|
W/2007/424
Ms A was unhappy about requirements her water company was imposing on works to her dam. She said the water company had told her that, as she was altering an existing dam, by constructing a new wall and by-wash, she needed a permit under the section
67 of the Water Act 1989 (the Act) and a seven-year guarantee of the works by a suitably qualified engineer with the required level of professional insurance. Ms A was seeking an independent assessment of this advice and the revocation of notices she’d been served by the water company.
Contacted by EWOV, the water company said its representative had visited Ms A’s property in May 2003, after a complaint about the dam construction works from the owner of a neighbouring property. Because the dam was constructed on a waterway, a construction licence was required under section 67 of the Act. As Ms A hadn’t obtained the licence, it became a compliance issue.
The water company said it had elected not to prosecute Ms A, nor issue a notice requiring removal of the dam. It had accepted her advice that she’d undertake the required remedial works. It also accepted that she’d relied on incorrect advice provided by her contractor, who’d informed her that she didn’t need a licence.
It said M s A was told that any remedial works must comply with the Ministerial Guidelines for Licensing Irrigation and Commercial Use – Surface Water Clauses 7.13 and 7.14. These guidelines set out certain conditions, including certification of works by a suitably qualified engineer. Ms A was told she’d need to provide a report verifying that the works were of an acceptable standard — and draw up plans to supervise the remedial works.
As the dam spanned two adjoining properties, a formal written agreement was required setting out the nature of the works, acknowledgement of the title boundary and dam wall ownership, and ongoing maintenance responsibilities between neighbouring properties.
The water company said Ms A didn’t provide this information, so it issued a section 78 Ministerial Direction notice. This required both properties to undertake rectification works no later than 28 June 2007.
EWOV was contacted by Ms A on 26 July 2007. In
investigating her complaint, we reviewed the relevant sections of the
Act and confirmed the provisions which applied in this case. We found
the works to the existing dam were undertaken without a licence and in
contravention of the Act and relevant Ministerial Guidelines.
We were able to confirm for Ms A that the water company had acted in
accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act. Ms A accepted
EWOV’s independent assessment. We also provided her a higher-level
water company contact, so she could arrange an on-site meeting to
discuss and progress the required remedial works.
It’s not unusual for a customer to find it difficult to communicate
directly with a company, especially where the issue is complex and
subject to legislative requirements. For this customer, clarification
of the issues, provision of information and independent assessment of
the situation by a third party (in this case, EWOV), were sufficient to
address her concerns. The water company’s agreement to a site meeting
was also seen to be an acknowledgment of the importance of the issue
and the distress it had been causing her.
Return to Water case studies
|
|
|
|
|