South West Water fined £1.8m after admitting offences linked to Devon cryptosporidium outbreak
The outbreak happened in 2024 and thousands of homes and businesses had to boil their water before drinking it
South West Water has been fined £1.853m after admitting to offences relating to a cryptosporidium outbreak in Brixham and South Devon in May 2024.
At its height almost 17,000 homes and businesses had to boil their water before drinking it – with 18 later formally told it was safe to drink when it wasn’t.
Exeter Magistrate Stuart Smith today heard hundreds were left ill and the parasite’s outbreak has impacted ongoing school attendance, as well as mental health and exam results.
The court also heard South West Water had previously been convicted of 137 offences – including one in 2018 for the same type of offence relating to failing to supply water fit for human consumption.
South West Water agreed to pay the costs of the prosecution of £75,000.
What was the impact?
The court was told there were 537 cases of people affected and 'most before the boil water notice' was issued. The judge was told 233 people had to stay off work or school and 13 were unable to go to work because it was closed as a result of the outbreak.
Symptoms included diarrhea, stomach cramps and sickness. Some complained about poor service and the messages they received from SWW - whilst recognising staff members on the ground doing what they could.
In passages from the various victim impact statements, one person said they were admitted to hospital on May eighth, after being ill from the fifth - outlining their symptoms which left them ill for three weeks and 'going in and out of consciousness'.
Others said they now refuse to drink tap water at home - remembering water tasting 'stale' the morning before they went on holiday in Spain - which was 'severely affected' by the impact of the outbreak and losing almost a stone of weight and still not feeling fully recovered.
The court was told some of those impacted felt 'embarrassed' about the impact on them - with some children still having nightmares about a 'bug in the water'.
A parent of one child, aged eight, who is autistic, described the child being hospitalised as 'horrendous' leaving them 'distressed', suffering weight loss and long-term impacts with anxiety and food avoidance.
Another parent said their children refused to drink tap water for months afterwards, now doing so after they installed water filters which must be frequently checked and replaced.
One child missed a lot of school as a result of the outbreak and described struggling to revise.
Brixham College confirmed 'a dropped attendance rate' across years 7 to 13, which more severely impacted disadvantaged children and set back the school's work with persistent absenteeism - suggesting it had an impact on exam outcomes.
Another school, within the boil water notice area, reflected the loss of five staff during the outbreak and its impact on teaching and finances.
What happened?
The court heard 'the defendant failed to inspect the air valve properly', as well as checking the wider farm 'which was characterised as a high-risk site'.
Exeter Magistrates was told cryptosporidium likely entered the supply through farmland, used for both sheep and cattle - and it was unclear if a damaged air valve or 'crossed connection' was at fault, but evidence suggests once the air valve was repaired cases stopped.
The hearing was told the air valve had been renewed by South West Water in 2008 or 2009 and South West Water does test for 'indicators' of things like the parasite in its supply.
The court heard on May 10, 2024, UKHSA was notified about five cryptosporidium cases at Torbay Hospital and the local council also alerted. Six more cases were identified on the 13th, with a 'situation' later declared because of the 'significance'.
South West Water was told about eight cases by email, with no source of infection identified. An employee of SWW later called the DWI that day on the 13th and confirmed they had been contacted with reports by a customer of a case of the parasite.
On the 14th, the UKHSA received a 'significant' number of calls overnight, with anxiety growing locally due to social media posts about the situation.
The court was told the situation was 'nothing too significant' in a voicemail to the UKHSA from South West Water, as it confirmed the situation was being investigated by the head of water quality, which was then advised to check its network.
On the 14th, South West Water (SWW) said in a public statement it had tested the network and 'samples had come back clear' with a meeting taking place of the outbreak control team at lunchtime on the 14th. There were 19 confirmed cases at this point, but SWW said data had no 'abnormal trend' in terms of the network being compromised. High volume direct measuring water testing had been implemented, with a separate testing device put at the Hillhead service reservoir site on the 13th and in a business at 4pm on the 14th to check the situation.
The court heard notes from the time revealed it was 'unusual to see so many cases in such a close proximity' on the 14th. It was later agreed a 'precautionary boil notice could be considered' with SWW saying it would do so if needed - before just after 5pm on May 14th, indicating it was investigating 17 suspected cases. A boil notice was implemented at 9.30pm once the 'scope' of the boil notice was agreed. It covered more than 16,000 homes and businesses, with media announcements made and door-knocking beginning.
By 10am on May 15th, 22 cases were confirmed and 155 suspected cases with an 'animal source' implied at that stage.
Later that afternoon an 'air valve without a cover and completely covered in mud' was located, and the air valve was found to be leaking with a new chamber section delivered.
On May 16th, the Drinking Water Inspectorate took samples at Hillhead - which was later confirmed as the 'Brixham strain'.
On the 18th a boil water notice was lifted for some by South West Water, reducing the total down to more than 2,000 homes and business - whilst wrongly advising 18 properties that they no longer needed to boil their water when they did, later blaming 'issues with a digital mapping system'.
What else did the court hear?
Defra was later told by SWW there were 10,000 air valves across its network and of those 3,050 on farmland similar to the one found at Hillhead - with 'six identified as a cause of concern' being addressed.
SWW said at the time to the DWI 'it's hard to regularly inspect 10,000 valves in any meaningful sense' as some are under ground. It said inspections were done on an 'ad hoc' basis which the DWI later warned increases the potential of similar incidents and told SWW to update their procedures and create a 'risk-based approach'.
SWW later told the DWI it could not provide details of the inspections with that air valve as 'any inspections that may have occurred have not been recorded against the specific number and may not be identified'.
The court heard a new 'air valve' policy was later implemented, with the court being told the previous 'ad hoc' air valve policy was 'surprising' - later questioning whether the air valve risk-based policy was being implemented.
The court was told there was no evidence the farm itself had ever been inspected and guidance cited which said 'water companies should be aware of high risk' sites in their areas and ensure an appropriate inspection regime is in place.
The court was told had SWW implemented its own air valve inspection regime it would have been industry leading – whilst the DWI pointed out ‘not a single air valve was inspected under these terms’, with the policy later ‘rebranded and not implemented’.
What did South West Water today tell the court?
The water firm says it takes 'responsibility' and it's been a source of frustration that it's been accused by politicians of causing 'delays' in the case - which it rejected.
It said there was a 'reactive monitoring system' in place before the incident and after the 2020 DWI recommendation to 'begin a risk-based approach' that was 'immediately set about' - accepting there was a 'clear error' to implement it.
The company accepts it cannot show the court it had done 'all that was reasonable' and the fact its policy ‘had not been implemented as intended' means it was guilty.
The water firm said the plan that it had in place included 107 control measures intended specifically to reduce the risks relating to cryptosporidium.
It points out there was no formal regulatory standard in how the risks of cryptosporidium are managed – something it is now calling for.
It pointed out the DWI emailed SWW about the situation citing material, from 10th of May, on the 13th of May – rather than telephoning. It says SWW were advised a meeting would be ‘stood up at some point that week’, suggesting SWW’s reaction to the situation was immediate, despite ‘positive’ evidence to begin with that its systems were not at fault.
South West Water says it was initially refused entry to the farm when teams came to investigate – saying they later found the air valve and lid ‘had been deliberately removed by a third party’. The court was also told that illegal crossed connections found at the farm could have been responsible for the ingress into the water supply – or caused a similar situation. The company argued the sentences were closer to a ‘food safety’ offence as a posed to an ‘environmental’ offence, when it came to sentencing guidelines.
They argued the firm continues to operate at a loss, partly as a result of the incident and no dividend or bonus has been paid in the past financial year. The firm’s legal representative said systems were in place, they had just not been implemented.
The court heard £2.5 million was spent on community presence and communications, with 730 staff, contractors and volunteers involved in the ‘supply chain’. Every school in the area was contacted and offered things like bottled water to help remain open. The magistrate was told 800 people were ‘moblised to maintain a visible presence on the ground’, with drop-in sessions and a public meeting held.
£7.2 million was spent on bottled water stations and daily deliveries of water, with doorstep deliveries to the most vulnerable – with 1.58 million bottles of water handed out – or the equivalent of 600 bottles per household. The company also paid compensation totaling more than £11 million and £1.2 was given to the English Riviera BID company to help promote the area to tourists.
What did the Judge say?
After he recounted the problems and evidence submitted, District Judge Stuart Smith pointed out South West Water had participated in the research in 2013 which highlighted the risks with the air valve system. He reflected a policy was drafted to mitigate the risk but was not implemented in the four years afterwards - and the air valve had not been visually inspected since 2011. It was noted that similar problems with air valves were identified elsewhere as a result of the incident.
Judge Smith called the impact of the outbreak on the community ‘substantial’ and that £38 million was spent on the response.
He called it a ‘major public health incident’, which disrupted essential public services, leaving hundreds ill and undermining confidence in the water system.
The judge said the offences fell under ‘food safety guidelines’ in terms of sentencing – and water firms operate as ‘monopolies’ as customers are ‘captive’ to their service and there is a ‘clear imbalance of power’ which needed to be reflected in the sentencing.
He called South West Water’s monitoring ‘inadequate’ which ‘ignored repeated concerns by the regulator’. He cited a separate Thames Water failure which led to calls for better monitoring of air valves – along with examples at other water firms. He said SWW categorically failed to enact any programme or inspection of their air vent assets.”
He called the harm of the outbreak ‘wide ranging and profound’ and ‘not a short lived inconvenience’ with GP surgeries ‘inundated’ and schools closing – with challenges for care and nursing homes.