THE TROUBLESOME WATER SUPPLY AT GOONGUMPAS email johnlayte@gmail.com |
E&OE as of 11 May 2023 09:01
|
|
||||||||||||||
![]()
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply to SWW's 28 January 2022 ref 10886127 / 29674406 DRAFT (AS OF DATE BELOW)
Winter Cottage, Goongumpas, St.Day, Cornwall TR16 5JL johnlayte@gmail.com 01209 820146
1 March 2022
Miss A Gaen South West Water Peninsula House Ryden Lane Exeter EX2 7HR
Dear Miss Gaen
Thank you for your 28 January 2022 letter (Doc 61) concerning Judge Healy’s 4 January 2022 Order (Doc 60).
Your letter states “As you own. and are therefore responsible for, the supply pipe that runs to your property from the water mains on Lower Goongumpas Lane. you will need to conduct your own investigations in order to ascertain what (if any) connections have been added to the supply pipe“.
I dispute that I own any of the supply pipe “that runs to your property from the water mains on Lower Goongumpas Lane“. The supply pipe in Lower Goongumpas Lane is either your main or a communication pipe (Doc 63 and Doc 51). The pipe that SWW claim in (Doc 52) “South West Water has always maintained this is a single supply pipe to your three properties” but it is an extension of your main because you have received revenue not only from us (unmetered supply from 1973 - metered from 2009) but also Goon Farm (unmetered supply from about 1970 metered from about 2009 but actually still connected to our supply for free water), Carne View (unmetered supply from about 1978) and Harmony Cottage (unmetered supply from 1987 – metered from about 2009 (note SWW connected a meter to what they now say is our private pipe but without our permission if it was). Just because SWW bullied Carne View and Harmony Cottage into laying new supply pipes to Tailings End in 2012 and we forced Goon Farm to disconnect their illegal connection in 2015 does not mean your main reverts to a private pipe on 11 July 2017 (Doc 52) and to say South West Water has always maintained “ is obviously a lie.
Concerning the compliance (Doc 62 and Doc 62a) of animal troughs in the area (and beyond!) to the regulations your letter states “SWW's Water Regulations Team attended the site to confirm that there were no contamination concerns and ensure that the troughs in question were in compliance with relevant water regulations.” This absurd statement refers to Dr Parry’s 22 February 2017 letter (Doc 68) page 2.3 in which he states the “animal toughs in question” comply. The troughs in question (at the time) were - 1. 1, 2, 13 on Goon Farm land. 2. 7, 23, 25 on Mr Lanyon’s Higher Goongumpas Lane land. 3. 9, 18 on Mr Lanyon’s Lower Goongumpas Lane land. 4. 4, 24 on the Cabin’s Higher Goongumpas Lane land. 5. 5, 19 on Five Acres Lower Goongumpas Lane land. Please note the positions of these troughs can be viewed on the first page map on www.goongumpas.com and photos of them can be downloaded. Will SWW please return a copy of any trough photo they believe to be compliant signed as such. 2.3 Contamination from Animal Troughs Mr Layte has raised concerns regarding contamination caused from animal drinking troughs at neighbouring (sic) premises. SWW have advised Mr Layte on a number of occasions that our Regulations Team have completed investigations in the area. Mr Layte was advised of this in our letters dated 14 September 2015 (Appendix 10), 19 October 2015 (Appendix 11), 15 February 2016 (Appendix 12) and 25 November 2016 (Appendix 4).
A SWW Water Regulations Officer has visually inspected the toughs (sic) in question and can confirm that there are no contamination concerns present. The last inspection of the trough was completed on the 30 December 2016“.
Dr Parry may well have been told by the “SWW Regulations Officer” that the troughs in question were compliant and last inspected on 30 December 2016 but they were not compliant then (and are still not compliant in 2022) as can be seen from the photos on www.goongumpas.com. As I told SWW on 7 September 2018 (Doc 50) I am not willing to pay SWW for water that I do not consider safe to drink and I remain of that opinion today – whether (in the future) a Court can Order me to pay for water I do not consider fit to drink remains to be seen and whether SWW comply with Judge Healy’s 4 January 2022 Order also remains to be seen.
It is my opinion that all non-compliant animal troughs pose a serious risk to any property downstream of their position whether the pipe that feeds them is so called private or not. As I am sure SWW (and all other water companies) are aware the vast majority of them are in violation of the regulations (Doc 62 and Doc 62a) and it is time all animal troughs connected to mains water are banned and in the future are only fed from a 100% backflow proof main storage tank.
I remind you that I informed SWW of our zero water pressure (Doc 64) problem in 2012 and informed SWW of 4 animal troughs connected directly to our supply pipe on 2 February 2015 (Doc 65) NB at the time we were not aware that all these animal troughs were non compliant. By May 2015 we had discovered 3 more animal troughs connected directly to our supply pipe and informed SWW of their positions both verbally and by a website dated 8 May 2015. We later discovered that these animal troughs did not comply with the regulations (Doc 62 and Doc 62a) and due to the water pressure dropping to zero on numerous occasions (Doc 64) maintain that they had been polluting our water supply for many years and is the reason why we and our tenant had suffered from diarrhoea more often than normal and has not been the case since stopping drinking mains water on 10 March 2015 (Doc 66). When this possibility was mentioned to SWW’s Mike Shannon’s in 2015 his response was “Well you can’t prove it can you?” – well no of course not but we can prove the water dropped to zero on numerous occasions (Doc 64) – a prerequisite of back-flow and we can prove there are numerous troughs in the area that did not comply with regulations and were connected directly with our water supply (Doc 65) I think the balance of probabilities that we were poisoned is high.
I further remind you of my 6 February 2014 email to Brendon Green of Ofwat (which was copied to SWW) pointing out the huge amount of water that was disappearing. Obviously at this time our concern was only the huge amount of water that was disappearing (and nothing to do with the possibility that our drinking water was tainted by the non-compliant animal troughs directly connected with our supply) but on 28 April 2014 we received a threatening letter from SWW basically stating it was our responsibility to fix “the leak they had found on our supply pipe”. But was it?
Since stopping using mains water for drinking purposes on 10 March 2015 (on your Regulation officers advice) we have only used bottled water for drinking which to 11 February 2022 has cost us £1,620 (Doc 66) – SWW have refused to reimburse us for this.
I have, on 11 February 2022, undertaken an investigation of the local area and updated the web site accordingly to assist SWW in complying with the 4 January 2022 Order (Doc 60). I am of the view that none of the animal troughs shown on the web site map comply with the regulations (Doc 62) but if SWW think otherwise please download a photo and return it to me signed as being compliant. You will appreciate that I have only identified some of the troughs in the area and I am sure SWW will find many more in their attempt to comply with the Order and I would appreciate it if you will provide me with photos and locations of each other one you identify.
You will note that troughs 9 and 18 on the map are not connected to what you say is “our private pipe” but nevertheless are of concern to us. Please confirm whether these troughs are on a metered supply and confirm that the meter has a double-check valve. I realize rainwater is a category 5 risk and double-check valves are not a solution to back-flow risk (the trough obviously contains part rainwater) but I am of the opinion a double-check valve would help. Concerning the meters connected to Winter Cottage, Winter Cottage Annexe and Goonhillend Cottage and elsewhere various SWW employees have given me different answers to my question “Are double-check valves fitted?” – Yes, no and sometimes – will SWW confirm which answer is correct.
Central heating header tanks
Despite SWW’s protestations that my central heating header tank posed no risk (to me and others) (Doc 52) I do not agree (Doc 55) and neither does the Government as can be seen from the House of Commons Library, Policy Specialist (Environment), Science & Environment Section’s reply to my MP Sarah Newton’s request (Doc 99). My view was that my header tank contained 40+ year old rainwater (it was originally filled with rainwater in 1977 as I was told that it contained less minerals than mains water and was less likely to furr up the microbore pipes). From the beginning it contained additives (Corrosion inhibiter and anti freeze). It was topped up with mains water with an identical ball valve and ¾“ overflow as my roof cistern that I had converted to a rainwater distribution tank for toilets, washing machine, shower/bath etc (everything but drinking water). SWW’s Regulations officers condemned my roof rainwater tank because it had an emergency mains connection for use in drought conditions (not once in 2015 but on the odd occasion since hence we have used some mains water) and insisted I install back-flow prevention or permanently disconnect the mains connection – I permanently disconnected the mains connection to my rainwater distribution tank but as I was worried for my own safety I also permanently disconnected the direct mains connection to my central heating header tank and installed a small indirect tank to feed it (Doc 55). It was this small tank that SWW’s regulations officer, Richard Harrison, falsely claimed I had installed to deliberately deny him access to the main tank to inspect that I had permanently disconnected the mains feed to it in his inspection on 17 September 2015 (see video of the inspection) and Paul Mitchell’s 22 September 2015 letter confirming that I had deliberately installed “works” to make “inspection impossible and infeasible”. My 9 October 2015 response to Mr Mitchell’s 22 September 2015 letter can be viewed HERE – to-date I have not received an apology from Mr Mitchell. For the record my extra feed tank to the central heating header tank did not in any way restrict access to the main tank Mr Harrison had visited to inspect. Compensation offered by SWW Our survey of the usage on the pipe leading to our properties from The Tailings End stop tap and meter re-installed by SWW on 23 January 2015 lasted from 23 January 2015 until 31 August 2015. It involved reading the meters, on a more or less daily basis, at Winter Cottage, Winter Cottage Annexe and Goonhillend Cottage and comparing the total with the reading at Tailings End to calculate the discrepancy which is illegal use (mainly animal troughs) and any leaks on properties connected to the pipe. Initially this showed that 97,000 litres (worth £199) was disappearing every week (Doc 67) and had been doing so for a very long time as the water pressure had been low (sometimes zero) since we moved here in 1973 and in 2015 that would mean about 213 million litres worth about £436,000 (at 2015 prices) had been wasted because of SWW’s failure to investigate the low water pressure reported by us and our neighbours. We turned off the stop tap at Tailings End which deprived all users of water (including us!) and on 2 February 2015 (Doc 65) informed SWW of this. Because an unknown person turned the Tailings End stop tap back on we were obliged to turn it off again and install a padlock on the meter housing (Doc 95) to prevent it being turned back on. It should be noted that in his defence (paragraph 26) to the WATRS Adjudicator Dr Parry accuses me of damaging the meter housing and breaking the law by attaching a padlock albeit I told SWW I was going to lock it and supplied SWW with a key. By depriving all the users of free water the were forced into making new connections to SWW’s main and start paying for the water for the first time in years. By 16 March 2015 the wastage from illegal connections, some with leaks, had ceased meaning SWW had saved £199 per week and gained extra revenue from several of their customers as they were now obliged to pay for their water for the first time in years. Reading the meters for 220 days had involved us walking about 200 miles, excavating the lane had taken the 3 of us several hours work and installing the rainwater system had cost several hundred pounds in materials. We had saved SWW £6254.00 in wasted water and increased their revenue by an unknown amount by “obliging” customers to pay for water they had been getting for free for years. I sent SWW a bill for £3630.00 + VAT (Doc 56) to be shared between the 3 of us depending on the time each of us had spent conducting the survey. (see letter from SWW managing director Dr S Bird to our MP) SWW refused to pay but did offer me £1,500.00 because the leakage notice was apparently the wrong thing to send us (and of course we had proved the leak was nothing to do with “our” pipe – the leak(s) were on other illegal connections to our pipe rather than on the pipe itself. I did not accept the £1,500 offer as it was only made to me and the leakage notice was sent to all 3 of us and we pointed this out to SWW in a 17 July 2015 email with our 17 July 2015 letter to SWW attached (Doc 58). Following the illegal use ceasing on 16 March 2015 we continued to monitor the Tailings End meter on a daily basis until 31 August 2015 and the wastage remained zero. From 31 August 2015 I monitored the Tailings End meter roughly every 3 months and all was well until 30 September 2018 when I noticed the meter was turning fast again indicating a leak. I informed SWW (C. Bloxton) of this and was told the pipe is private and it was my responsibility to fix. I informed SWW leakage and they said they would investigate but after about 3 weeks I phoned them again and was told that C. Bloxton had (allegedly) told them not to investigate as it was my problem. As can be seen from (Doc 66) the wastage was considerable building up to an average of 10,000 litres per day over 200 day period and obviously not only a leak as the usage varied. I reminded SWW of this problem several times over the years but they did nothing. By chance I found a leak in Higher Goongumpas Lane in January 2020 and repaired it which reduced the wastage but didn’t stop it. Since then the wastage has reduced to about 80 litres per day which is almost certainly an animal trough somewhere. Between 30 September 2018 and 11 January 2022 the wastage (leaks and illegal usage) has amounted to 4,067,158 litres (worth £8,335) but it is worth noting that our 2015 survey reduced SWW weekly wastage of 97,190 litres to 0 litres for 185 weeks (until 30 September 2018). This means we saved SWW 17,980,150 litres of water worth £36,815 plus the extra revenue from customers we forced to pay for the water they had been getting for years! I think it rather ungrateful for SWW to take me to Court with claims H1EW1F5F £260.86 and H8EW1FSF £193.62 (total £454.48) for water I refuse to drink and I and my neighbours have paid £1,620 for bottled water for drinking purposes since SWW regulations officers told not to drink on 10 March 2015.
To conclude.
1. I do not agree that any of the supply pipe from Tailings End is private and my responsibility. It has for 66 years been the responsibility of SWW and their predecessors because it has been used to supply water to at least 3 other properties and 2 of them have paid SWW for the water (1 did not). We and the two paying customers complained to SWW about low water pressure in about 2012. SWW told all 3 of us it was a private pipe and bullied the other 2 into laying new pipes under Lower Goongumpas Lane which they did albeit against the law (Doc 51) for private individuals to excavate public byways. Once they had laid new pipes SWW then claimed that the pipe was solely our responsibility – even to the extent it was our responsibility to police the area for non-compliant animal troughs – there is about 70 acres of land surrounding the pipe and I maintain it is SWW’s responsibility to police and not mine. If I had given permission for other properties to connect to what SWW claim is my / our “private pipe” then maybe but we did not.
2. I believe SWW should recompense the 2 properties they bullied into illegally laying new supply pipes under Lower Goongumpas Lane in about 2012 when it was SWW’s responsibility for that pipe and always had been. It was a 56 year old pipe at the time – it is 66 years old now and should be replaced to prevent properties re-connecting to get free water and lower the likelihood of leaks on the pipe itself occurring or on the properties connected to it and I would suggest (Doc 22) would lessen the chance of leaks on the pipe laid under the public byway but would not stop any of the properties from using non-compliant animal troughs however SWW would no longer be able to bleat “it is a private pipe” and “me and my neighbours responsibility” to point out where the non-compliant animal troughs are located as your letter 28 January 2022 letter (Doc 61) obviously does “As you own. and are therefore responsible for, the supply pipe that runs to your property from the water mains on Lower Goongumpas Lane. you will need to conduct your own investigations in order to ascertain what (if any) connections have been added to the supply pipe“. I maintain it is SWW’s responsibility to enforce their own regulations regarding animal troughs on their customers and it is not the responsibility of their neighbours to act as SWW’s Police force or even to identify any violations but in this case I have identified several possible violations on www.goongumpas.com for SWW’s benefit. 3. I do not agree that the WATRS Adjudicator’s decision that the pipe laid under the public byway Lower Goongumpas Lane is our private pipe because “The Lane is privately owned (by West Country Minerals)” has any merit as most lanes in Cornwall are privately owned (Doc 18) and The Highways Authority agrees with me (Doc 51) in that it is the various utilities that are responsible for pipes etc laid under public highways and byways furthermore SWW’s own document (Doc 63) states that the pipe laid under the road is SWW’s responsibility and not the property owners. 4. I believe the Court should overturn the WATRS Adjudicator’s Decision as it was achieved by Dr Parry’s Defence which contained several lies albeit probably not deliberate as he had been misinformed by other SWW staff – for example the map supplied to Dr Parry by SWW by Richard Harrison and Kevin Bray. My contemporaneous response to Dr Parry’s Defence can be seen HERE. 5. The WATRS decision I believe should be investigated (It is confidential so I cannot publish it here) but the Adjudicator is either very gullible in believing SWW’s Defence or there is some sort of “arrangement” between SWW and WATRS to declare pipes as “private” even though they are not. 6. There is no doubt whatsoever that Dr Parry’s Defence contained lies and whether that is criminal or not is not for me to speculate but I think he should be investigated which is why I will be copying this document to the Police. 7. I will object if SWW mentions the WATRS Decision at the 30 March 2022 Hearing and will be obliged to apply to the Court to overturn the Decision if they do. 8. I am certain that our water supply is not of a quality suitable to drink not only because of the numerous local non-compliant drinking troughs (see www.goongumpas.com) but also the tens of thousands of non-compliant animal troughs in the wider area upstream of our properties such as troughs 9 and 18 shown on www.goongumpas.com. 9. I believe central heating header tanks pose a serious risk to health (particularly to the owner) and SWW should warn all their customers of the risk so that they have the opportunity to install protection as I have done. See (Doc 52), (Doc 55) and (Doc 99). 10. I believe SWW put all three of us at considerable risk to our health when I informed SWW of our zero water pressure (Doc 64) problem in 2012 because SWW knew we were in a rural area with multiple animal troughs and that back-flow / siphonage into our supply from non-compliant troughs is much more likely to occur in zero pressure conditions and contaminated water be “delivered” to our properties once the pressure increased. SWW, at the very least, should have determined that there were no non-compliant animal troughs in the area in 2012. It has taken till 2022 and a Court Order to get SWW to do what they should have done in 2012 and it remains to be seen if they comply. I think SWW are very lucky that it was only diarrhoea we suffered from rather than something more serious. Yours Faithfully
JH Layte and KM Layte
Attachments
Doc 15 Suspected leak 2016 Doc 16 Same leak 2021 Doc 17 Dr Parry HP3 map supplied to the WATRS Adjudicator (with truthful comments added) Doc 18 Privately owned roads (West Country Minerals) Doc18A Map Dr Parry supplied to WATRS showing Local privately owned roads (West Country Minerals) but a deliberately cropped version of Doc 18 Doc 19 Dr Parry Defence to WATRS – several lies probably not deliberate but misinformed by other SWW staff Doc 21 Annotated version of Dr Parry Defence to WATRS Doc 22 Suggested SWW map to resolve all leak issues but not non-compliant troughs Doc 23 11 July 2017 letter from SWW refusing to replace the pipe in Lower Goongumpas Lane Doc 24 SWW 24 April 2014 Leakage notice (1 of 3) Doc 25 22 September 2015 SWW letter from Paul Mitchell Doc 26 9 October 2015 response to 22 September 2015 letter from Paul Mitchell Doc 27 Letter from SWW Dr S Bird to Sarah Newton MP Doc 50 20 September 2018 letter from C Broxton Doc 51 E-mail from Cornwall Highways Doc 60 4 January 2022 Court Order Doc 61 SWW 28 January 2022 letter re 4 January Court Order Doc 62 Compliant animal trough diagram Doc 63 Responsibility of SWW pipework laid under a road Doc 64 Some Zero pressure readings Doc 66 Survey between 30 September 2018 to 11 February 2022 Doc 67 First survey 23 January 2015 to 30 January 2015 Doc 68 22 February 2017 Dr Parry investigation response Doc 70 Google map showing positions of local non-compliant troughs
Doc 71 Non compliant animal troughs 1 & 2 on 6 December 2016 Doc 72 Animal trough 1 still non-compliant on 23 on January 2018 Doc 77 Animal trough 2 still non-compliant on 24 on January 2018 Doc 79 Animal trough 2 still non-compliant on 10 February 2022 Doc 80 Animal trough 12 non-compliant on 24 September 2018 (ball valve submerged) Doc 85 Some overground pipes reported to SWW in December 2016 Doc 90 Animal trough 9 non-compliant on 10 February 2022. Not connected to what SWW call our “private pipe” but upstream of our properties and of concern Doc 95 Notice on Tailings End meter Doc 99 Sarah Newton MP 3 March 2016 email concerning central heating header tanks
To be completed before deadline of 4pm 1 March 2022
|
Last updated
11 May 2023 09:01