We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide

Cut Water Bills

I have lived at my address for 16 years nd just discovered on the latest Thames Water bill that we qualify for an £18 per annum reduction as our water drains to a soakaway rather than the sewers.

Whilst this is mentioned on the bill, its in ver small print and not that well advertised...and anyway how would your average householder like me know how the water drains away!!

I am now wondering if I can claim a rebate for the last 16 years...its worth a go! In ther meantime maybe worth looking at your own properties!!:beer:

Comments

  • Cardew
    Cardew Posts: 29,064 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Rampant Recycler
    This subject has been covered many times

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=192960

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=398268

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=385145

    The amount you can get as a rebate varies; but you won’t get it backdated for previous years
  • hwman
    hwman Posts: 4 Newbie
    Many thanks for that, looks like my 'new discovery' is old news on here, however I dont understand why the Water Board should not be forced to pay a rebate for money they have taken under false pretences!

    On this website and in national press it has been well publicised that many people have succesfully claimed rebates for incorrect or overcharged council taxes...so where is the difference and why can the water boards get away with this?

    Seems to me looking at the posts that no-one has tried too hard yet, but maybe I am missing a point?
  • Cardew
    Cardew Posts: 29,064 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Rampant Recycler
    I believe that when water privatised one of the conditions mandated in the government Bill was that the 'default position' was a charge for surface water drainage. So it is not false pretences.

    I don't think it bothered the water companies either way. They are allowed to raise £X million by the regulator who controls their charges. If there was no charge for surface water drainage, then the lost revenue from the £X million would be made up by higher water/sewerage charges.

    If it were the other way, and the 'default position' was no charge for surface water drainage, think of the problems. Customers would either have to volunteer the information that surface water ran into the sewer(and only honest people like you or I would do that!!!) or a lengthy inspection of every property in the land; which would be a huge cost(which the customers would bear) and take years.

    It seems to me that the fairest way would be scrap that charge altogether; but the counter view is that if you use a service - you should pay for it.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 354.4K Banking & Borrowing
  • 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 455.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 604.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 178.5K Life & Family
  • 261.6K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.