MERSEYSIDE’S fire service could square up to water giant United Utilities in a High Court showdown, it has emerged.

Fire crews have complained about the lacklustre water pressure coming from the company’s hydrants, but United Utilities (UU) have apparently refused to increase the pressure.

Now Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service (MFRS) have drawn up an action plan to force UU to agree to do more.

If they don’t, the fire service could haul them into court.

In September, the Daily Post reported Merseyside’s fire crews did not have enough water or adequate pressure to tackle large blazes.

Although crews could cope with a domestic fire, there were fears a larger industrial inferno would stretch resources.

The fire service says they have been in talks with UU for more than 12 months over the lack of pressure and have demanded improvements.

But, two months ago, chief fire officer Tony McGuirk said those talks had “stalled” and that a lacklustre water supply “has become an increasingly major risk to the authority”.

In response, UU said they were sticking to an agreement signed with a number of fire authorities last year.

But, in a report to be presented to Fire Authority members on Thursday, David Wright, the service’s executive director of law and human resources, spells out UU’s obligations and the measures open to MFRS.

Mr Wright said UU would be committing an offence and could be fined £5,000 if it did not fulfil its obligations without a reasonable excuse.

“If United Utilities is unwilling to enter into an agreement reasonably proposed by the Authority, to secure an adequate supply of water for firefighting, the Authority may consider legal action against United Utilities in the High Court, seeking an order requiring it to enter into such an agreement.

“If United Utilities is persistently unable to provide a supply and pressure of water for firefighting, and the Authority is satisfied that United Utilities has failed to take all reasonable steps to do so, and has no reasonable excuse for such failure, then the Authority could consider prosecuting the water undertaker for the associated offence,” Mr Wright said.