|
Here are some of our previous water case histories.
Most organisations only check for anomalies and accept the status quo as being correct – this can lead to fundamental errors being left undetected for many years.
In the case of a client with a car retail showroom, through surveying their property, we found that different types of billing were effectively duplicating one another, with separate sets of accounts being issued for the same service.
We were able to have this duplication retrospectively corrected over nearly eight years and secure a refund of over £40,000 from their supplier.
An audit of supply invoices for a large School revealed that on one of their accounts, the method used to calculate sewerage charges was incorrect. We challenged the Water Company but found them to be unresponsive, and so referred the matter to the Consumer Council for Water.
Ultimately, the supplier in question admitted that our client had been overcharged for at least six years and agreed to refund almost £28,000, plus £300 compensation for failure to respond to five letters that we had written to them. They also agree to amend the method by which further sewerage charges would be calculated on the Schools account to avoid the problem re-occurring.
A review of invoices relating to the supply of Steam for a Manufacturing company located on an Industrial Park highlighted that the Estate owner had been charging their tenant on the wrong tariff. In this case they were charging our client as a small user rather than a medium user, which warrants a more competitive supply price.
We raised the issue with the Estate owner and negotiated a refund of £5000. In addition, they now have the ongoing benefit of lower charges.
A Garden Centre received an invoice from their supplier retrospectively adjusting consumption and charges for a meter that had been estimate billed for several years. This occurred due to the supplier taking an up to date reading.
Having reviewed the amended invoices, we highlighted an error in the way that water and sewage charges had been apportioned during the catch-up period, ultimately securing a refund of £23,000. This sum also included compensation for a leak that had gone undetected due to the prolonged history of inaccurate estimated meter readings.
We were able to secure a saving in excess of £22,000 per annum for leading food producer that uses vast quantities of Water at two of their Chicken Farms. Working closely with the Environment Agency, we were able to agree abstraction licenses and arrange for two boreholes to be drilled, removing the need for water to be supplied from the mains.
Our ongoing involvement requires us to ensure that amounts drawn from these boreholes does not exceed the volume agreed with the Environment Agency.
|