?5000 Awarded to ACA Member

Nice result for the ACA, but I reckon £5000 is a pittance for the death and destruction of the whole eco system of miles of prime river. And just look at the other cases the ACA are fighting against this wealthy company that has scant regard for the fish and other creatures it is poisoning.

It's not the fault of the ACA that this negligent company has shelled out mere pocket money. If it had more members and more finance to fight with it could fight with a lot more power.

If you're not a member of the ACA how do feel about this?

From United Utilities website -

“Main business principles <ul>[*]We value and respect our employees [*]We focus on the needs of our customers [*]We respect the contribution and rights of our investors [*]We seek constructive business relationships [*]We are good corporate citizens [*]We seek to demonstrate integrity, honesty and openness”[/list] <!-- #START Load Associated Document Information -->

“Our commitment to sustainable development and our principles are set out in our sustainable development policy. What sustainable development means to United Utilities and how we are approaching it is explained in our strategy, Making Life Better. This contains details of our sustainability effects, the way we manage these as well as discussion on some of the challenges and opportunities sustainability brings.”

“We have a sustainable development policy that commits us to working in a way that conserves natural resources, protects and enhances the environment, supports the communities we serve and maintains economic growth. United Utilities’s procurement department is committed to getting this balance right and has, as a result, extended the existing sustainable procurement work we were already undertaking.”

.

.

Hmmm, methinks it's a talk, paying lip service to trendy statements.

Methinks it's bollox.

The word for what UU use in their Sustainable Development Policy is "Greenwash" Yep it Bollox!

yep, but of course we all knew this, itds one of the agencies, well done ACA

It was posts such as this that prompted me to join the ACA.

Back in the 1980's we worked on a lot of sewer surveysfor local authorities inthe old North West Water area. At that time there were a lot of illegal storm water connections, overflows,from foul sewers which NW water denied were happening. Seems nothing has changed.

it just annoys me that I have to join the ACA to get things done ......................

the government and EA should be doing this with our money from licences and taxes

Anybody who supplies a service, needs the customer to keep an eye on them.

If you've paid supplier for a specific individualservice,you can sort them out.

As individuals, you all know we have no say <u>but</u>, with a 'consumer' body,such as the ACA acting on our collectivebehalf, wewill get our problems dealt with.

As anglers therefore,we have a duty to make our 'consumer' body, more powerful than it already is.

SO,JOIN UP <u>NOW</u>

I told my wife about this at lunchtime and the fact that they'd settled with £5,000.

She used to work for Severn Trent, another utility company and her comment was -

"C****t! The bar bill for the director's Christmas luncheon would be more than that."

.

£5,000 is petty cash for them. I'll bet their treasurer keeps more than that in his little tin under the desk. "Pathetic" is not the word for it. Derisory is so much more suitable, they're taking the peas.

Fred I know what you saying

it just gets me that the ACA has to fight for you and me .........................there should be no fight !

Couldn't agree more,Cakey.

Unfortunately it's the way of life now,only football managers seem to be answerable nowdays!

All anglers should be members of the ACA.

Expect big things from them in the next few months/ years as they work on the EU Water Framework Directive

Am I right in saying Fishingmagic has 40,000 members. The ACA has less than 8,000...think what ACA could do with all that money if everyone joined.

I'm sorry, and i'll take the flack as it comes, but i think the ACA settled far to soon..........or perhaps i don't know the full story?

This really is "expenses" stuff to a company that throws about this sort of money......why didn't the AM push this bigtime?

As I understand it,but I can't find the info. the ACA only act for the member club concerned.

There was an out of court settlement offered and that appears to have been accepted by the club.

From memory, the EA have the ability to take these matters further,but on a different basis.

this would have down to the advice given by the lawyers representing the ASA. i think they should start looking for lawyers with more balls!

Yep....i think it a pittance and the companies own lawyers probably sent in a bigger bill for getting such a low settlement?

As i remember it Fred, the EA have the power to prosecute? i'm sure small time farmers have been prosecuted and fined more than this? perhaps this company was to?

If they weren't and this £5000 got them out of court andbad publicity they were really taking the pi**!

1. "Ithink the ACA settled far to soon"
2. "Ithink they should start looking for lawyers with more balls!"

1. Maybe they needed more money/power to take on such a massive company

2. Lawyers with more balls cost more money.

SOLUTION: More members of the ACA = More money = More Power = Bigger settlements.

And companies that may think twice before poisoning a water again (it may be your water next)

<u>Give the ACA a fighting chance and JOIN</u>

Dear All,

I'm sorry if our press release didn't make the full story about this case clear. We were just celebrating the fact that we had succeeded in making a civil claim for compensation for the loss of angling amenity of the angling club affected by the pollution. We got the club £5,000 to compensate them for not being able to fish the river while it was recovering. The Environment Agency previously brought a criminal prosecution for this offence and United Utilities was fined £35,000. They also had to pay the Agency's costs of £6,883.75 and they had to pay £25,904.50 for restocking (£3,904.50 of which went to the club).

Each case is different. Sometimes we win more in compensation than the criminal court awards as a fine. Often we make claims when there is no criminal prosecution. By supporting the ACA, our members know that we will get money back to the angling clubs affected and that we will add to the impact of the Agency's prosecutions. If the size of fines and the lack of enforcement action generally enrages you, then please join us, because it enrages us too and we're doing something about it! For more examples of cases we are working on, please visit: http://www.a-c-a.org/caseupdates.php

Most importantly, however, I will not stand for anyone criticising the size of our in-house lawyers' balls! They have settled 23 claims this year, for hundreds of thousands of pounds, and they stand up fearlessly to aggressive farmers, multinational companies and governments on behalf of anglers. Expertise, dedication, cunning and balls they have in huge quantities. What they don't have is unlimited resources because only 7,500 anglers can spare £20 a year to support the unique work of the ACA.

All best wishes,

Mark

Mark Lloyd

Executive Director, ACA

Most importantly, however, I will not stand for anyone criticising the size of our in-house lawyers' balls!

I take it his name is Buster Gonads

Hahahaha that's the acest thing I've ever seen on here!