Veolia was sentenced on February 21 by the Paris court to a fine of 4,300 euros, including 1,800 euros in damages for having reduced the flow of water to a customer for nearly six months. As soon as the complaint was filed, the number one in water management had restored the customer’s supply.
Solicited by AFP, Veolia indicated that it managed 7.4 million subscribers in France, “which unfortunately makes possible an error as regrettable as it is. This type of error is immediately rectified as soon as it is brought to the attention of the company “. “It is unfortunately common,” replied Emmanuel Poilane, director of France Libertés, an association which fights against water cuts and has filed a civil action, deploring that it is necessary to lodge a complaint so that the law is respected. .
Since the Brottes law of 2013, water cuts are in fact prohibited in a main residence, regardless of the financial situation of the customers concerned. In addition, in previous cases, justice has extended this ban to reductions in flow, called “lensing”, considering that they entailed the same consequences as a cut by depriving residents of normal use of water.
A “completely atypical case”
Saur also received a conviction by the Nanterre court in mid-January. The company had to pay a fine of 2,000 euros and restore the water to a complainant, whose power had been cut in 2005. Despite attempts at mediation, Saur had refused to restore the water, arguing that the person had made an “illegal connection”.
“As far as we can judge, we are here facing a + deadbeat + and who will be again with impunity if the water is restored to him,” Saur had argued in an email consulted by AFP. This is a “completely atypical case”, added the company, stressing that another trial had sentenced the user to three months in prison and a 5,000 euros fine for “theft of water”.
“It has nothing to do,” reacted France Libertés, specifying that the decision was going to be appealed. “These multinationals forget that they are public service delegates”, and as such must provide water users, “which does not prevent them from making recourse afterwards, in the event of a dispute,” added Mr. Poilane.
The two companies assure him, however: from now on, there should be no more water cuts.