Ofwat has said that water companies must ensure that contractors working for them are compliant with their Codes of Practice, following a dispute between Thames Water and one of its customers.

 The regulator was commenting in its final determination of a dispute referred by Mr and Mrs Holden to Ofwat about the way Thames Water exercised its powers under section 159 of the Water Industry Act 1991 to work on the complainant’s land.

In October 2012 Thames Water served the complainant with a notice issued under section 159 of the Act to enter the property in order to undertake repair works to sewer pipes located there.

Thames Water also provided the complainant with a copy of its Code of Practice for the exercise of pipelaying powers on private land which sets out what the landowner is entitled to expect while the undertaker is exercising its powers. The Code sets out expectations on matters such as consultation, communications and standards of reinstatement.

Thames Water’s contractor entered into the garden of the property between 17 November 2012 and the second week of December 2012 to undertake the work. The contractors left the Site following the completion of the work in the second week of December 2012.

Thames Water did not record undertaking a joint inspection of the completed work with the complainant prior to the departure of the contractors, and the complainant stated that no joint inspection took place.

In October 2013, a representative of the contractor returned to the property to request access to the site in order to carry out further investigations on the sewer pipe. No formal notice had been provided of the proposed investigation.

The complainant sent a letter of complaint to Thames Water on 10 October 2013 regarding the standard of the works, and the plan for further works in 2013. The complainant indicated that compensation had not been claimed at an earlier date because of the previous experience in dealing with the contractors. However, the demand for access to the site in order to conduct further works prompted the lodging of a complaint in order to prevent events of the previous experience re-occurring.

On 10 December 2013 Ofwat received a complaint alleging that Thames Water had failed to adequately consult the complainant in connection with the work, including the reinstatement, and had acted unreasonably in the manner in which the work was carried out, causing them loss, damage and inconvenience. In addition, the complainant alleged that the contractors had breached the Code.

The complainant told Ofwat that Thames Water had failed to do the following:

• Provide a written contact name, number or address in connection with the work;
• Provide information relating to the scheduling of the work;
• Supervise the work;
• Reinstate the topsoil to the appropriate standard;
• Reinstate the garden to its original condition;
• Replace plants and shrubs removed during the work; and
• Conduct an inspection following the reinstatement

Ofwat’s final decision assessed that Thames Water had failed adequately to consult with the complainants, and had caused the complainants to be subjected to inconvenience. However, Thames Water had recognised this, and had agreed compensation with the complainants.

The regulator also assessed that the agreement reached was both appropriate and adequate and that no further award was due to the customer.

Ofwat said there were wider lessons for companies to draw from the case and that all water and sewerage undertakers were expected that to have systems and processes in place to ensure that contractors were acting in compliance with their Codes of Practice.