The regulator said that allowing SSE Water to be the supplier was the choice of the developer at the site, called Marine Wharf, and that the customers at the site would be “no worse off” than they would be if Thames Water was their supplier.
Consumer watchdog CC Water, however, sounded a note of caution about the appointment and others like it, noting that there were now 14 inset appointments in the Thames Water area. It asked whether the potential downside for Tnames Water customers of the growing number of insets had been fully explored.
In its response to a consultation on the Marine Wharf appointment, CCWater echoed concerns previously expressed, saying that it considered that the costs to Thames Water’s customers are clear,”but the benefits of are not”.
Ofwat assessed the potential cost to Thames Water customers of the Marine Wharf inset as 7 pence on each annual bill, and has previously suggested similar levels for other insets, but said there were also savings, for example the reduced cost to Thames of billing a single customer at the site, SSE Water , instead of billing households.
However, Ofwat noted CCWater’s call for “more thinking on what level of impact on Thames Waters’ customers should be considered as significant” as the number of inset appointments grows. .