Human rights blow to water bills

WATER bills are expected to rise because of a declaration by judges on Thursday that European human rights rules afford protection from having your garden flooded. The decision by the Appeal Court will cost Britain's biggest water company £1bn and bring similar burdens to other firms that will now have to prevent floods or pay compensation to homeowners.

The judges, led by Master of the Rolls Lord Phillips, England's most senior civil judge, said Thames Water had broken the Human Rights Act by allowing water from its sewers to flood regularly into 62-year-old Peter Marcic's garden in North West London.

The company had infringed Article Eight of the European Convention on Human Rights, which says everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence, they said.

Lord Phillips, Lord Justice Aldous and Lord Justice Ward also ruled that the flooding of Marcic's home amounted to a legal 'nuisance' and said he should have compensation.

The test case judgment reverses a century of legal opinion. Courts have almost always held that water companies are not to blame if sewers overflow and affect low-lying properties.

Thames Water said that it has already approached the regulator OFWAT to prepare the way for higher bills that will be needed to ensure homes are no longer at risk of flooding from sewers. A spokesman said: 'It isn't just us. Other companies will have to do the same.'

Marcic's front and back gardens have been flooded 17 times since 1992 by rainwater and backflow from Thames Water sewers.

Lord Phillips said Marcic was not alone in his plight. Among the 12m people in London and the Thames Valley served by the company 'there are many thousands of households facing the risk of internal or external flooding as a consequence of discharge from overburdened sewers'.

He added: 'It would cost Thames Water in the order of £1,000m to alleviate the flooding problems of all its customers who were in a similar position to Marcic or whose properties were at risk of internal flooding once every ten years.' He said Thames made profits of £344m in 2000 and that it would take many years to solve the problems without higher water bills.

But, Lord Phillips said, it was arguable that to strike a balance between the interests of the individual and the community, water users generally should be 'charged sufficient to cover the cost of paying compensation' to flood victims. The hearing was the culmination of a long-running legal battle in which Thames has tried to cut off the claim by Marcic.

He has spent £16,000 on defences to ensure that flood water does not come into his house. His front and back gardens in Stanmore flood after a few hours of steady rainfall or 15 minutes of downpour.

The Appeal Court judges upheld a High Court ruling last year that the flooding broke the human rights charter and added their view that compensation should be paid because the water company had failed to 'abate the nuisance'.

Compensation will be set by the High Court. Thames is likely to appeal to the House of Lords to try to overturn the ruling. Marcic's solicitor Karen South said there were 18,000 homes on Thames Water's patch at risk from flooding and it would cost £1bn to protect them.