Consultation outcome

Summary of responses and government response

Updated 6 May 2026

1. Introduction

The Water Supply (Water Fittings) Regulations 1999 (the Regulations) and approved regulator specifications are in place to prevent water fittings from being installed, connected, arranged or used in such a manner that it causes or is likely to cause waste, misuse, undue consumption, erroneous measurement or contamination of drinking water supplies.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and Welsh Government consulted on proposed amendments to the WC Suite Performance Specification, the Specification on the Prevention of Backflow and other associated regulator specifications referred to as test code sheets (TCSs). This was in response to a small number of contamination events where water from WC cisterns was found to have re-entered (or ‘backflowed’ into) a buildings’ drinking water system.

WC cisterns are not designed to store water of drinking water quality, deteriorating due to stagnation of water or presence of chemicals and therefore could have had potential health risks.

This document summarises the responses received to the consultation and how we have responded.

The consultation ran from 8 August 2022 to 3 October 2022 and can be found at: Consultation on the WC Suite Performance Specifications in England and Wales.

We asked 8 questions on our proposed amendments to the regulator specifications and TCS:

• question 9 – to what extent do you agree that there should be a new test code sheet (TCS 2213.20) for an additional WC specific backflow prevention arrangement?
• question 10 – to what extent do you agree with the proposed changes to the Specification on the Prevention of Backflow?
• question 11 – to what extent do you agree with the proposed changes to the WC Suite Performance Specification?
• question 12 – to what extent do you agree with the proposed changes to the Type AC air gap test code sheet (TCS 2213.15)?
• question 13 – to what extent do you agree with the creation, amendments and revocation of regulator’s test code sheets (excluding 2213.20 and 2213.15 which we asked about separately)?
• question 14 – to what extent do you agree we have placed the right protections in place to protect human health?
• question 15 – to what extent do you agree we have correctly considered the costs, impacts and benefits and that our estimations are accurate?
• question 19 – to what extent do you agree there is sufficient time to transition to the new requirements?

We also used the consultation to gather evidence on faulty toilet valves causing a loss of water to understand peoples’ views and see what can be done. A leaking toilet wastes between 215 and 400 litres of potable (drinkable) water on average each day.

It is estimated that around 5 to 8% of toilets are leaking, with around 400 million litres of water leaking from UK toilets every day. We asked 3 questions:

• question 16 – to what extent do you agree that the government should take action to reduce the impact of leaking toilets?
• question 17 – we asked you to rank (in order of importance) each of the approaches in terms of suitability to address to the water loss from leaking toilets.
• question 18 – we asked you to provide information or evidence that supports the response to the previous question so that we understand more about the problem.

Defra and the Welsh Government recognise that it is important for all relevant stakeholders to have the opportunity to be consulted before changes are made. We are grateful to everyone who took the time and effort to respond, and all the responses have been reviewed.

2. Analysis of responses

We received 42 responses:

• 38 responses received through Citizen Space
• 3 responses received by email
• 1 response received by post

2.1 Figure 1: Respondents by sector

Figure 1 shows the number of responses by organisation type and the number of responses we received from individuals. Respondents replying ‘Other’ are from water conservation, chartered bodies and livery companies. Annex 1 contains a list of the organisations who responded. This list excludes those who chose to remain anonymous.

Respondents by sector
Distributor	1
Individual	4
Manufacturer	8
Professional association	1
Property management	1
Trade association	3
Water fittings or certification body	2
Water supplier	13
Other	9

2.2 Figure 2: The size of organisations who responded

Figure 2 shows the size of organisations which responded to the consultation. Figure 3 is where responders were based. Those replying ‘Other’ were from Germany, Italy, Spain and Switzerland.

Size of organisation
0 to 9 employees (less than £2 million)	14
10 to 49 employees (£3 to £10 million)	0
50 to 249 employees (£11 to £50 million)	3
more than 250 employees (more than £51 million)	19
Not answered	6

2.3 Figure 3: Locality of respondents

Location of respondents
England	Northern Ireland	Scotland	Wales	Whole of the UK	Other	Not answered
22	2	0	4	6	6	2

3. Summary of responses and government response

This section provides a high-level overview of the responses from the consultation and details how we have taken them on board in the final versions of the regulator specifications and TCSs. It tries to reflect the views offered but, inevitably, it is not possible to describe all the responses in detail and so focusses on key issues raised. Not all respondents answered all questions.

Overall respondents welcomed the changes and accepted the proposals with some amendments.

Comments made in response to the consultation were specific drafting changes and quite a few sought changes that were outside the scope of the consultation for example, updates to the Regulations or to other TCSs that were not being amended. Where relevant, these have been explored below.

4. Protections in place to protect human health

We asked, in the changes we have made, if the right protections have been put in place to protect human health. Of the 42 responses received:

• 24 agreed with the proposal that we had the right protections in place
• 8 disagreed
• 10 neither agreed nor disagreed

There was broad agreement that for WCs the right protections were in place. Some respondents said that we should withdraw regulator specifications where British Standards exist. The level of review needed for this was beyond the scope of this consultation.

In relation to WC suites, the current British Standard does not encompass all WC configurations in design. Therefore, we felt it is necessary to retain these specifications to ensure they continue to operate effectively.

5. The Specification on the Prevention of Backflow and test code sheet for a new backflow prevention arrangement

We asked about the proposed changes to the Specification on the Prevention of Backflow. Of the 42 responses received:

• 32 agreed with the proposed changes
• 4 disagreed with the proposal
• 6 neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal

There was a high level of agreement to the changes. This included the introduction of a new air gap arrangement that can be more readily used within modern toilet designs, the Type AUKWC air gap.

We also asked about creating a new TCS for the Type AUKWC air gap backflow prevention arrangement. Of the 42 responses received:

• 30 agreed with the proposal that a specific specification was needed
• 1 disagreed with the proposal
• 11 neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposal

There was strong agreement there should be an accompanying TCS for the new air gap arrangement.

However, respondents said that the inclusion of the term ‘WC’ in the TCS name could cause confusion and potentially limit its use. Therefore, we have renamed Type AUKWC air gap to Type AUK4 air gap which follows the existing UK specific naming convention. Within the backflow specification for the Type AUK4 air gap arrangement, we have made some slight changes to the wording of the description to clarify the intent and purpose of the internal spillover level.

Also, though the general technical requirements remain unaltered, we have included additional informative text and diagrams and undertaken some minor rewording to aid greater clarity.

Some respondents asked us to improve clarity within the Regulations about the use of a second supply to flushing cisterns, such as rainwater. As noted earlier, changes to the Regulations were out of scope of the consultation but we also felt that the Regulations were sufficiently clear in this case. When a second supply is added, the flushing cistern becomes a ‘receiving vessel’. Therefore, current backflow prevention requirements of the Regulations (Schedule 2 Paragraph 15) apply. Additional backflow protection, appropriate to the fluid categorisation, would be required to protect the upstream wholesome water supply (for example, the mains water fed inlet valve) supplying the flushing cistern.

Other respondents found it unclear who could approve the specifications and the role of the water undertaker and asked for clarity. As per Regulation 12 of the Regulations, only the Secretary of State and Welsh ministers (as the regulators) can approve a specification and must consult every water undertaker and water supply licensee and appropriate trade associations and organisations before doing so. As per Regulation 10 of the Regulations, water undertakers enforce the requirements of the Regulations, including any approved specifications, within their respective areas ensuring a fitting is installed, connected or arranged correctly and that it is of an appropriate quality and standard and suitable for the circumstances in which it is used.

There was similar uncertainty as to whether the list of backflow prevention devices and arrangements is intended to be used in a priority order. There is no order to the devices listed within Specification on the Prevention of Backflow. They are intended to be selected on the basis of their classification of fluid categories they are able to protect against; and their suitability, such as the plumbing system characteristics and location.

6. Type AC air gap arrangement

We asked about the proposed changes to the Type AC air gap TCS and there was strong agreement. Of the 42 responses received:

• 30 agreed with the proposed changes
• 5 disagreed
• 7 neither agreed nor disagreed

A respondent commented that a vacuum test which is included in other air gap specifications, was missing. The test establishes if water can be siphoned back into drinking water supplies. Back siphonage tests are already included elsewhere in WC requirements but would provide cover where the Type AC air gap arrangement was used in other settings. Though we were unable (after contacting a few manufacturers, trade associations, certification bodies and so on) to identify any current uses apart from WC use, the tests inclusion in this TCS would ensure future public health protection and provide consistency across specifications. It has therefore been added and will validate performance in a comparable way with the other air gap arrangements. To avoid duplicate testing and associated costs when the arrangement is used on WC’s, we have allowed evidence of test results that have already been conducted to satisfy the requirements.

7. The WC Suite Performance Specification

We asked about the changes proposed to the WC Suite Performance Specification. Of the 42 responses received:

• 27 agreed
• 8 disagreed
• 7 neither agreed nor disagreed

This indicated a broad agreement to the changes.

We received many comments regarding the accuracy and consistency of tolerances. The engineering method of uncertainty of measurement was suggested by respondents to provide an alternative to address these concerns which we have added to the specification.

The uncertainty of measurement method combines the slight variations (instrumentation, equipment and so on) that might occur throughout the stages of the testing process and is reported as a combined budget.

This budget indicates the range the actual measured value might be had the variations been all at the upper (positive) boundaries, and vice versa should they have been at the lower (negative) boundaries. Engineers recognise absolute accuracy from measuring is virtually impossible to achieve and accept some variability will occur. Limiting these (defined as tolerances) is needed to ensure consistency in performance. It will also allow manufacturers and those testing to understand where improvements can be made for product consistency and reduces the need to be overly prescriptive about the accuracy of measuring instruments.

Where specific tolerances or accuracies for measuring instruments are absent, the general tolerances and measurements outlined in the WC Suite Performance Specification will apply. These have been updated following the consultation and have also been added, or referred to, in the TCSs we consulted upon.

8. Other test code sheets

We asked about the proposed changes to other TCS that had not already covered in the consultation. Of the 42 responses received:

• 33 agreed with the proposed changes
• 1 disagreed with the proposed changes
• 8 neither agreed nor disagreed

No respondents objected to the withdrawal of TCS 5011.5 Overflow – Measurement of dimension. It is therefore assumed all agreed that TCS 5011.7 Warning pipe and overflow provision, captures all of the necessary requirements for overflows. Though, reference to ‘kitemarks’ and ‘directory’ has been removed as a way of satisfying the requirements as it was no longer accurate.

Some respondents on TCS 1611.16 Liquid contamination – Dye retention thought potassium permanganate should no longer be used due to purchase restrictions and wondered if there was a suitable alternative. Others requested the removal of the time limit on stirring the diluted solution as it creates further calibrated measures and documentation and they did not think it was required. A suitable alternative to potassium permanganate will need to show that it offers an equivalent level of performance for it to be considered. Whilst time limits are needed to ensure consistency, robustness and repeatability of results so cannot be open ended.

For TCS 2213.21 Joints below critical water level, a couple of respondents thought it should be applied to all air gap arrangements not just those used in WCs. We see how this could be a universal measure, but it would require further consultation which could not be achieved as part of this work.

There were several comments received on TCS 2212.3 Type AG relating to overflow arrangements and air-breaks. It was thought non-circular overflows should be allowed and, for WCs and urinals, there should be an exemption in complying with the air-break to drain requirement. These have been accepted and changes made to the final TCS.

9. Other responses

A number of comments were received on the conformity testing sections within the Specification for the Prevention of Backflow and WC Suite Performance Specification.
Often respondents thought this information was new and asked, for example:

• the information to be included in any declarations of conformity;
• clarification on the level of attestation required (could manufacturers self-declare)
• the enforcing body at point of sale
• how to prevent duplicate testing

Conformity testing was already included in the specifications and there were no material changes proposed to it. Current arrangements therefore continue to apply though, as good practice, we have clarified that manufacturers should have a system of assessment to be able to demonstrate conformity with the specifications as well as factory production controls.

As enforcers of the Regulations, any outstanding questions on conformity testing are best directed to water undertakers. We believe they have published guidance outlining the routes available to demonstrate conformity, the types of acceptable evidence and when the mixing of tests is not appropriate, so this may want to be visited first.

Outside of the consultation, Defra was contacted by an individual who raised concerns that a test on the fouling of the water pathway may, on rare occasions, not identify a potential fault. The test is an essential element to establish that water cannot be siphoned back, ensuring safety of public health. As it is in wide scale use as a testing method in other national standards we will, for the time being, retain the test as is.

However, as a way of evaluating whether the changes we have made have corrected the backflow of water from WC cisterns, we will be asking water undertakers to record whether any future backflow events were caused by fittings that seemingly complied with the updated regulator specifications and TCSs. This information will be reported to the Drinking Water Inspectorate and should such a failure occur we will seek, where possible, to establish root cause and decide if further measures are needed. Where relevant, we will consider if this test was a contributing factor.

More generally across the regulator specifications and TCSs, where minor changes have been made, we have ensured that where they are used for WCs they are all consistent for example: the definitions, materials used and overflow requirements. We have also removed ambiguities wherever possible.

10. Costs, impacts and benefits

We asked whether we had correctly considered the costs, impacts and benefits of our proposed changes and that our estimations were accurate. Of the 42 responses received:

• 7 agreed with the assumptions we made
• 6 disagreed with them
• 29 neither agreed nor disagreed

The respondents who provided comments did not identify any specific element of our estimated costs they found were incorrect.

We received a comment that there were 50 million WCs in the UK and, at around 7 pence per toilet, were sceptical the costs were correct. They therefore thought costs to the customer would be much higher. Industry bodies expressed other opinions: one felt the provisions were estimates and could be debated but that they seemed reasonable; another saw no reason to have doubts on first glance; and a third respondent thought the costs were fair.

Another respondent thought that the true unquantified aspect was around how many consumers had been subject to unwholesome water as a consequence of inadequate backflow prevention arrangements. A few others fully endorsed the proposals, irrespective of costs, based on the main benefit of protecting public health from potential contamination of drinking water supplies due to backflow. We do not know the true extent of the backflow issue but there have been 139 incidents in England and Wales reported to the Drinking Water Inspectorate between 2013 and 2024. Though we are not aware of any cases of illness being linked to backflow, there is potential for it to cause illness. This is why we have put public health protection first.

Other respondents called for the introduction of mandated training for plumbers and a licence to practice and thought the costs for their education and training for installing the newly compliant products was missing. Mandated training and licences for plumbers were outside the scope of this consultation and so costs have not been included. However, we realised that costs for water undertakers to update their guidance to help with compliance had not been accounted for. As enforcers of the Regulations, we believe they have published guidance on how to demonstrate conformity and, based on our engagement with the sector to date, we have assumed they may want to update this. In a worst-case scenario, we expect this to cost £19,400.

10.1 Figure 4: Estimated costs for water undertakers updating their guidance

Description of change	Assumption(s) for worst case	Cost for worst case
Updating water company guidance	6 meetings equating to 31 hours for each of the 25 companies at a mean hourly rate of £22.94 (the same used to estimate other costs) and 68 hours for Water Regs UK (31 at £22.94 x 25 plus 68 x £22.94)	Updating estimate = £19,400

11. Transition time

We asked if six months would provide sufficient time to transition to comply with the new and updated regulator specifications and TCSs. Of the 42 responses received:

• 13 agreed
• 17 disagreed
• 11 neither agreed nor disagreed

There was some disagreement that 6 months was sufficient time. Of those that disagreed, 7 respondents suggested a transition time of 6 to 18 months and 6 suggested between 18 and 36 months. We have taken this on board and will allow 12 months from when the updated specifications are published before they come into force. Most of the current requirements and testing are not changing and the significant new requirements are about increasing opportunities without effecting current products that comply. A 12-month transition period will ensure products can be adopted as soon as is practicable.

12. Call for evidence on leaking toilets

We asked if the government should take action to reduce the impact of leaking toilets. Of the 42 responses received:

• 31 agreed action should be taken
• 9 disagreed and thought no action was needed
• 2 neither agreed nor disagreed

Defra has taken this recommendation on board and has already started the process to look at ways to reduce the leakage rate including the inflow and outflow issues.

We then asked respondents to rank, in order of importance (with 1 being the most important), each of the following approaches in terms of suitability to address to the water loss from leaking toilets.

12.1 Figure 5: Rank importance the suitability of approaches to address to the water loss from leaking toilets

Suitability of approaches to address leaking toilets and their ranking
Make regulation to support development of specific design types for example, reinstate external overflows, low or dual flush siphon toilets	3.21
Ban the use of toilet valve designs most prone to failure and leakage	3.63
Ban the use of specified materials that are most prone to failure and leakage	3.66
Develop standards and test methods that identify material compositions or designs most likely to fail in situ	3.68
Review regulation supporting the standards and test methods to ensure they are fit for purpose for UK water environment	3.79
Handling and addressing risks for untested products	3.84
Develop standards and test methods that improve fit for purpose around WC valves and UK water environment	3.87
Create a means, similar to Gas Safe accreditation, for easily understanding a plumber’s qualification for installing fixtures and fittings	4.24

The highest ranked outcome (with 1 being the highest), with an average ranking of 3.21, was to ‘Make regulation to support the development of specific design types for example, reinstate external overflows, low or dual flush siphon toilets’. This was consistent with question 16.

Overall, the preferences were tightly clustered (between 3.21 and 4.24) meaning that no strong preferences were indicated from rankings alone. For example, the least preferred ranking of ‘Create a means, similar to the Gas Safe accreditation, for easily understanding a plumber’s qualification to install fixtures and fittings’ at 4.24 was highly bimodal, having both the single highest and lowest ranking preferences with no strong correlation to organisational affiliation, particularly amongst water suppliers who were split between the two preferences.

To support the answers to the ranking exercise, we asked you to provide any relevant information or evidence. Responses covered a huge variety of areas reflecting the wide range of experiences of our respondents.

There were a number of clusters of similar or linked points including:

• the importance of information, looking at both the human and product failure aspects of this to support a solution. This included understanding which households were impacted, and linking to information gathered by various water companies’ household leak programmes
• how maintenance, lime scale, household awareness of maintenance (and ability to detect leaks) and seal and materials, interact and impact on leaks
• looking at clear signage or operation controls for how dual flush buttons work,
• the role of assuring installation standards and the dynamic between qualified installer vs inspections and non-compliance
• the importance of design (including inlet and outlet valves and cistern size and filling), learnings from elsewhere and the nexus of EU or UK or BSI standards – links to information gathering and product review

The information provided a strong foundation for qualitative analysis and will allow Defra to have follow up conversations. 

13. Next steps

13.1 Preventing backflow

The comments we received during the consultation on our proposed changes resulted in a few amendments being made to the regulator specifications and TCSs. We notified those versions to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the European Union (EU) in early 2023.

When requirements are introduced that could create a technical barrier to trade with other countries, we need to make WTO aware. In this instance, the European Union also needed to be made aware as the changes can be relevant to compliance in Northern Ireland and it is a requirement under the Northern Ireland Protocol. We submitted a 60-day notification to the WTO, which closed on 16 April 2023 and a 12-week notification to the EU via the Technical Regulations Information System, which closed on 15 May 2023.We received no comments from any WTO members or EU Member States on our updated post consultation documents.

For manufacturers to place their WC products on the market they must be either UKCA or CE conformity marked. In order to mark them, manufacturers must declare that they comply with designated standards BS EN 997:2012 and BS EN 14055:2010 under the Construction Products Regulations (CPR) (which are owned by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government).

The requirements of the regulator specifications and TCSs, which are in addition to the CPR requirements and apply upon installation or intended installation, must therefore not conflict with the essential characteristics of those designated standards. Reviews did not identify any conflicts.

The updated regulator specifications and TCSs will need to be approved, as per Regulation 12 of the Regulations, by the Secretary of State and Welsh ministers. Once approved they will be made available on GOV.UK. They will come into force 12 months after publication.

13.2 Leaking toilets

The UK Government is committed to reducing leakage by 50% by 2050 as part of our legally binding target to reduce water use per person by 20% by 2038. Defra recognises that reducing leakage from toilets plays a key role in preventing water wastage.  

Following the call for evidence on leaking toilets, Defra held initial discussions with stakeholders as part of a ‘leaky loo taskforce’.

We have also committed to both:

• enabling the rollout of smart meters to support the identification of leakage, in our Water White Paper
• labelling toilets with water efficiency ratings according to their flush volume

Any future work in this area will involve further stakeholder engagement as well as working with water companies to understand best practice around identifying and fixing existing toilet leakage.

14. Annex 1 – organisations that responded

• Affinity Water
• Anglian Water Service
• Aquause
• Bathroom Manufacturers Association
• Ceramic Sanitaryware Manufacturers Association (FSKI)
• Charted Institute of Plumbing and Heating Engineering (CIPHE)
• Drinking Water Inspectorate for Northern Ireland
• Dŵr Cymru Cyfyngedig (Welsh Water)
• ESP Water
• Kiwa Watertec
• Laufen Bathrooms AG
• Northern Ireland Water
• Northumbrian Water Ltd
• Portsmouth Water
• Pupils 2 Parliament
• Roca Sanitario SA
• SES
• South West Water
• Southern Water
• Thames Water
• The Worshipful Company of Plumbers
• Thomas Dudley Limited
• Valsir Spa
• Water Regs UK Ltd
• Water Regulations Approval Scheme Ltd (WRAS)
• Waterwise
• Worshipful Company of Water Conservators
• Yorkshire Water