|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Letters to Managing Directors |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MD 227
To Managing Directors of all
water and sewerage companies
and water only companies
13 November 2007
Outcome of MD220 review of companies' systems, procedures and controls for compliance with the GSS Regulations and reporting of customer service data in the June return
In MD220 we required each company to undertake a specific review and document the systems, procedures and controls it uses to manage and report its compliance with the Water Supply and Sewerage Services (Customer Service Standards) Regulations 1989 (the GSS Regulations). In March each company submitted its findings, along with a report from its auditor. Each company also committed to an action plan to address the weaknesses or risks found during the review.
It was disappointing that every company identified weaknesses or areas of risk and improvements which could and should be made to its processes. For example most companies found parts of their business where they were not properly tracking appointments to ensure that GSS failures were avoided or identified.
We note that companies are making good progress in delivering the actions set out in their action plans and many of the steps needed to improve processes and systems are already complete. Where more complex IT changes offer the most robust solution, companies have put in place interim manual processes to address the issue until such time as new technology is in place. Each company will report on completion of any remaining steps in its action plan in its 2008 June Return.
We believe that the improvements resulting from the MD220 review mean that customers can now be more confident that companies will deliver the required levels of service or will pay the required amounts if standards are not met.
This exercise has highlighted how important it is that customers understand their rights under the GSS Regulations so as to be able to claim payments where appropriate and so they are able to make informed judgements about the level of service their water company provides. The GSS Regulations specifically require each company to "at least once in every financial year provide every customer to whom it presents an account in that year with a detailed statement of the rights provided by these Regulations". As a minimum Ofwat expects each customer to be sent, unsolicited, a summary of the service standards they are entitled to and any payments due if these standards are not met and, where necessary, a clear indication where further detailed information may be obtained. Each company should consider the best route to communicate with their customers and we would expect to see more and more innovative ways of informing customers of their rights.
The MD220 review was driven by lack of compliance by a number of companies and issues identified by our annual monitoring. It imposed a significant regulatory burden, both on the companies and on Ofwat. While this more detailed examination revealed issues at all companies that needed to be addressed, we consider that this level of intensive scrutiny should not be necessary in a mature industry with a clear and well understood regulatory and compliance environment.
Consequently, we do not propose to increase the regulatory burden on companies by collecting GSS methodology statements in the June Return each year but expect you to inform us of significant changes to your systems, procedures or controls and to ensure that they are properly reflected in your internal documents. We will write separately highlighting areas which we think could be set out more clearly in your methodology statements. We may also, from time to time, look more closely at the methodologies of individual companies, groups of companies or all companies.
We take this opportunity to remind all companies that responsibility for compliance with the GSS Regulations and the provision of reliable, accurate and complete information on GSS and customer service rests with the company. As with all compliance issues, accountability for failure also lies with the company. Ofwat will take appropriate action (including further reviews if that is considered necessary) should further concerns arise.
Regina Finn
|
|