Thames Water...

F

Fred Bonney

Guest
Lets hope that OFWAT enforces the extra ?150m.expediture.
Any fine, would have only gone into Gordons' pocket, and we know how Ron would have liked that,don't we? ;o0
 

njb51

Well-known member
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
4,350
Reaction score
1
Location
Epsom, Surrey
Making them put ?150 million into the problems is alot more effective than paying the government to tell you there is a problem.
 
E

EC

Guest
Still a total pi55 take though, when you consider

a)The profits being made
b)The poor service to the consumer
c)The genuine lack of investment (until now) to improve services.

They should have fined them and insisted on investment!
 
W

Wolfman Woody

Guest
It's not so much a pi$$ take than an absolute farce.

There's no time scale to the expenditure so effectively they could spend it next year or the year after. Some good that'll do us now.

Also, there doesn't seem to be anything to say they have to continue spending the same intended amount in succesive years. Therefore, next years spending could just be the ?150m and they could pocket the amount they would normally have spent.

They should have had the ?350m profit they made suspended until it was ALL spent on fixing leaks within 12 months.
 
W

Wolfman Woody

Guest
Do you know that because of this stupid rule about not watering your garden with a hosepipe, I have to watch my wife every night breaking her back and in this heat lugging bucket fulls of water across the garden just to water a few flowers that could easily be reached with a hosepipe.

It really makes me feel guilty.
 
Y

yoggy

Guest
No doubt a certain well known columnist wont mention about this farce with Thames water??!!!!!!!!
 
Top