Public MINUTES of the Customer Challenge Group meeting Held at London Councils 59 ½ Southwark Street London SE1 0AL On 20 July 2017 10.00am 3.00pm Present: Anne Heal Chair Independent Chair Anthony Redmond CCWater AR Steve Bloomfield Independent SB Helen Charlton CCWater HC Gill Tishler Independent GT Harry Hodgson Federation of Small Businesses HH Kay Lacey Chair - Pang Valley Flood Forum KL Jeremy Gould Greenwich Leisure Ltd JG Geoffrey Fowler London Design and Engineering UTC GF Sonia Billett Interim Customer Challenge Group Secretary SBi Thames Water: Richard Aylard External affairs director RA Jill Jones Head of customer experience JJ Clive Norfolk Strategic business planning manager CN Angela Morris Stakeholder relationship manager AM Andrew Burton Research and public consultations manager AB Presenters: Rob Keen Head of Water/SMB RK Paul Knight Head of Innovation Eight2O PK 1. Apologies for Absence Colin Stanbridge, Cassie Sutherland, Samantha Heath, Robin Edwards, David Howarth, Adam Wallace, Suki Westmore, Tony Juniper and Bella Davies. Declarations of interest There were no declarations of interest. 1
Business Planning Programme Clive Norfolk from Thames Water talked through his short paper and confirmed, in response to a question from the Chair, that a new business plan and budget will be presented to the CCG at the September meeting, with Richard Aylard from Thames Water noting that the business will be spending more than originally planned. Clive Norfolk mentioned that unlike for PR14, Ofwat for PR19 has devised 14 common performance commitments for the entire industry; there will also be some bespoke ones for each company. A CCG member asked if there were any points of particular concern to TW. Clive Norfolk mentioned timing and specifically consulting customers in January 2018 with the first draft of Cycle 18 only becoming available in October 2017. 2. Minutes and Matters Arising of the meetings on 25 May and 22 June 2017 Minutes of the meeting on 25 May 2017 The minutes of the meeting held on 25 May 2017 were agreed for accuracy subject to : changes received by email from two CG members in advance; a typo on page 2 where fro should read for ; and the final sentence in the penultimate paragraph of section 7 being changed to The CCG was pleased that the required arrangements had been implemented successfully. The public version of the 25 May 2017 CCG meeting minutes were also agreed subject to the above changes being made and will be added to the CCG website. A CCG member referred to item 15 in the minutes regarding catchment management. He asked what TW was intending to do strategically in this area. Richard Aylard from Thames Water responded that there was a strong view that this was a possible way forward and it was being taken very seriously. The CCG member also mentioned that he had attended the Cirencester forum and believed they worked as a way of reaching local communities. Richard Aylard said that taking into account workloads, the aim is for TW to host one forum per month bringing together water and waste so that the 2 issues are joined up in appropriate catchments, explaining that this could not be completed overnight and that there is a significant focus on this in the business plan with the Mogden catchment being used as a model. Richard Aylard assured the CCG that a further push on this is underway and TW is keen to do more. Minutes of the meeting 22 June 2017 The Chair explained to the Group that these are with her for review and proposed that they be circulated and agreed via email in advance of the September meeting which was agreed. Kay Lacey asked for it to be noted that from June 2017 onwards she is attending the CCG solely as the Chair of the Pang Valley Flood Forum. Matters arising from the meeting on 25 May 2017 It was agreed that item 4 was closed as a result of the previously suggested change to the 25 May 2017 minutes which had been agreed. All other matters arising were agreed to be carried forward to the next meeting in September. 2
Matters arising from the meeting on 22 June 2017 All matters arising were agreed to be carried forward to the next meeting in September. 3. Ofwat consultation paper 11.7.17 Delivering Water 2020 Clive Norfolk from Thames Water went through a handout he had prepared on the Ofwat consultation paper released on 11 July. The object was to try to distil the key points from a CCG perspective bearing in mind the paper had only been available for a few days. Clive Norfolk explained that there are 4 themes of great customer service, resilience, affordability and innovation. A key change was Ofwat s expectation that the board of directors is fully accountable for the business plan and its delivery. Richard Aylard from Thames Water commented that TW will be seeking to put forward an exceptional business plan and the question would be whether Ofwat agrees with that categorisation. A CCG member asked if the test areas are weighted and Clive Norfolk replied that this is not clear but they are probably equal. Clive Norfolk explained that what Ofwat are saying on engaging customers is a repeat of the themes from the consultation last May all of which TW are doing already. A CCG member noted the wording customers action can have a direct impact on how water is used and managed, expressing the view that TW had not done much on this and more should be done by TW to assess local customer needs and record their preferences. An example was given of customers being given a list of priorities to choose from, which he believes is what Ofwat want, and TW aren t doing. Richard Aylard replied that there was a limit on the extent to which customers can be consulted at every location. The CCG member said that whilst it might take time to embed, it was appropriate to consult at local level if there was to be the meaningful customer consultation on the business plan that Ofwat require. The Chair commented that there appeared to be conflicting messages from Ofwat. It wants efficiency but at the same time requires local consultation which can create diseconomies of scale. In her view the primary objective is devising an achievable plan. A CCG member expressed concern that this issue is philosophical as Ofwat wants more customer engagement yet, when consulted; the customer simply wants TW to get on with what it should be doing. TW has to strike a balance. The Chair commented that use of the idea of managed by customers by Ofwat is ambiguous and that she will see if Ofwat can clarify what they mean given CCG will need to respond on this point. The Chair also noted involving customers in service delivery in the context of additional principles of good customer engagement in Figure 2.1 of Clive Norfolk s slides. Andrew Burton from Thames Water said TW had been aware of this requirement since May 2016. The Chair observed that the CCG has not seen much evidence of involving customers in service delivery so far and more is required. Richard Aylard commented that where a community or individual customer is engaged around a particular topic or issue, TW is generally good at engagement, but it is more difficult with a passive customer. The use of customer panels was suggested for more engagement by one CCG member and another suggested more thought is required on who to communicate with as customers. Andrew Burton commented that the intention is to get the Board of TW more involved in customer engagement. A CCG member suggested different methods are considered to test business plan decisions from a customers perspective. Clive Norfolk explained that Figure 2.2 in his slide pack on Ofwat s expectation of how 3
companies will communicate in PR19 is newish. A CCG member questioned whether TW really do know what are the big issues for customers. Clive Norfolk stated that section 3 of his presentation addressing affordability and vulnerability would be followed up in the September and October CCG meetings. Clive Norfolk briefly mentioned the 14 common performance commitments saying that resilience is new for the industry. SIM is to be replaced by WaterworCX which is a different metric. A CCG member commented that the specific reference to developer services appears politically driven and it is disproportionate for Ofwat to focus on it. The CCG noted mention that the role of the CCG is to provide independent assurance and that in PR19 there is more guidance and emphasis on this than previously. The Chair noted that the consultation closes on 30 August and proposed preparing a first draft response to the CCG membership for comment which was agreed. 4. Chair s update The Chair reported that she had attended a CCWater workshop on Triangulation and will ask for the paper to be circulated to the Group. There is a CCG Chairs session in mid-august being organised by Ofwat to go through its methodology in detail which she will be attending. 5. Finance and Business Planning sub group meeting on 19 July 2017- update The Chair of the Finance and Business Planning Sub Group reported that the sub group had considered regulatory capital value, PayG methodology and the need to align the WRMP with the business plan. The role of the sub group had also been discussed and some of the things it would be focussing on included cost of capital, capital investment, Thames Tideway impact and risk versus reward as well as how to communicate its activity to the CCG. 6. Customer Engagement sub group meeting items for discussion at the meeting on 27 July 2017 May/June conversation Andrew Burton from Thames Water went through his slide deck on customer engagement which included the interim feedback from the May/June conversation noting that there had been a lot more local level feedback. He explained that an independent company had sifted through the responses and decided on the content of the feedback. Richard Aylard from Thames Water mentioned that more than 100 TW staff had been involved in the exercise. A CCG member observed that the objective had been to have rich data and it would be a good exercise for TW to advise CCG on whether that objective had been achieved. It was requested that at the next meeting the CCG be apprised of how the fora had gone with The Chair stating that it would be helpful to split out each forum to compare the extent of local engagement. A CCG member noted that at the Cirencester forum, where customers were provided with information, they became interested and were willing to provide input. Returning to her point about service delivery earlier in the meeting, the Chair requested from TW some empirical evidence to demonstrate delivery. A CCG member stated that in his view TW needed to be more pro-active to get useful 4
feedback. Richard Aylard and Andrew Burton said they noted this point and that of AH and agreed they needed to find a way. Triangulation Andrew Burton spoke about triangulation and it essentially being how to bring together different customer feedback data to form an average view of customer experience. A CCG member noted that the problem with triangulation as a concept is that its aim is to form an average view of what the customer wants which is of concern as it is the diversity of comments that is important. He drew by way of analogy the average view unhelpfully comprising a grey washed out duvet cover when it is the rich and varied tapestry bedspread that has greatest value. There was a short discussion about triangulation being the most difficult part of the customer engagement process and whether it was too soon for TW to start to triangulate but no conclusion was reached. The CCG noted that this concept will be considered in more detail at the CCG customer engagement sub group next week. What customers want Andrew Burton took the Group through the What customers want methodology statement and introduced the What customers want version 4 slide deck explaining that there would be a subsequent versions as the document is continually evolving. He also explained that efforts are being made to communicate some of this feedback into the business via simple messages to TW staff. Andrew Burton invited the CCG to read the document and give feedback on it at the next meeting and to challenge aspects as necessary given the data is based on independent research. The Chair reiterated this request to the CCG asking for comments and feedback at the next meeting in September. It was agreed that Andrew Burton will circulate the document to CCG with a request for comments and collate them. A CCG member commented that this is excellent work compared to TW s PR14 activity and the pulling all of the data into one document is a step change. The Chair requested that a note be made in the minutes that these comments are included in the CCG final report. A CCG member noted the wording on page 9 of the document reducing leakage is less of a priority and queried this. The CCG noted that a new version of the document will be produced during August. The Chair thanked Andrew Burton for his presentation noting that the CCG is broadly happy with the direction of customer engagement by TW thus far for PR19. 7. Customers in vulnerable circumstances and customers ability to pay Andrew Burton from Thames Water explained that his slide deck draws on an earlier workshop, the results of which will be circulated next week. He mentioned that at the workshop a colleague had talked about cross utility working and sharing information and data i.e. collaboration. In response to a question from a CCG member about local government Jill Jones from Thames Water replied that TW are working with them. It was noted that local government is not on the list. There was a discussion about differentiating between those customers that can t pay and those customers that won t pay, from insight into behaviours. It was noted that customers can move short term between different categories within the vulnerable spectrum. 5
A CCG member observed that an enormous amount of work is necessary by TW to meet Ofwat s requirements. In her view TW must decide what vulnerable customers need and then how to service that need. In addition the concept of affordability needs refining to make sure the focus is on those customers with the most need. TW need a clear plan on how to achieve this objective. Another member commented that there is evidence of good intentions by TW but a distance for it yet to travel. She also commented that affordability and vulnerability are very different and queried how TW address the struggling silent. The Chair suggested TW look at how other industries deal with this type of customer in comparison and, given the gap, focus on explaining that gap to Ofwat and steps being taken to close it. The CCG concluded that the approach TW is taking from an engagement perspective is that there are 2 audiences (i) customers in vulnerable circumstances and (ii) the wider customer base who might pay for interventions designed to address vulnerability ; the feeling was that was too simplistic and requires further consideration by TW. It was agreed that vulnerable customers should be an agenda item for a future customer engagement subgroup meeting. In the meantime Andrew Burton will circulate the report from the workshop. The Chair commented that CCG need to know more about what TW are doing so they can critique the activity and challenge appropriately. 8. Delivering today: Update on Eight2O building efficiency and innovation This was delivered as the last item on the agenda. Rob Keen and Paul Knight from Thames Water/Eight20 gave a presentation which included a video. It was agreed that the slide deck will be circulated after the meeting. Rob Keen explained the business performance for Eight20 by reference to his slide presentation and answered various queries on it from Group members. Paul Knight then gave a presentation of innovation within Eight2O. Prior to playing a short video containing examples of recent innovation, he explained that innovation can be described as developing new ideas to get better outcomes. After the video there were further questions from the Group including whether a number could be placed on the financial benefit of innovation. Paul Knight said it is difficult and commented that many businesses regard innovation as BAU. The Chair thanked Rob Keen and Paul Knight for their presentation which had been informative noting that it would be helpful on another occasion to have a presentation on TW innovation. 9. Any other business A CCG member briefed the Group on her impressions from the Steventon meeting noting that there could have been greater visibility of TW s presence and that TW s banner with leakage wording had made one customer angry. It was noted that a document on big data is due for circulation to the Group. 6
Richard Aylard from Thames Water explained the activity TW had undertaken in relation to an issue in the Bromley area noting there had been lessons learned. The Chair noted that it had been useful for the Group to have this insight. 10. Date of next CCG meeting Thursday 21st September at London Councils. Apologies from KL 11. Dates of future meetings: 19th October 2017 23th November 2017 December date to change from 13 th Venues all at London Councils 7