The Guaranteed Standards Scheme: Call for Evidence
The Guaranteed Standards Scheme (GSS) has been in place for over 30 years. Over that time, there has been little change to either the standards of service or the statutory payments to customers. Given the changes that have taken place over the last two decades, within the water industry, the wider economy, and in consumers’ expectations, we want to understand if the GSS in its current form still adequately supports customers and reflects the impact that incidents have on those who experience poor service.
In August 2023, we published a call for evidence to help us understand water companies and other stakeholders’ views on the current GSS. Our aim is to develop a set of recommendations for changes to the statutory standards.
Among the issues that we asked companies to consider, we would like feedback on the following questions:
- Within the current standards what do you feel works well and why?
- Are there new standards we should add, are there others that are out of date and need revising and if so, how?
- Should payments better reflect the impact of service failures on customers, taking into consideration both the direct financial costs and the inconvenience?
- Should different service standards apply for customers who need extra help or who have been identified as needing extra help, especially those on the priority services register?
As well as the call for evidence, we will be setting up an industry working group to help us consider the responses and develop our final recommendations.
Call for Evidence responses
Between August and October 2023, we asked you to submit your views or comments on GSS. You can download or view the responses we received on this page.
We received 25 responses from 15 appointed water companies, 4 retailers, 3 NAVs, representative bodies for both retailers and NAVs and one consultancy firm.
There was a general consensus that GSS continues to be a useful mechanism to protect customers and drive improvements but requires refreshing in order to keep up with inflation, technology, industry working practices and customer expectations. Some respondents proposed including regular reviews to ensure the standards continue to remain up-to-date.
Respondents provided feedback on the specific questions and changes to GSS posed in our call for evidence as well as offering further suggestions of other areas where standards could be revised or added. Common themes arising in the responses include:
- Removing or reviewing the extreme weather exception
- Whether the retail standards are appropriate for non-household customers
- The working relationships and responsibilities between wholesalers, retailers and NAVs
- Visibility and clarity of GSS for customers
- Reflecting modern methods of communication and payment in the standards
- Appointment flexibility
- Standards for customers on the Priority Services Register
- Reviewing the low pressure standard
- Repeat or extended service failures
- A standard for flooding from a water main
- Levels of payment
We will continue to explore the themes raised through the call for evidence with the GSS industry working group and intend to consult with the wider industry on our recommendations late summer 2024.
Two of our responses were submitted by email:
Hi Sarah
Hope you are well.
A few thoughts from South Staffs and Cambridge Water ref GSS scheme.
Within the current standards what do you feel works well and why?
We believe that the consistent industry wide approach is a positive, and we also believe that the GSS scheme provides an incentive for wholesalers to meet operational standards through a customer lens. South Staffs Water / Cambridge Water are on track and aligned to the SLAs associated with GSS, and believe these are fit for purpose.
Are there new standards we should add, are there others that are out of date and need revising and if so, how?
We would encourage the payment amounts to be reviewed to ensure they are aligned to average bills. We’ve also considered that call wait time could become a standard.
Should payments better reflect the impact of service failures on customers, taking into consideration both the direct financial costs and the inconvenience?
For appointments that have been missed and no contact made to advise, we believe that £20 may not be enough to address the inconvenience to customers. We are proud of our low rate for these types of error, and understand the customer impact (e.g. customer booked time off work).
Should different service standards apply for customers who need extra help or who have been identified as needing extra help, especially those on the priority services register?
We believe that additional support could be provided via GSS to customers on the PSR register. We sign customers up to this with the commitment of ‘we will give you the support you need’ as a different service, so this could be tracked and monitored accordingly.
Thanks
Good to see this consultation taking place and we would like offer comments as follows:
Within the current standards what works well and why?
We believe the standards work will provided they are complied with and in this regard we find some water companies very diligently comply whereas other see fit to ignore them. In this regard, we have had to ask Ofwat to interpret standards as part of a dispute we had with Thames Water whereby Thames Water felt the standards did not apply to them. Ofwat have in effect confirmed our thinking on the matter and this has been shared with Thames water who are now in the process of changing their systems to accommodate same. The important points here are that Thames Water simply didn’t recognise their failings and as such, would have under reported same (giving the impression their service was better than it actually was) and in effect – riding “rough shod” over Customers. (Evidence is available of this.). Our conclusion is current standards could work well if enforcement and awareness was improved.
Are there new standards that should be added, are there others that are out of date and need revising and if so, how?
Yes there are but until we fix the current failings, new standards should not be introduced.
Should payments better reflect the impact of service failures on customers, taking into consideration both the direct financial costs and the inconvenience?
Payments should be linked so as to increase automatically and continue to be nominal.
Should different service standards apply for customers who need extra help or who have been identified as needing extra help, especially those on the priority services register?
No
Hope this helps.