Our response to Ofwat’s consultation on Allowing Third Parties Access to Consumption Data

We generally agree with Ofwat’s minded to position. Allowing third parties access to consumption data should help to simplify the process where the data is held by multiple retailers or wholesalers. Greater access to data may in turn result in wider benefits for business customers if they have a better understanding of their consumption. This could lead to an increased focus on how business customers could be more water efficient. Ultimately, business customers, either directly or through third parties acting on their behalf, should be able to access their data as easily as possible. Therefore, having the choice to either do this through their retailer, or through MOSL, should achieve this.

Ensuring third parties have customers consent before being granted access to their data is vital. We, therefore, support the proposed governance arrangements, including the establishment of a governance group to manage requests and the requirement for the policy to be annually reviewed by Strategic Panel. We expect a review of the proposed request and assessment process to form a key part of a Post Implementation Review (PIR) to ensure it is proving effective for third parties and that customer data remains protected. We expect the PIR to be undertaken a year after implementation.

While we generally support Ofwat’s minded to position, it is important this change results in benefits for the wider business customer base. The change was proposed by a third party needing to resolve a problem with meeting their specific reporting obligations. While the change may benefit them and others with similar requirements, there is limited evidence that business customers will utilise the process for wider purposes, such as better understanding their consumption. In addition, it is unclear whether business customers are having problems obtaining consumption data from retailers more generally. While we agree the change proposal should be implemented (for the reasons stated above), MOSL and the proposed governance group may need to limit the type of requests the proposer has outlined, particularly if this is having an impact on their resources. We also want the PIR to focus on whether the change has resulted in benefits for the wider business customer base.

We support the new Market Performance Framework and MOSL’s Strategic Data Programme, which should continue to drive improvements to consumption data quality. However, while data quality remains a problem, the benefits to customers in terms of greater awareness of their consumption may not happen if the requested data is inaccurate. It is therefore vital that third parties know who is responsible for addressing such concerns, which we expand on in our answer to Question 3.

We agree, in principle, that MOSL should be permitted to charge for the provision of consumption data and we support this being set at a ‘cost neutral’ level. However, we also expect MOSL to ensure their costs are incurred efficiently when collating requested data to ensure customers are only paying reasonable costs or are not discouraged from making a data request due to cost factors.

Since the previous consultation on the change proposal, MOSL has committed to the Open Data Strategy in their 2026-27 business plan. As some data sharing principles have already been developed as part of this change proposal, it is important to determine how these will align with the broader Open Data Strategy. We do not want to see contradictory approaches to data sharing that will cause confusion for market participants and business customers. We want Ofwat and MOSL to provide clarity on how this consistency will be achieved and we are committed to help develop an open data strategy that delivers greater visibility of consumption data for business customers.

The proposed change includes a caveat that MOSL cannot guarantee the accuracy of any data provided, which highlights the potential confusion regarding who is responsible for such accuracy. Retailers remaining responsible for the accuracy of consumption data, rather than MOSL as the provider of the data, may be unclear to third parties. Any queries those third parties may have about the data would potentially be complicated by retailers not necessarily being aware of the data request or knowing what data has been provided. It is therefore important the published process contains clear information on roles and responsibilities with regards to data accuracy and how queries about the data itself should be handled. We would also like this to form part of the Post Implementation Review (PIR) to ensure third parties’ queries regarding data accuracy are being resolved effectively.

Retailers may not have a robust process in place to manage data requests, either in terms of effectively establishing customer consent or the timeliness of providing information. A managed centralised market process with robust governance arrangements could therefore provide a suitable alternative for customers and third parties. If the process proves to be efficient, this could also be a useful template for retailers to use for their own data request processes, which would benefit those business customers who prefer to request consumption data from retailers directly. As included in our answer to Question 1, it is important that this change results in benefits for wider business customers, so retailers learning from the proposed data sharing model could achieve this.