obligation to look at each customer’s
circumstances, and offer a range of assistance and to find the best option for
them.
4.12
John Havenhand raised concern with companies ‘pass-porting’ customers based on
current benefit entitlement and felt that a review of those schemes that are due
to start 1st April 2014 would be necessary. The company representatives
recognised this.
4.13
Tony Smith drew attention to the level of complexity arising from each company
operating an individual social tariff, in a region where there were many customers
who receive water and waste water bills from two separate companies, or their
water company bills on the sewerage company’s behalf. He noted that TMS, AFW
and SES said they were still discussing how they would integrate their approaches
and asked what companies are doing to have a more joined up approach in the
interests of making the application process as simple as possible for those
potentially eligible for this assistance.
4.14
Darren Bentham said the industry had missed an opportunity to align the approach
to social tariffs. A national way forward would have been better for the customer
to accept and understand.
Agenda Item P9c – Paper No: 01 04 07
Subject to Confirmation
4.15
Steve George highlighted the fact that although companies are separate licensees
they endeavour to work together as far as possible as it’s difficult enough for
customers to understand bills whether they have two different companies billing
them or one. He acknowledged that the mis-alignment of the schemes is a
potential problem and was why SEW had delayed implementation until 2015. SEW
is working with surrounding companies on this.
4.16
Richard Aylard confirmed that discussions between the three water companies
launching their social tariffs this year are continuing and it should be able to
resolve some of these issues before the schemes come into effect on 1 April.
4.17
Paul Barfoot of PRT reported that although the company has not yet developed a
social tariff they will look to mirror SRN’s approach to keep this simple for their
customers. The Chairman welcomed this decision.
5
Maximising Take-up of Assistance Schemes
5.1
The Chairman highlighted that whilst social tariffs will be offered to some
customers soon, there are existing support and assistance schemes that
companies need to promote alongside. The Chairman welcomes Andrew White to
present on this subject.
5.2
Andrew White presented for CCWater. Please find the sides here. The
presentation highlighted CCWater’s success achieving a uniform approach to
WaterSure. It also focused on some of the barriers for customers who may qualify
but are not in receipt of assistance schemes. The presentation highlighted the
need for companies to target these customers through successful engagement.
5.3
Kathleen Egan (Age UK London) agreed that certain demographics are hard to
reach and target. The promotion of these schemes and social tariffs should use
the existing networks enabling more collaborative working with the water
companies and third sector. Kathleen Egan welcomed joined working with Age UK
London who she represented. It made sense to use these trusted relationships and
the information these parties had for people that would potentially qualify for a
Social Tariff.
6
Any Other Business
6.1
The Chairman offered the audience the chance to raise any further questions or
concerns.
6.2
The Chairman indicated that the L&SE Region will look to hold another event in
the Autumn.
6.3
The Chairman thanked everyone for coming and closed the meeting.
Agenda Item P10 – Paper No: CCW 01 04 08
CONSUMER COUNCIL FOR WATER
BOARD MEETING IN PUBLIC - TUESDAY, 1st APRIL 2014/15
CCWATER 2014/15 GOVERNANCE PAPER
REPORT OF: BOARD SECRETARY
1.
Purpose of report
1.1
The Board is requested on an annual basis to review and approve specific documents;
and agree any changes.
1.2
The Board is also asked to review the schedule of Outstanding Public Board Actions.
2.
Recommendations
2.1
That:
i) The Register of Interests, set out at Appendix A be noted and approved prior to
publication.
ii) The attendance at Board and its Committees be noted.
iii) The Schedule of Outstanding Actions be reviewed and the position noted.
3.
Detail of report
Register of Interests
3.1
Government guidance on non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) recommends that a
register be kept of board members' interests relevant to the body's activities.
3.2
Although Board Members update their register throughout the year, the register is
subject to an annual review for consideration at this meeting of the Board.
3.3
As part of the annual review, Members have been asked to update their register of
interests and the current position is set out at Appendix A.
Attendance at Board and Committees
3.4
During 2013/14 attendance at Board and Committee meetings was noted on the first
page of the relevant set of minutes. The record of attendance is based on the agreed
minutes and set out in the table at 3.7.
3.5
The numbers include all meetings held by the Board and Committees and also include
those meetings held in private session.
3.6
The position of attendance at Board and Committees for 2013/14 is set out below.
1
Agenda Item P10 – Paper No: CCW 01 04 08
Board
Audit &
Risk
Finance &
Resources
Remuneration
Yve Buckland
12/12
--
--
--
Tony Smith
11/12
4/4*
3/4*
--
Andrea Cook
10/12
--
--
3/3
Charles Howeson
11/12
--
4/4
--
Diane McCrea
12/12
4/4
1/1
--
Mike Barnes (appointed expired
31st January 2014)
Julie Hill (appointed 1st Feb
2014)
Philip Johnson (appointed 1st
Feb 2014)
Narendra Makanji (appointment
expired 31st October 2013)
Timothy Hornsby (appointed
expired 31st January 2014)
Bernard Crump
10/10
3/3
1/1
--
2/2
1/1
--
1/1
2/2
1/1
--
--
6/7
2/2
2/2
2/2
10/10
1/1
3/3
2/2
12/12
--
4/4
3/3
Tony Redmond
9/12
3/4
--
1/1
* Tony Smith attends Audit and Risk Management and Finance and Resources as an
officer, not as a member. He does not attend Remuneration Committee.
All absences were agreed in advance by the Chair and where possible,
substitutions attended in their absence.
3.7
As the Committee membership was last reviewed in January 2014 there are no
changes proposed to the Committee membership at present. In accordance with the
decision of the Board in January to provide delegated authority to the Chair to
appoint CCWater’s new Independent Members to the (then) vacant committee seats,
Philip Johnson serves as Chair of Audit and Risk Management and sits on Finance and
Resources as an Independent Member. Julie Hill also sits on Audit and Risk
Management Committee and Remuneration Committee as an Independent Member.
Public Board Outstanding Actions
3.8 The Board is requested to review the Outstanding Public Board Actions.
3.9 The position is set out at Appendix B.
Jan Mitson,
Board Secretary
2
Agenda Item P10a – Paper No: CCW 01 04 08
Register of CCWater’s Board Members Interests 2014/15
Board members
Company/Organisation
Nature
Yve Buckland
Institute of Governance & Public Management, Warwick
Business School
KPMG Board of Trustees Public Governance Institute
Faculty of Public Health & Medicine
University of Central Lancashire
Public Chairs Forum
Women on Board
Kingsley School Board of Governors
Green Alliance
Countrywide Grounds Maintenance
BC Healthcare Solutions Ltd
Warwick University
Faculty of Public Health
Parole Board *
Member of the Board of the Jersey Energy Efficiency
Service
SPS Ltd
First Great Western Trains Advisory Board
List of Professional Bodies available on CV (none
conflicting)
Delta Carbon Advisors Ltd
Poyry Management Consulting
FIET / FEI / FiMechE
Passenger Focus*
Soil Association Certification Ltd
Fellow
Julie Hill
Bernard Crump
Andrea Cook
Charles Howeson
Philip Johnson
Diane McCrea
Tony Redmond
Updated April 2014
All Saints Educational Trust
Shelter Cymru
UNICEF
Member
Honorary Member
Fellow
Management Committee Member
Member
Governor
Associate
Landscaper
Director
Professor of Medical Leadership
Fellow
Independent Member
Advisor to the state of Jersey
Chairman
Chairman
Director
Associate
Wales Board Member
Chair, Certification Scrutiny
Committee
Trustee
Chair of Board of Trustees
Treasurer
Interests of close family
or those living in the
same household and any
other comments
Wife also a Director in BC
Healthcare Solutions Ltd.
Agenda Item P10a – Paper No: CCW 01 04 08
Tony Smith
Local Government Boundary Commission
IRRV Awards Panel
Public Administration International
CIPFA, FCPA Australia, IRRV FRSA
Friend of Stuart Siddell (Thames Water)
None
* Ministerial Appointment
Board member
Location
CCG Chairmanship
Yve Buckland
Central and
Eastern*
Charles Howeson
Western
Diane McCrea
Wales
Andrea Cook
Northern
Severn Trent
Anglian
South Staffs
Essex and Suffolk
Cambridge
South West
Wessex
Bristol
SembCorp Bournemouth
Welsh Water
Dee Valley
United Utilities
Yorkshire
Northumbrian
*CCG Chairmanships in Central and Eastern are currently under review.
Updated April 2014
Commissioner
Course Director
Member of Professional Body
Agenda Item P10b – Paper No: CCW 01 04 08
OUTSTANDING ACTIONS – PUBLIC BOARD
Actions to be Completed
1st October 2013
22.2
The Annual Management Letter and Internal Audit end of year
report shall be submitted to the Board for receipt.
1
Jan Mitson
May 14
Programmed into work schedule.