A top executive at South East Water will receive a £400,000 service award regardless of the company's performance on water supplies or pollution, as long as he stays in his job until July 2030. David Hinton, the chief executive, is facing intense criticism over the repeated outages that left thousands of households without water for days.
Under the bonus scheme, which was disclosed in the company's annual report, Hinton will receive £565,000 this year if he remains in post and receives no performance-related bonus. This includes a base salary increase to £400,000 plus two new payments worth another £240,000 by 2030.
The controversy surrounds the fact that the bonus is not tied to performance metrics, despite critics arguing it should be. "Guaranteed service awards of this kind are not common," said Paddy Goffey, a researcher at the High Pay Centre. "They appear to reward substandard performance and poor quality of service for customers while also removing accountability."
MPs have called for Hinton's resignation or refusal of his bonus over the outages, with some accusing him of being out of touch with the needs of customers. The crisis has led to accusations that the executive is prioritizing pay and perks over the public's right to a safe water supply.
The company has denied this, saying its remuneration framework is designed to support a performance culture. However, critics argue that the bonus scheme is opaque and lacks transparency. A spokesperson for South East Water said the executive directors have no say in their remuneration and that the scheme is evaluated by an independent committee.
As the controversy continues, Hinton's future at the company remains uncertain. The environment secretary has called on the regulator Ofwat to review the company's licence to operate, while the GMB union has urged Hinton to hand back his bonus payment in light of the outages.
Under the bonus scheme, which was disclosed in the company's annual report, Hinton will receive £565,000 this year if he remains in post and receives no performance-related bonus. This includes a base salary increase to £400,000 plus two new payments worth another £240,000 by 2030.
The controversy surrounds the fact that the bonus is not tied to performance metrics, despite critics arguing it should be. "Guaranteed service awards of this kind are not common," said Paddy Goffey, a researcher at the High Pay Centre. "They appear to reward substandard performance and poor quality of service for customers while also removing accountability."
MPs have called for Hinton's resignation or refusal of his bonus over the outages, with some accusing him of being out of touch with the needs of customers. The crisis has led to accusations that the executive is prioritizing pay and perks over the public's right to a safe water supply.
The company has denied this, saying its remuneration framework is designed to support a performance culture. However, critics argue that the bonus scheme is opaque and lacks transparency. A spokesperson for South East Water said the executive directors have no say in their remuneration and that the scheme is evaluated by an independent committee.
As the controversy continues, Hinton's future at the company remains uncertain. The environment secretary has called on the regulator Ofwat to review the company's licence to operate, while the GMB union has urged Hinton to hand back his bonus payment in light of the outages.
I think this whole thing is a big reminder that money isn't everything 
. We've got an executive getting a fat sum regardless of how well or poorly the company performs, and it's sparking all these questions about accountability 
. What's really interesting to me is how much emphasis is being put on "rewarding" good performance without tying it to actual results 
. It's like, what's the point of having a reward if we're not measuring success? 
And honestly, I think it's a bit concerning that we're more focused on protecting the executive's interests than making sure our water supply is safe and reliable 
. We should be striving for better systems, not just throwing money at problems 
.
£565k just because Hinton shows up on time? That's some extra special sauce right there. And the fact that it's not tied to performance metrics is like, come on! Shouldn't he be judged based on how well he's doing his job, not just how long he sticks around? 
It's all about accountability, you know? The public needs a safe water supply, not some fat cat getting a raise. And don't even get me started on the lack of transparency... it's like they're trying to hide something (or a lot of things). 
Like, what would Jordan Belfort say if he were in Hinton's shoes? "I know what you want, I know what you need"... nope. Not buying it. 
. It just doesn't sit right that he gets to walk away with a sweet bonus package without actually fixing the water supply issues. The fact that it's not tied to performance metrics is just mind-boggling... how's that supposed to motivate anyone? 
the whole thing just seems fishy to me... how can a company reward someone with that kind of money when their water supply is basically non-existent? 
... 400k for just staying put? That's crazy talk! I mean I get it, he's gotta be incentivized or whatever but £565k is just wild 
. I was without water last year and let me tell you it was a nightmare trying to get by without a shower 
. I feel like he's just ripping off the public while they're already struggling to get basic things done 
, and it got me thinking... have you ever noticed how hard it is to find a decent camping spot without leaving your car behind? Like, isn't the whole point of going on a camping trip to get back to nature? It seems like every campsite I go to is just a parking lot with some trees 
. Anyway, back to South East Water... £400k for staying in the job? That's wild!