Forum Topic

Thames Water and the High Street/London Road

On behalf of the Leader of the Council and local Councillors, I met with Thames Water yesterday morning to let them explain the background to the two bursts on the London Road/Brentford High Street (and one in July which forced the Council to close the Civc Centre for and afternoon), their response, and the likelihood of it happening again.  TW head of external relations, Richard Aylard, and their local government link person, Hilary Murgatroyd were there plus 3 senior Council officers.   1          I expressed how serious the impact of the 2 bursts had been on people living and running businesses in the area.  That those who have suffered go far beyond those whose homes or businesses were flooded - these include: residents of Danehurst sheltered unit having to walk a mile to get a bus or pay for taxis, and of course businesses losing trade. 2          TW explained the teckie stuff (but full details at Housing and Environment Scrutiny Panel on 30th.)  The pipe is one of 4 old mains (1890s) running the length of the High St/London Road.  The main mains (lets call them the arteries) are more robust, and have been better maintained over the years, than the “capillary” mains going down side roads that were replaced as part of the recent Victorian water main replacement scheme.  That is why this main was not replaced then.  TW’s risk assessment did not put it high on the risk register, yet it burst twice in less than 4 weeks.  Now this has happened, they are investigating it for leaks - hence the plant remaining at the scene with nothing apparently happening.  They are putting a probe along and listening for minute leaks, and installing a real-time surge monitor. 3          From now on TW will monitor for leaks and manage the pressure in the pipe so it does not build up as it did before the burst.  It’s now on the risk register.  The implication being that it’s likely that we’ll have the hassle of its replacement before long . . . 4          On compensation, they are leaving it all to their loss adjusters Douglas Jackson, but implied it’s an insurance issue ie they’re not going to be dishing out stuff/funds unless there is a viable insurance claim.  Distress, inconvenience etc are not issues they show any interest in. 5          I asked if they would compensate businesses for lost trade and reputation – their response was - if you can prove loss of takings connected to the flooding etc you may be able to claim on our Insurance. On my suggestion, they said they would organise a meeting of local businesses to discuss this issue.Watch this spaceRuth CadburyBrentford Ward CouncillorDeputy Leader - LB Hounslow

Ruth Cadbury ● 5703d36 Comments

Spare a thought for all the people whos homes were flooded in August, my mums included, many are still living in temporary accomodation and will not be back in their homes for christmas. For those who didn't move out, work is now only starting as it has taken months for the properties to dry out.

Joanne Whelan ● 5616d

Bumped up - so we don't lose the useful updates from Ruth Cadbury as the "Oh no, more roadworks" thread takes over !

Tim Henderson ● 5620d

It is appalling that Thames cannot provide the amounts.

Ian Speed ● 5690d

How can anyone expect to get a rebate on their Council Tax from an issue that is purely the responsibility of a statutory undertaker ?.

Adam Beamish ● 5690d

"So if you want to massage the figures to show a steadily improving performance and not upset the regulator with unplanned surprises, then I guess activities have to be micromanaged to fit with arbitrary financial years." Yes - that's it and Ofwat get pretty irritated with those who get their submissions wrong. e.g. with Mogden,  the Thames MD told us it would cost £100 million to solve the problem but he would never get Ofwat approval so he asked for £70 million as he thought it may be more easily attainable. Ofwat told him to jump in the lake because (a) they had always made it clear that Thames should have paid for odour abatement  out of its own massive profits and (b) because Thames should have made submissions in previous OMPs. OFWAT therefore agreed to £12million and suggested Thames pay the balance. Thames refused.  The community then appealed to Ofwat with Vince Cable taking the lead and Ofwat agreed to £42million. Thames said it would only achieve a 60% reduction with only £42 million from Ofwat. Ofwat said - "so pay the balance yourselves" . Thames refused.  Halfway through the program, Thames told Ofwat they believed they could achieve the 60% reduction by only spending £30million. Ofwat said "we don't care what you spend - if its OK with Hounslow Council its OK with us"  Thames asked Hounslow if it was OK.  Hounslow said  "sure, no problem"  At Residents Liaison meeting on 10 June, a resident asked Richard Aylard of Thames how much money was left from Ofwat's donation. Thames' director  said he didn't know but it would have gone back to customers. At the 8 September residents liaison meeting the question was asked again and it was asked if Thames would confirm that is had only used £30 million of Ofwat money and if Thames and LBH were negligent to divert unspent money when it could have been used to increase the Ofwat regulatory output MINIMUM from 60% to possibly 80 or 90%.  Strangely,  Tory Cllr Brad Fisher exploded  and took exception to such a question being raised at a 'residents liaison'  meeting as he believed the question had already been 'answered'  in a private meeting between himself, the resident and the then Council Leader Peter Thompson. Strange how the Tory party believes its then Leader of the Council can speak on behalf of Thames Water?Anyway, Thames replied that unspent money went back to the regulator.  Somehow I doubt this as neither Thames nor LBH cannot provide the amounts. One can only speculate at this stage but I would assume there is money lying around which now has to be used before April 2011  to deal with the flood  problems.   

Steve Taylor ● 5691d

"I am wondering why Cllr John Todd, who seems to have taken such an interest in the well-being of Brentford/Isleworth  resident/victims, hasn't urged our MP to take the lead on this."Maybe if you asked Cllr Todd politely he might help you. But then you don't do "polite", do you?

Robin Taylor ● 5692d

Thanks Steve - although it took me rather a long time with google to find that AMP = asset management plan."The water industry operates on five-yearly cycles called Asset Management Plan (AMP) periods. Price limits for water and sewerage services are set by the water and sewerage regulator Ofwat at the beginning of each period, following submissions from each company about what it will cost to deliver their plans."Ofwat seems to run on the analysis of annual "June Reports" submitted by the water companies on their activities in the previous year. So if you want to massage the figures to show a steadily improving performance and not upset the regulator with unplanned surprises, then I guess activities have to be micromanaged to fit with arbitrary financial years.

Tim Henderson ● 5693d

"Any idea what is the "need" to get it done in the financial year ?What catastrophe would occur if it ran on into June ?"Tim - I don't really know but assume Cllr Cadbury will enlighten us. I assume it may be something to do with AMP funding. Much transpired from evidence in the High Court in March regarding  AMP determination and OFWAT funding when OFwat and the EA gave evidence. Also quite interesting is the publicity surrounding the last CEO's (David Owens) resignation after only three years in office. THis obviously came as a surprise as Thames had no immediate replacement for him."The outspoken chief executive of Thames Water has decided to step down after three years and less than a week after Ofwat's ruling on prices. David Owens has been a key figure for the firm and grabbed headlines since taking over in 2006, by speaking out on controversial issues like flow restrictors and run ins with Ofwat over funding. Mr Owens said he needed a new challenge and didn't mention Ofwat's latest report which restricted water bill increases when he made his announcement."

Steve Taylor ● 5693d

"Ex-ICG Organiser"Indeed. Apologies,I meant to say the  "then"  ICG-Organiser.And a further thought...I am wondering why Cllr John Todd, who seems to have taken such an interest in the well-being of Brentford/Isleworth  resident/victims, hasn't urged our MP to take the lead on this. The Council Leader seems to have relegated the matter downwards - isn't it time to take it upwards and forward?

Steve Taylor ● 5693d

Ex-ICG Organiser, but thanks for the kind words anyway Steve.

Phil Andrews ● 5693d

Parvez,Obviously you can't contribute anything meaningful to this thread and you are spoiling for some kind of argument which I can't be bothered to enter into.Why don't you go away in jerky movements?

Keith Iddon ● 5693d

"A refund of some council tax would not be unreasonable imho."  Indeed,  but I am somewhat bemused that the Council are so relaxed about this matter and not taking it to the top. Talk about talk and meetings etc is not too encouraging. I may be wrong but I don't hear about any real action. Us mere residents had no problem in getting into the executive offices of the last three Thames CEO's, not least with the help and unwavering drive and determination of the ICG  Organiser, Phil Andrews.One would have thought our Councillors and Chief Executive  would by this time have been knocking on the door of Martin Baggs or Steve Shine demanding some clear answers.

Steve Taylor ● 5693d

Any idea what is the "need" to get it done in the financial year ?What catastrophe would occur if it ran on into June ?I would be interested in how they have been tinkering with the mains pressure to reduce leakage overnight and how the increase back to daytime pressure is controlled (or not). At face value it appears as if all the bursts happen around the same time in the morning when someone gives the system some welly and the cast-iron can't take it.

Tim Henderson ● 5693d

'Am I missing something'Yeah, a brain.

Parvez Haling ● 5693d

Am I missing something or were the pipes not replaced about 3 years ago when the big blue plastic lads were put in?I can't wait for more disruption.Brentford must be the road works capital of the universe.Anyone remember the year long road works on London Rd when gas/phone water couldn't get their acts together.A refund of some council tax would not be unreasonable imho.

Keith Iddon ● 5693d

Adam,  you are wrong but as I said to John Todd - if you are really interested, and anyone else for that matter - its very simple - pick up the phone and speak to Simon Ellis at Hugh James and tell him he is wrong and ask him for more info or to spell it out. I am but a mere resident trying to provide as much information as possible to victims. As I said, no use shooting the messenger.

Steve Taylor ● 5693d

Steve,To be honest the only person in my view who is linking the pipe with Mogden is yourself !.Adam

Adam Beamish ● 5693d

Adam, Its no use shooting the messenger. If the these top environmental solicitors believe that they can help flood victims as they have helped Mogden victims, so be it. It they choose to link the flood issues to Mogden issues for the purpose of providing legal advice and possible legal action covered by environmental law, so be it. Whilst it is a tad  'mischievous'  of you to suggest the legal advice is linking the pipe with Mogden and whilst you are correct to state that there is no love lost between this community and TW, it would be naive to believe that the senior management of TW are not responsible for both Mogden and the Water Mains. The very senior people responsible for Mogden are the same people responsible for the flow of sewage and fresh water from the catchment to Mogden for processing. Whilst the Managers of Mogden were indeed called as witnesses in the High Court  to answer to the allegations of negligence at the site, the case is much more complex and certainly Ofwat and the EA were called to give evidence too. The bottom line, as you would obviously know, is always money, money money. The fact is that Mogden is a mess is due to under funding. The mains are a mess due to under funding. Its up to the Courts to decide who is responsible for the underfunding. Its very easy to obtain the facts of how much money the last owners of TW, the German RWE Group,  removed from the UK and its very easy to see the dividends RWE paid to its shareholders and its non-UK resident main board. Its also easy to see the bonuses paid to the past (and present) TW UK based Directors.  The Thames Water Director, Richard Aylard, with whom Cllr Cadbury met, and to whom she seemed to attribute her statement  "Distress, inconvenience etc are not issues they show any interest in"  is the very same Director who was in charge of the last expansion program at Mogden, who steered the current extension planning application through LBH and is now at the forefront of the discussions / explanations / excuses regarding the floods.These mains and pipes could and should have been replaced many years ago and this flooding should not have happened almost three decades after Thames Water was privatised.     

Steve Taylor ● 5694d

Tonight at scrutiny committee Thames Water will announce that they are going to replace the 33" water main that burst twice in the last 2 months.  They need to do the works within this financial year, ie substantially complete before April 2011. The works will run all along London Road/Brentford High Street, from St John’s Road in Isleworth to the Haverfield estate in Brentford.  This raises all sorts questions – how come a pipe that was not on the risk register this summer has now had its risk level raised so high it needs to be replaced immediately?  What level of disruption will this entail?  How much of that main road will need to be worked on at any one time?  To what extent can road closures be avoided with the use of single-flow and traffic lights?  Etc etc.  Plenty for the scrutiny meeting to get their teeth into, over and above outstanding questions from the bursts.  We have asked Thames for a detailed programme for road closures, temp traffic lights etc and have told them that under no circumstances would LBH agree to have Brentford High St closed in December. Following this news, we will be seeking a further meeting with TW.Cllr Ruth CadburyDeputy Leader and Brentford Ward Councillor

Ruth Cadbury ● 5694d

SteveThere are already a couple of pubs and clubs around the affected area that have taken Hugh James' leaflets to display to their customers.  At times like this it is great to see the community pulling together.

Phil Andrews ● 5697d

SteveLBH Watch will be meeting this evening at the IRBL, from 7.45 pm.  You'd be very welcome to join us, we could use an MRAG input as I tend to be wearing more than one hat at these events.

Phil Andrews ● 5697d

I have to say I'm with John on this - in my personal view no 'link' should be made between Mogden and a burst water pipe.Yes they involve the same company, but there the link ends, there's no suggestion that the flooding in Brentford was caused by anything to do with Mogden so I think it's rather 'mischievous' to try to link the two.  We all know there's no love lost between MRAG & TW, but that has bugger all to do with a burst water pipe several miles from Mogden, so why link the two ?.Of course TW's PR guy is going to put a positive 'spin' on things, what do you expect him to do ?.

Adam Beamish ● 5697d

If you read this solicitors website they appear, on the two cases they mention to have minimal recent flooding experience."Nonsense - the website is quite clear. "No win no fee is mentioned but not guaranteed."Stupid comment. Of course a 'no win no fee'  cannot  be guaranteed until a victim speaks to the expert solicitor who will provide information on their specific case. The website clearly states that Hugh James will  act on a "No Win No Fee"  basis where possible and may also be able to secure Public Funding (previously called "Legal Aid") in some cases.""Residents are surely entitled to an alternative view?" Of course residents are entitled to an alternative view but when that view is expressed by someone who changes the thread title to "Another advert/ plug" one has to question the motives  of that person especially when same person has repeatedly stated that the solicitors offering expert assistance are Headquartered in Cardiff rather than Chiswick. Why don't you come clean and spell it out? Why are you so vehemently opposed to victims taking legal advice and possible legal action against Thames Water?  What is to win or to lose for you and what is to win or lose for the victims.

Steve Taylor ● 5698d

Sue (sorry, Councillor Sampson)Bearing in mind that this forum is followed by a very large number of people living in Isleworth and Syon wards it is absurd for you to try to suggest that ICG councillors were never active.You are still finding your feet as local ward councillors, I wish you well for your time in office and hope you make a success of it but a little more humility and a bit less silly one-upmanship would in my view serve you better with those you are seeking to win over.I honestly hope you will have the good sense to follow your own instincts rather than adopting the selfish and needlessly confrontational stance of your party colleague who doesn't even live in the borough yet aspires to influence events here in pursuit of what is clearly his own private agenda.  He does not have your interests at heart.It is to your credit that you helped out during the floods, for which I thank you.  It really isn't my intention to be patronising, but if you do what you clearly do best and leave the Southall idiot to his own devices I have every confidence that you could achieve great things over the coming four years and hopefully beyond.

Phil Andrews ● 5698d

Ex-councillor fisher is wrong. Myself and CLLR BAINS were there on the day the floods hit Isleworth ferrying people and their belongings back and forth in our cars. Didn't see you or any of the ICG lot there getting their hands dirty but am I surprised - no. As always you're all talk and no action.

Councillor Sue Sampson ● 5698d

Ah - Tweedle Dum, bang on schedule.As you were John.

Phil Andrews ● 5698d

Mr TaylorI've made no comment on MRAG, its civil action, Thames Water  or Mogden.If you read this solicitors website they appear, on the two cases they mention to have minimal recent flooding experience. No win no fee is mentioned but not guaranteed.Residents are surely entitled to an alternative view?

John Todd ● 5698d

"I'm with Steve on this"Well there's a surprise.

Robin Taylor ● 5699d

I'm with Steve on this, but I fear this discussion will not be complete until the other side of the local establishment double-act arrives onto this thread to join in with the condemnation of MRAG and all the rest of Thames Water's victims as is what usually happens.The ICG will, as Steve says, be launching a full scale information campaign very shortly to inform residents of the help that is available to them.

Phil Andrews ● 5699d

John, I really don't know why you are so infuriated that residents succeeded in hauling  Thames Water directors and senior managers before the High Court of Justice simply because the LBH Administration failed to take sufficient action against the water giant. I can only guess why you are so angry that the Legal Services Commission believed the case to be important enough (and in the national interest)  to fund the generic case. The fact that this leading firm of environmental solicitors has its Head Quarters in Wales is totally irrelevant.Similarly the fact that Thames Water is owned by  Macquarie Group Investment Bankers, Headquartered in Sydney Australia, is no doubt of little importance to Brentford flood victims. You say you 'await details of the hourly charge'. Who says there is a charge? What charge - if its a no win no fee agreement? The clue is in the wording.I am sure that you, as a Chiswick resident, aren't a victim of the floods. Neither am I; but I am simply passing on free information for those who have suffered the disaster caused by Thames Water and for which Ruth Cadbury was unable to obtain any assurances from Thames Water's Richard Aylard during her recent meeting. Similarly the Tory Administration was unable to obtain any assurances from Richard Aylard during the two fiasco Tory Chaired SDC meetings when it was agreed that Thames Water can do what it will. If you really want more information on legal options why don't you pick up the phone and speak to Hugh James'  flood expert Simon Ellis? Or you can continue to sit back and wait for the information to be published soon by the ICG? On the other hand the Borough Solicitor could offer legal assistance to victims?? Why don't you set that one in motion?  The Civic Centre is a little closer to home than Cardiff! In the meantime - while you sit back and do nothing,  residents who are victims of the recent Hounslow floods who are seeking advice should visithttp://www.hughjames.com/news_centre/news_library/2010/august/flooding_damage.aspx

Steve Taylor ● 5699d

This firm of solicitors is located in Cardiff. Mr Taylor has the benefit of a no win no fee arangement with them.I still await details of the hourly charge that the partner involved will charge residents for their 'service'.Cost effective? Who knows....

John Todd ● 5699d

Hugh James Solicitors have been acting for residents of Richmond and Hounslow in relation to claims against Thames Water concerning the Mogden Sewage Treatment Works. Residents who are victims of the recent Hounslow floods who are seeking advice should visithttp://www.hughjames.com/news_centre/news_library/2010/august/flooding_damage.aspxEven if residents are insured, there may be some expenses that won’t be recovered from the insurance company. There will also be a significant level of disruption and inconvenience caused over the next few weeks and months whilst repairs are carried out and residents may be entitled to compensation for this.

Steve Taylor ● 5700d

Through our MP, I requested an answer to the question as to why, when the water pressure dropped, an immediate response to shut the pumps down was not implemented. Thames Water  reply below: "Quote"Our monitoring systems at the London Water Control Centre were able to detect immediately that there was a problem following the burst mains and were able to raise the alarm and put the correct event procedures in place.However, if we had turned the pumps off we would have shut off the supply to other areas not supplied by this main. In other words, the pumps do not serve individual mains. The mains are not fitted either with apparatus so they can be sealed off remotely.  We also had to ensure that we had enough water rerouted into the affected supply zone so when we did shut off the main we lost supply to the least number of customers possible. Had we shut it off immediately we estimate we would have impacted in excess of 100,000 people."Unquote"Now if I was a resident of the stricken area, I ama sure that inconvenience to even 100,000 to be without water for a period, whilst localised sop valves on the burst main were closed, would have been far better than the resultant flooding and water damage and loss of business to all in the area.I guess its all a matter of perspective! 

Philip Weaver ● 5700d

"Distress, inconvenience etc are not issues they show any interest in."An attitude that residents living near Mogden are fully aware of yet was completely ignored when certain members of SDC chose to grant TW permission to expand. Ever thought you've been had Cllr. Cadbury?

Andrew Sibley ● 5702d

"Distress, inconvenience etc are not issues they show any interest in."An attitude that residents living near Mogden are fully aware of yet was completely ignored when certain members of SDC chose to grant TW permission to expand. Ever thought you've been had Cllr. Cadbury?

Andrew Sibley ● 5702d

This would be the very same Richard Aylard who misled you when you voted for expansion at Mogden Ruth?A pure coincidence I suspect of course but its funny how your meeting just happened to be the day after London Rd reopened and you are obviously responding to the condemnation regarding the lack of communication on these floodings by your Labour colleagues in Syon and Isleworth who yet again are noticable through their absence in local matters including your meeting

Paul Fisher ● 5702d