Water company fined for not supplying data

Anglian Water has been fined £50,000 following a trial at Peterborough Magistrates' Court

A water company has been ordered to pay £50,000 after being convicted of not complying with a requirement to provide data to the Environment Agency.

Anglian Water was found guilty in May of failing, without reasonable excuse, to comply with a requirement to provide records following a trial at Peterborough Magistrates' Court, the agency said.

It added it had brought the case against Anglian Water following a wider investigation into "potential non-compliance" with environmental permit conditions.

At a sentencing hearing Anglian Water was fined £25,000, plus £25,000 in costs. The water company said it was "disappointed" but the "low level of sentence" reflected that "this was not a significant failure".

'Precedent'

The Environment Agency said it was the first conviction of its kind that it had brought against a water company and set a precedent for the regulation of non-compliant companies.

The agency said it had served several statutory requirements for records on Anglian Water Services Ltd and it had been convicted of failing to respond to one of these notices, served between January 2022 and January 2023.

The water company had entered a plea of not guilty to the charge, claiming that it had a reasonable excuse for non-compliance but the district judge, Kenneth Sheraton, rejected this claim.

The case against Anglian Water Services Ltd arose out of a wider criminal investigation involving ten English water companies looking into potential non-compliance with environmental permit conditions at more than 2,000 wastewater treatment works, the agency said.

'Proportionate fine'

Anglian Water said it had been found not guilty of "two more serious charges" of failing to provide data

In a statement, it said that the £25,000 fine on the remaining charge was "proportionate and takes into account our arguments in this case".

"Anglian Water has always maintained, and the judge concurred, that our course of action and time taken to respond with data to the Environment Agency was reasonable," a spokesman said.

"This was reflected in the fact that we were found not guilty of the two main charges.

"While we are disappointed with the finding in relation to the first charge, the low level of sentence reflects our view that this was not a significant failure on our part."