United Utilities + flooding

Lawsons road in Thornton flooded again this morning on the now famous bend it’s as bad as I’ve ever seen it.

I’ve lived in Thornton for over 35 years and despite numerous attempts to fix the problem they’ve failed miserably and it still floods.

Brainless and clueless comes to mind.
 
Came ask from down south this morning, horrendous weather from about 10 miles the other side of Preston. After you go down the dip at Preston on the M6, and then half way up the hill, it’s badly flooded, cars virtually planing.
 
I thought that it was ironic that yesterday I received a letter from UU asking me to complete a customer satisfaction survey. To gain access to the survey you had to use a QR code or a website link - neither of which was active.
 
River Wyre upper and lower on amber flood alerts. Almost high tide now, then half two ish in the morning. Not going to stop raining until 2-3am Monday. I’ve had to put up my flood barriers and home made air brick covers.
 
Lost Seasider said:
If anyone's interested, UU are spending >£600m p/a on infrastructure.
Click to expand...
Which is a good thing and should be welcomed.

It does appear though that they should have maybe done this a decade earlier and with larger volume?
Then repeated this annually.

Their current infrastructure is not fit for purpose to meet current demand. Poor leadership in not projecting forward properly.
 
Chunkylad said:
Which is a good thing and should be welcomed.

It does appear though that they should have maybe done this a decade earlier and with larger volume?
Then repeated this annually.

Their current infrastructure is not fit for purpose to meet current demand. Poor leadership in not projecting forward properly.
Click to expand...
  • 2011/12 - £660m;
  • 2012/13 - £660m;
  • 2013/14 - £692m;
  • 2014/15 - £729m;
  • 2015/16 - £666m;
  • 2016/17 - £718m.
Also I made a mistake for 2022/23, it was closer to £900m.
 
Lost Seasider said:
  • 2011/12 - £660m;
  • 2012/13 - £660m;
  • 2013/14 - £692m;
  • 2014/15 - £729m;
  • 2015/16 - £666m;
  • 2016/17 - £718m.
Also I made a mistake for 2022/23, it was closer to £900m.
Click to expand...

Good on them for investing those sums. Question is, do you think it was enough?

Operating income and Ebitda certainly shows they could have comfortably doubled that infrastructure spend level and still delivered exceptional dividend returns.
 
Last edited:
Lost Seasider said:
  • 2011/12 - £660m;
  • 2012/13 - £660m;
  • 2013/14 - £692m;
  • 2014/15 - £729m;
  • 2015/16 - £666m;
  • 2016/17 - £718m.
Also I made a mistake for 2022/23, it was closer to £900m.
Click to expand...
For the last two decades they've reaped huge profits, so let's have some context to that 'investment'. What turnover was there to allow for that level of investment?
 
Wizaard said:
For the last two decades they've reaped huge profits, so let's have some context to that 'investment'. What turnover was there to allow for that level of investment?
Click to expand...
On average between £1.7-1.8 billion.

United Utilities Group Revenue 2010-2023 | UUGRY

United Utilities Group annual/quarterly revenue history and growth rate from 2010 to 2023. Revenue can be defined as the amount of money a company receives from its customers in exchange for the sales of goods or services. Revenue is the top line item on an income statement from which all costs...
www.macrotrends.net www.macrotrends.net
 
Lost Seasider said:
The regulator seems to think so: https://www.ofwat.gov.uk/publication/water-company-performance-report-2021-22/

A fun fact: in 2003 their annual revenue was a fraction under £1.69bn, in 2023 it was £1.82bn, so a 7.7% rise in 20 years.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

As you argued last time. They had capacity to double their investment in sewage, leaks and reservoirs.
Beaches full of sewage, hose pipe bans, and flooded roads could have certainly have been lessened.

Issue is clear. Government appointed regulator did not have the clout nor desire to impose it for some reason, and the company didn’t choose to make those improvements without being told to do so.

In life some people will always work to rule. Others choose a different path.
 
Chunkylad said:
Absolutely.

As you argued last time. They had capacity to double their investment in sewage, leaks and reservoirs.
Beaches full of sewage, hose pipe bans, and flooded roads could have certainly have been lessened.

Issue is clear. Government appointed regulator did not have the clout nor desire to impose it for some reason, and the company didn’t choose to make those improvements without being told to do so.

In life some people will always work to rule. Others choose a different path.
Click to expand...
The point is that the regulator sets the amount they can charge and the performance the companies are expected to deliver, and they have prioritized keeping bills low for the last 20 years over even more investment in the infrastructure, whether they got the balance right is another question, and maybe you should be paying a lot more for your water to fund the investment.
 
Lost Seasider said:
The point is that the regulator sets the amount they can charge and the performance the companies are expected to deliver, and they have prioritized keeping bills low for the last 20 years over even more investment in the infrastructure, whether they got the balance right is another question, and maybe you should be paying a lot more for your water to fund the investment.
Click to expand...
Again you are correct.

Government appointed Regulator could give the option of the expected infrastructure investment element higher.

UU would effectively choose either to make us pay more for our water or reduce dividends.

That’s the beauty of a regulated private company. They’ve got latitude to choose customer experience over shareholders 👍

I’m glad the regulator is happy with the current balance that is struck and also you too Lost.
Personally as you might gather, I’d like to see the balance shift a little bit more towards not swimming in effluent and flooded streets and a reduced bonus / shareholder payment but that’s not my choice.
 
Chunkylad said:
UU would effectively choose either to make us pay more for our water or reduce dividends.
Click to expand...
The price is set by the regulator, as is the service quality, and the company is allowed to make a profit, otherwise there's no point in it being there in the first place.
 
How much has the UU debt level increased to fund the investment? And if it has gone up, who is carrying the risk - the taxpayer or the shareholders?

Isn't excess debt, the issue with Thames Water?

Genuine qs btw
 
bollieboy said:
You are almost there. Keep going.
Click to expand...
And you really think things would be better if we went back to public ownership?

There's a reason why Labour didn't renationalize it when they were in power, there's a reason Labour won't renationalize it if they get back into power.
 
Lost Seasider said:
And you really think things would be better if we went back to public ownership?

There's a reason why Labour didn't renationalize it when they were in power, there's a reason Labour won't renationalize it if they get back into power.
Click to expand...
Yep. It would be better. You are nearly there.
 
Lost did make a strong case backed up with empirical evidence of why a privatised industry with strong regulation is preferable to privatised.

I’m not old enough to remember privatised so I’ll run with that argument just for fun and send out a poll of what people would like UU to do next.

Maybe you can take that to work tomorrow Lost and tell the team what the locals want from UU
 
Chunkylad said:
I’m not old enough to remember privatised so I’ll run with that argument just for fun and send out a poll of what people would like UU to do next.
Click to expand...
I assume you mean nationalized, and the answer is it was a lot worse, many more pollution incidents, lots more interruptions, leaks etc.

The reason it was privatized in 1989, was that as a public body it was fighting for funds with other departments, such as the NHS, and education, and it was losing the fight, hence the massive backlog of investment in the sector.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top