Water corporations going through authorized motion over claims of air pollution and buyer overcharging

Six English water firms are going through authorized motion over allegations they under-reported air pollution discharges and overcharged clients consequently.

Professor Carolyn Roberts, an environmental and water guide, mentioned she is planning to convey a string of circumstances to the Competition Appeal Tribunal in a bid to safe greater than £800m compensation on behalf of 20 million clients.

She claims the businesses did not disclose the variety of sewage discharges, leading to households being “unfairly overcharged”.

Professor Roberts, who’s represented by Leigh Day Solicitors, is bringing her first declare – estimated to be price £330m – in opposition to Severn Trent Water, which serves eight million individuals throughout the Midlands and components of Wales.

It follows claims from campaigners that the River Severn is essentially the most polluted within the UK. They estimate waste was pumped into the waterway on 2,600 separate events in 2021.

Professor Roberts additionally plans to take motion in opposition to Thames Water, United Utilities, Anglian Water, Yorkshire Water and Northumbrian Water.

There has been rising public anger over sewage being pumped into Britain’s rivers and seas, prompting trade physique Water UK to subject an unprecedented public apology earlier this 12 months for not appearing rapidly sufficient on spills.

The organisation’s chair Ruth Kelly additionally admitted that campaigners had been “right to be upset about the current quality of our rivers and beaches”.

The authorities has additionally promised to crack down on the problem and is alleged to be contemplating limitless fines for corporations caught polluting.

However, Water UK described Professor Roberts’s authorized motion as “highly speculative” and “entirely without merit”, whereas Severn Trent mentioned her claims had been “completely wrong”.

But Professor Roberts claimed the water firms had damaged competitors legal guidelines by deceptive the Environment Agency and regulator Ofwat.

She added: “Like many others across the country, I have viewed with horror the escalating number of stories in the media regarding the volume of sewage discharged into our waterways and onto our beaches.

“It seems that due to the serial and severe underreporting on the coronary heart of those claims, water firms have been avoiding being penalised by Ofwat.

“I believe this has resulted in consumers being unfairly overcharged for sewage services.”

Read extra:
Dozens of triathletes get diarrhoea after swimming in sea
Sewage spills fall – however it’s ‘not right down to water corporations’
‘Increase in payments’ to pay for £10bn funding – trade chief

Leigh Day mentioned it was the primary environmental collective motion case of its variety.

It mentioned anybody who has paid a water invoice to one of many firms from April 2020 onwards – or April 2017 within the case of Severn Trent – could be entitled to come back ahead and declare compensation if the case is profitable.

The agency mentioned it anticipated any potential payouts to be funded by the corporations and their shareholders – and never from increased payments for patrons.

Zoe Mernick-Levene, a accomplice at Leigh Day, mentioned: “These claims are hugely significant.

“Not solely is compensation being hunted for tens of millions of consumers who’ve and proceed to pay increased water payments, however we hope that it’ll additionally ship a message to water firms that they can’t unlawfully pollute waterways and mislead their regulators with out consequence.”

A Water UK spokesperson mentioned: “This highly speculative claim is entirely without merit. The regulator has confirmed that over 99% of sewage works comply with their legal requirements.

“If firms fail to ship on their commitments, then buyer payments are already adjusted accordingly.”

A spokesperson for Severn Trent said: “This is a extremely speculative declare with no advantage which we strongly refute.

“Should pollutions ever occur, they are always reported to the Environment Agency. Any claim to the contrary is wholly and completely wrong.”