Water Bills questions and comment

Gothicfairy

AaronGarrett wrote: »

Hi i am currently paying £62 a month on water bills for a 2 bedroom flat, 2 adults and 1 child. Is this right?

I am not trying to sound b1tchy but how on earth do you expect someone to help you when the info supplied is so little ?

You are in the Severn Trent area so why not phone or email them and ask because there is no way anyone here can provide you with any details based purely on your post.

georgewn.1

georgewn.1 wrote: »

I am a bit new here and perhaps a bit slow on the uptake. I recently discovered what you all already know that you can have a rebate if you have a soakaway. I recently claimed this rebate from southern water via an online form. They have contacted me and told me I qualify and they will rebate this years bill and all future bills. My question is should they refund all past charges for the last 22 years that I have lived here and if so what is the best way to claim.

Gothicfairy wrote: »

No, you could have applied for the rebate at any time and the onus is on the customer so I am afraid you only get the year of application and nothing more.

Soakaway info has been on the back of bills for ages so there is nothing more you can do.

perhaps this is something that Martin and his team could look into. It seems to me that this is just another big company ripping off customers by hanging on to money they were never entitled to .

Cardew

georgewn.1 wrote: »

perhaps this is something that Martin and his team could look into. It seems to me that this is just another big company ripping off customers by hanging on to money they were never entitled to .

Sorry but you are wrong in this matter. If you look at the OFWAT website it gives a sensible explanation why there are no refunds backdated.

Firstly IMO the whole situation of Surface Water Drainage(SWD) is a farce. However you need to understand that the Government mandated in the Water Privatisation Act that the default position would be to charge for SWD and customers would have to apply for relief from that charge. It was clearly impractical to inspect some 20+ million properties to see if SWD charges were appropriate.

There are all sorts of anomalies with this charge. Every flat in a 50 storey block pays for SWD for instance if no soakaway.

Secondly you need to appreciate how the water companies are funded. It doesn't matter to them if everyone pays for SWD or nobody pays for SWD. The revenue in charges raised by each water company is strictly regulated by the Regulator OFWAT.

The companies can raise £xxxmillion and make £yymillion profit. If they lose, say, £10million in charges for SWD, they simply add £10million to other charges and still collect the same £xxxmillion in revenue and make the same £yymillion profit.

As explained in the OFWAT website, if they refunded you(and millions of others) for 22 years payment of SWD, this lost revenue would have to be raised by a large levy on future water bills.

Now why should my children(who were drinking milk from a feeding bottle 22 years ago), and your children?, be saddled with the costs of refunding you, for a payment that the Government instructed the water companies to make 22 years ago?

Of course you could argue that as Maggie Thatcher was responsible for the farce of water privatisation, the Government should refund you for your SWD payments.:rotfl: Want a wager on the chances of that happening? I will give you generous odds!!

georgewn.1

Cardew wrote: »

Sorry but you are wrong in this matter. If you look at the OFWAT website it gives a sensible explanation why there are no refunds backdated.

Firstly IMO the whole situation of Surface Water Drainage(SWD) is a farce. However you need to understand that the Government mandated in the Water Privatisation Act that the default position would be to charge for SWD and customers would have to apply for relief from that charge. It was clearly impractical to inspect some 20+ million properties to see if SWD charges were appropriate.

There are all sorts of anomalies with this charge. Every flat in a 50 storey block pays for SWD for instance if no soakaway.

Secondly you need to appreciate how the water companies are funded. It doesn't matter to them if everyone pays for SWD or nobody pays for SWD. The revenue in charges raised by each water company is strictly regulated by the Regulator OFWAT.

The companies can raise £xxxmillion and make £yymillion profit. If they lose, say, £10million in charges for SWD, they simply add £10million to other charges and still collect the same £xxxmillion in revenue and make the same £yymillion profit.

As explained in the OFWAT website, if they refunded you(and millions of others) for 22 years payment of SWD, this lost revenue would have to be raised by a large levy on future water bills.

Now why should my children(who were drinking milk from a feeding bottle 22 years ago), and your children?, be saddled with the costs of refunding you, for a payment that the Government instructed the water companies to make 22 years ago?

Of course you could argue that as Maggie Thatcher was responsible for the farce of water privatisation, the Government should refund you for your SWD payments.:rotfl: Want a wager on the chances of that happening? I will give you generous odds!!

Thank you very much for your reply but I feel it misses the point of the principle of money saving. Had I had the knowledge to claim this rebate 22 years ago your children would still have been "saddled" with my bill. My view is that I have been charged for a service I did not need. I would argue that the principle is similar to that of the recent PPI reclaims where customers have been refunded the charges for a service they did not need. The banks have paid out vast amounts of money on PPI. Would you argue that the people who have had these refunds have passed a burden onto others as I am sure the banks will recover any losses in some other way. Perhaps they will "saddle" your children with lower saving interest rates or higher mortgage rates. Should we all give up trying to save and beat the big companies because in your view they will only get it back from someone else.

Cardew

georgewn.1 wrote: »

Thank you very much for your reply but I feel it misses the point of the principle of money saving. Had I had the knowledge to claim this rebate 22 years ago your children would still have been "saddled" with my bill. My view is that I have been charged for a service I did not need. I would argue that the principle is similar to that of the recent PPI reclaims where customers have been refunded the charges for a service they did not need. The banks have paid out vast amounts of money on PPI. Would you argue that the people who have had these refunds have passed a burden onto others as I am sure the banks will recover any losses in some other way. Perhaps they will "saddle" your children with lower saving interest rates or higher mortgage rates. Should we all give up trying to save and beat the big companies because in your view they will only get it back from someone else.

I don't want to get at cross-purposes about SWD.

I am on record(frequently!) on MSE stating that the SWD situation was and is a disgrace - especially as different companies charge different amounts.

OFWAT were initially given 10 years to sort it out with the companies; but it all became too dificult and that provision was dropped by amending the Act.

Many other aspects of the water privatisation were, and are, a disgrace - the metering situation for example.

However you, with respect, are changing tack. You claimed that 'this is just another big company ripping off customers by hanging on to money they were never entitled to' .

I explained in some detail that far from 'not being entitled', they were mandated to charge for SWD by an Act of Parliament.

I also explained that given the regulated financing arrangments for the water companies, it didn't, and doesn't, matter to the water companies if all or none of their customers are charged for SWD. So your argument about 'beating the companies' doesn't make sense.

There is also an argument that careful reading of your bills would have revealed the situation about SWD and you could have applied 22 years ago for relief - Caveat emptor?

Water charges are regulated by the Government appointed Regulator OFWAT. If you feel that you and millions of others should get rebate for the past 22 years as you hadn't realised you could have had relief, then write to your MP and get the Government or the companies to refund.

Should that principle of getting backdated rebates apply to every person who didn't appreciate that water meters would be cheaper, or that they could have an assesed rate if meters could not be fitted. Or those who applied for a meter and found it more expensive

How about those who didn't realise cheaper gas/electricity tariffs were available, or that Economy 7 was unsuitable etc etc.

Your analogy to the PPI scandal doesn't hold water.

1. There was no Act of Parliament ordering banks to charge PPI.

2. Banks made a profit from PPI

Edit

because in your view they will only get it back from someone else.

Please don't try and attribute statements to me, it is not 'my view' it is what the Regulator states - read the OFWAT website!

Cardew

georgewn.1 wrote: »

Had I had the knowledge to claim this rebate 22 years ago your children would still have been "saddled" with my bill. .

A further comment.

I covered the point about your lack of knowledge - Caveat Emptor. Millions however did have the knowledge and have applied for relief . They must have read and understood the information on SWD that companies must sent out with the billing paperwork.

However you appear to miss the point by stating my children would stll have been saddled with your bill.

Had you claimed 22 years ago, those paying water bills would have paid a fraction more on their bills. My infant children would not have paid.

This is from the OFWAT site

Why can't the surface water drainage rebate be backdated?

There is no legal obligation for companies to backdate any rebate of charges beyond the current charging year. In fact the Water Industry Act of does not prevent companies from charging for surface water drainage even where customers do not receive the service. Nevertheless, following a
requirement from Ofwat, all companies have provided rebates for non-connection since April 2001.

We think it’s right that companies should not pay rebates retrospectively past the current charging year. Surface water
drainage costs have historically been shared between all customers. As a result of offering the rebate to those not connected, other customers must pay slightly higher charges to recover the total costs of surface water. If rebates were applied retrospectively therefore, this would mean corresponding retrospective increases in charges to onnected customers, who had previously paid too little for the
surface water drainage service. This would be neither
practicable nor desirable. Companies must ensure that this information is included in the billing literature sent with the customer’s bill.

This from the Consumer council:

Why can't the Surface Water

Drainage rebate be backdated?

Charges Scheme approval
The law requires sewerage companies to offer rebates for surface
water drainage where customers' properties do not drain to the public sewer.
There is no legal obligation for companies to backdate any rebate of
charges beyond the current charging year. The Water Industry Act of 1991 (and case law establishes) does not prevent companies from
charging for surface water drainage even where the service is not
received.

This change is designed not to affect a company's finances.
For every customer who does not pay the charge all others have to pay slightly more. If the rebate were backdated
then there would need to be a corresponding backdated increase in other bills.
The administration of such a system would be complex and expensive and so not in customers' interests.

Formatting not my fault - ignore bolding!

georgewn.1

As some who feels ripped of I should say thank you. It was kind of you to point out the history for me. I should point out that you mentioned the burden being passed on to your children. I see you have been thanked many times so I respect your knowledge by I feel you need to address your condescending and superior manner of writing and your tendency to twist statements. Perhaps I am wrong but that is just my view.

lsfanclub

I had a call from Thames water about an account from a previous address. They called to tell me about money outstanding. This is the second or third time I had receieved such a call.
I had contacted Thames Water in August/September 2011 to shut the account as we were leaving the address. We were worried about outstanding bills so we had made sure that everything was even with the company when we called at that time. I then received calls in may 2012 to tell us that the account was still open and we owed money. Of course I informed them that we left the address months earlier and we had closed the account. At which point I was told that in which case the account was square and I was happy. Then this week I recieved a call saying they wanted to charge us for outstanding bills. Of course I informed the lady that we had 'closed' the account twice, and were informed on both occassions that the account was settled. She still was adament that I should give her my new details for this bill and to finally close the account. I felt no such incentive to do so, as I had been informed the account had been closed on two occasions previously, and to pay to do so on this occasion seemed extravagent, especially when the fault lies with them. I am incorrect to feel that if a mistake has been made it is theirs? I asked to speak to the complaints department but of course there was none. And the chance of discussing the recording of previous calls was impossible. What would people advise as the next step. I have the feeling after the refusal to give my new details they will simply keep sending bills to the previous addresse.

Cardew

lsfanclub wrote: »

I had a call from Thames water about an account from a previous address. They called to tell me about money outstanding. This is the second or third time I had receieved such a call.
I had contacted Thames Water in August/September 2011 to shut the account as we were leaving the address. We were worried about outstanding bills so we had made sure that everything was even with the company when we called at that time. I then received calls in may 2012 to tell us that the account was still open and we owed money. Of course I informed them that we left the address months earlier and we had closed the account. At which point I was told that in which case the account was square and I was happy. Then this week I recieved a call saying they wanted to charge us for outstanding bills. Of course I informed the lady that we had 'closed' the account twice, and were informed on both occassions that the account was settled. She still was adament that I should give her my new details for this bill and to finally close the account. I felt no such incentive to do so, as I had been informed the account had been closed on two occasions previously, and to pay to do so on this occasion seemed extravagent, especially when the fault lies with them. I am incorrect to feel that if a mistake has been made it is theirs? I asked to speak to the complaints department but of course there was none. And the chance of discussing the recording of previous calls was impossible. What would people advise as the next step. I have the feeling after the refusal to give my new details they will simply keep sending bills to the previous addresse.

Welcome to the forum.

Who moved in after you left in Aug/Sept? i.e. new owners?, new tenants? or landlord took possession? Did any of those agree with you on a meter reading? -assuming you had a meter!

The first step is to produce some proof of moving i.e. a new letting agreement or date of purchase of new property.

Presumably all of your correspondence was on the telephone and neither you, or Thames, put anything in writing?

If you were charged on the basis of the Rateable Value(i.e. no meter), and you can prove you left the premises in Aug/Sept, it will be straightforward to calculate what you owe(if anything)

If metered it is more difficult as the final meter reading becomes a matter of agreement between yourself and the new occupant. Your previous consumption will be a guide to an estimated meter reading - again assuming you can prove when you moved.

Make sure you get this sorted out, because Thames will simply hand the matter to a Debt Collection Agency(DCA) and then it becomes a hassle with your credit record in danger.

Submit IN WRITING a formal complaint to put matters on hold while an investigation is carried out.

JoeNBarnes

Hello all,

New to the site so apologies if this issue has been touched upon on the forum else-ware.

I rent a 2 bed flat (have been for 3 years now) and was told upon agreeing to move in that the water bills were included in the rent. I contacted Wessex Water directly to confirm this, and they sent me a letter detailing the block of flats go through a centralised meter that is charged to the building owners etc.

We have now received a letter from the property management company saying there has been an error since the building has been renting flats (circa 7 years) and they did not realise that they were paying for the water, so this now will be invoiced to the tenants. We have received an invoice from the management company (not Wessex water) for £260 for the past 6 months usage, with no breakdown, detail or summary of how the price was formed. All flats in the block have been invoiced the same amount. We are happy to pay our way - but feel a little deceived.

It would be great to get your views on the situation in terms of:

Is it legal for them to do this?
Is the amount charged realistic (2 bed flat, 3 people)?
The best way to respond from this point?

Many thanks in advance for taking the time to read this!

Joe