Deduct the fine from shareholders' dividends. The shareholders will then deal with the board.

John, Colchester,

The problem with this and other criminal acts perpetrated by a company, such as manslaughter, is that the only possible punishment is a fine.

The fine just comes off the bottom line, and in the long run is paid for by its customers, thus adding insult to injury.

Surely the answer is for the courts to penalise the company directors en masse. If a whole board was automatically disqualified from being directors, then there would be a strong incentive for the whole lot of them to behave cohesively as a responsible body.

Steve S, Wiltshire, UK

I reported a leak to Severn Trent via their web site some two weeks ago.
a) I've heard nothing despite entering the location and my phone number.
b) The leak gets worse by the day and has caused big, icy patches in the road the last few days.
The last time I reported a leak(not the same one) I did get a call and explained exactly where it was, giving road/lane names to someone the other end of the phone who was looking at an OS map on line. 5/6 weeks later I had a call telling me that they had located it (in a completely different lane to the one they were directed to) and it wasn't a leak but just run-off from the field. A further 2 months later they did get the leak repaired.

AWilliams, Cradley Heath,

Where does the money go to now, is it just a bit more sneaky tax for the Chancellor. Why are they not made to reduce the charges to the consumers instead.

B Watkin, andover, U.K.

What about the £35.8 million being returned to the customers?
Once Ofwat get it, where does the money go?

Roger Morris, Torrington, U.K.

Thats right blame those that have moved on. If it is fraud why are prison sentences not on the cards.
What's the point in this fine? We all know they will have the consummer pay.
Why is a company that is providing our life blood allowed to amass such an amount of money from us?

Bob, Warrington, Cheshire

If the fine is £35.8M then this is the amount that should be returned to customers. If the balance above the £10M that the company say they will return to customers goes into the exchequer, then this is another stealth tax.
Rip-off the public and give the proceeds to the Government.

J Rose (Mr), Birmingham, West Midlands

Perhaps if CEO's were held to be criminally responsible for the actions of the Companies they run, this sort thing might not happen in the future. Nothing like a couple of years in jail to help CEO's get focused.

Tom O'Neill, Ballymena, Co. Antrim

Here we go again....

Record fine is the headline....
But who really pays....is their revenue not derived from the customer?
Therefore any fines they receive( record or otherwise) will only
be paid for in higher bills????
Heads rolling......people being imprisoned for fraud....
THAT IS THE ONLY PUNISHMENT FOR THE CRIME!

Andy C

Andy Cherington, Southam, UK

So, Does the fine money get discounted back to the customers or does the government get it?

ian huntington, heysham, lancs.

Surely the people to suffer are the customers of Severn Trent who have had to pay for the leakage for years.

Last time Severn Water gave me a rebate, it was for 96p, equivalent to 1,200L of water, my usage is approximately 320,000L a year that rebate equated to a leakage rate of 0.3%. On this occasion it's £2.40, 3000L of water or a leakage rate of 1%. An estimate that anyone in the industry would find ludicrous, the true rate of leakage could equal total usage as with Thames Water.

Isn't it also plainly wrong that Ofwat should benefit rather then the customers who have paid the higher charges for years. They and not Ofwat and should have the fine plus the Severn Trent contribution included in the current rebate!

James R, West Midlands, UK

It does appear that the blame for this lies with the previous management team. Mr Wray & his new team brought the problem to the attention of Ofwat as soon as they uncovered the details, and should be acknowledged for that action.
However, what penalties should be imposed on the former directors? Maybe they should be disqualified from holding office as company directors, and any public office.

Jerry Latham, Uttoxeter, England