View report page

15
Dealing with the Grand Junction, the Kent, and
the Southwark and Vauxhall Companies, General
Scott came to the conclusion:—
1.—With regard to the first complaint the Companies had
committed the mistake in the past of giving, in many
instances, too little cover to their service mains, and that
this had led to the destruction of a considerable number
of the pipes from the effects of frost.
2. That in many thousands of instances in the aggregate the
communication pipes of householders had been placed at
the point of attachment with the main at depths below
the surface of the ground far less than 2½ feet, and that so
far as these cases extend the contention of the memorialists
had been fully established. On the other hand, however,
General Scott points out that the householder or owner of
the premises had very generally aggravated the evil by laying
the portion of the communication pipe between the main
and the house at a less depth than that of the main itself.
3.—That the third allegation was not established.
4.—That the grounds of the memorialists' complaints in so far
as these related to the inadequacy of the special means of
supply referred to obviously did not exist at the time of
making the report, and, in fact, could hardly be said to exist
at the date of the opening of the Inquiry, since, in nearly
every case, the supply to the complainants' premises by the
ordinary channel had been resumed.
5.—The allegation had not been made with reference to the
Grand Junction or the Kent Companies, and as to the
Southwark and Vauxhall Company it was not disputed
that the interruption of the supply of water to premises was
prolonged to a very serious extent, but looking to the
magnitude of the disaster and to the general demand for
the special kind of skilled labour which was required, and
after fully considering the statements on either side, the
correctness of the allegations had not been proved.
6.—That the statements of the memorialists practically remained
uncontested; and that the interruptions were partly to be
attributed to the insufficiency of the depths at which mains
had been laid and communication pipes connected by the
Company, and partly to the insufficiency of the protection
given to the pipes of the consumers by the consumer
himself, and for which the Company could not be held