Part of the Legionella Data Index · compiled 2 August 2026
Legionnaires' disease in the North West England
UKHSA does not state a confirmed case count for the North West England in the surveillance text. Full region-by-region counts for every English region are not published; the figures that are published are on the national Index. Surveillance counts only laboratory-confirmed, reported cases, so any published figure is a floor, not the true total.
Prosecutions tracked in the North West England
The tracker holds 5 legionella prosecutions from the North West England, totalling £1.08m in fines (2006–2024).
| Defendant | Year | Sector | Fine | Prosecutor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Sanctuary Housing Association In 2018 every water sample at a Birkenhead sheltered-housing scheme tested positive for legionella. The water system was poorly managed, staff were inadequately trained, and residents were wrongly told the water could be boiled and used. Vulnerable residents were evacuated; no one fell ill. Source
|
2024 | Housing | £900k | HSE |
|
Mother Redcaps Care Home A Wallasey care home had no system to manage its hot and cold water and failed to comply with an HSE improvement notice despite two extensions, putting elderly residents at risk. Source
|
2012 | Care home | £7k | HSE |
|
Pontin's Limited (in administration) Death/outbreak Guests contracted Legionnaires' disease from a contaminated water storage tank feeding a chalet at the Lytham St Annes holiday camp, and a guest died. The company's own temperature records showed water held below recommended levels, and warnings were not acted upon. Convicted at Preston Crown Court in 2012 of breaching HSWA ss.2(1) and 3(1). Because the firm was in administration, a nominal £1,000 fine plus £10,000 costs was imposed; the judge said a fine near £500,000 would otherwise have applied. (Sources differ on whether HSE or the local authority led the prosecution.) Source
|
2012 | Hospitality | £1k | HSE |
|
Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospitals NHS Trust High legionella levels were found in the Audrey Leigh wing in May 2002, but the Trust stopped testing, assigned no one responsibility for managing the bacteria, and had no suitable control measures. Two patients died of Legionnaires' disease in early 2007, but HSE could not conclusively link those infections to the hospital, so the conviction is for the safety-management failing rather than for causing death. Pleaded guilty and was fined nearly £48,000 at Liverpool Magistrates' Court in 2009. Source
|
2009 | Healthcare | £48k | HSE |
|
Barrow Borough Council Death/outbreak The August 2002 Barrow-in-Furness outbreak killed seven people and made around 180 ill, the source being a poorly maintained air-conditioning cooling system at the council-run Forum 28 arts centre. The council was convicted of breaching HSWA s3(1) and fined £125,000 plus £90,000 costs in July 2006. It was the first UK public body to face corporate manslaughter charges, which were dropped before the HSWA conviction. A named council employee was separately prosecuted as an individual and is not recorded here. Source
|
2006 | Local authority leisure | £125k | HSE |
The full UK record, its curation rules and the per-sector breakdown are on the Legionella Enforcement Tracker; sector views sit under the Index.
Water hardness in the North West England towns
15 of 22 towns here carry a reported hardness figure; the rest show a band inferred from the water company's own statement, or an honest gap. Every row names its source and confidence. Scale risk uses the DWI/WHO anchor: scaling begins around 200 mg/l CaCO₃.
| Town | Water company | Hardness (mg/l CaCO₃) | Hardness band | Scale risk | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Barrow-in-Furness | United Utilities | — | Soft to moderately soft * | Low * | Company statement - band only (United Utilities) United Utilities states the majority of water in its region is soft or very soft (statement quoted in a hosted planning document). |
| Blackburn | United Utilities | 99.5 | Soft | Low | Single source - unverified (WaterGrade) |
| Blackpool | United Utilities | Withheld | — | — | Conflict: MyTapWater 58 vs WaterGrade 175.8 - withheld The two compiled values disagree, so neither is published; verify via the company checker. |
| Bolton | United Utilities | Withheld | — | — | Conflict: MyTapWater 60 vs WaterGrade 115.4 - withheld The two compiled values disagree, so neither is published; verify via the company checker. |
| Burnley | United Utilities | 36.1 | Soft | Low | Single source - unverified (WaterGrade) |
| Bury | United Utilities | 48.4 | Soft | Low | Single source - unverified (WaterGrade) |
| Carlisle | United Utilities | — | Soft to moderately soft * | Low * | Company statement - band only (United Utilities) United Utilities states the majority of water in its region is soft or very soft (statement quoted in a hosted planning document). |
| Chester | United Utilities | Withheld | — | — | Conflict: MyTapWater 62 vs WaterGrade 172.3 - withheld The two compiled values disagree, so neither is published; verify via the company checker. |
| Crewe | United Utilities | 132.2 | Slightly hard | Moderate | Single source - unverified (WaterGrade) |
| Lancaster | United Utilities | 71.5 | Soft | Low | Single source - unverified (WaterGrade) |
| Liverpool | United Utilities | Withheld | — | — | Conflict: MyTapWater 55 vs WaterGrade 121.6 - withheld The two compiled values disagree, so neither is published; verify via the company checker. |
| Macclesfield | United Utilities | 125.5 | Slightly hard | Moderate | Single source - unverified (WaterGrade) |
| Manchester | United Utilities | 55-60 | Soft | Low | Two agreeing sources - unverified (MyTapWater + WaterGrade) Two independent aggregators agree; still to be spot-checked against the company checker. |
| Oldham | United Utilities | 46 | Soft | Low | Single source - unverified (WaterGrade) |
| Preston | United Utilities | 140.8 | Slightly hard | Moderate | Single source - unverified (WaterGrade) |
| Rochdale | United Utilities | 49.2 | Soft | Low | Single source - unverified (WaterGrade) |
| Salford | United Utilities | 46 | Soft | Low | Single source - unverified (WaterGrade) |
| Southport | United Utilities | 291.1 | Hard | High | Single source - unverified (WaterGrade) |
| St Helens | United Utilities | 192.2 | Moderately hard | Moderate | Single source - unverified (WaterGrade) |
| Stockport | United Utilities | — | Soft to moderately soft * | Low * | Company statement - band only (United Utilities) United Utilities states the majority of water in its region is soft or very soft (statement quoted in a hosted planning document). |
| Warrington | United Utilities | 207.3 | Hard | High | Single source - unverified (WaterGrade) |
| Wigan | United Utilities | 111.1 | Slightly hard | Moderate | Single source - unverified (WaterGrade) |
* Band or scale risk inferred from the water company's own published statement, not a measured town value. Figures labelled "unverified" come from aggregator sites and should be confirmed against the company's postcode water-quality checker before being relied on. How this dataset is built.
What councils in the North West England ask of landlords
The national legionella duty is the same everywhere; what varies locally is property licensing and whether legionella is written into licence conditions. These verified councils fall in the North West England:
| Council | Nation | Scheme | In force | Legionella in licensing? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Liverpool City Council 16 wards (~80% of the city's private rented sector) Official 2022-27 licence conditions (September 2022) scanned: no legionella. Source document | England | Selective licensing | 1 Apr 2022 – 31 Mar 2027 | Checked - not in conditions |
| Sefton Council 2023-2028 schemes. Selective: Bootle. Additional: Seaforth, Waterloo, Brighton-le-Sands, Central Southport | England | Selective licensing + Additional HMO licensing | n/a | Not yet verified |