Cut Thames Water bill WITHOUT a meter

PlutoinCapricorn

Hello again Stephenhj. I think that you are probably correct about TW and the 'nice little earner' but I am still struggling to get my case recognised so have not thought much about other issues.

I did write to both OFWAT and CC for Water, the responses have just arrived and are disappointing:

CC for W say that they are not going to deal with my complaints because they have been contacted by OFWAT who have advised them that it is appropriate for OFWAT rather than CC for W to answer my points. I wonder whether this is normal? I wrote to both organisations in the hope of getting two evaluations of my situation.

As for OFWAT, they just repeat the usual general information about meters and the AHC and say that they are considering whether, and if so how, companies should make the assessed tariff information more available to customers.

They also say that a survey is necessary because there are cases where some flats can be fitted with meters and others cannot: not in mixed-use blocks there aren't!

I am going to email them and take them up on a few points, but what we really need is for Martin to start a crusade in the same way that he did for excessive bank and credit card charges.

Cardew

Stephenhj,

I am no lover, or defender, of water companies - and there are masses of grounds on which to criticise them.

However IMO you are just clutching at straws and there is far too much supposition in your last post, and you haven't given an 'answer' but your simply interpretation of the quote - which is, again IMO, flawed.

Neither you or Pluto have found any evidence to support your contention that this saga is a nice little earner for TW and in fact the replies you have got point in the opposite direction.

Indeed it would be understandable for water companies to discourage applications for meter(and thus assessed charges) as well as applications for relief of surface water drainage, if there was some financial incentive.

However as is clearly shown, they make their £xx million profit regardless, which makes their lack of publicity even more puzzling.

stephenhj

Cardew:

IMO you are mistaken.

You think my interpretation of the quote from another water company is wrong, indeed that the quote points in the other direction. On what grounds?

If there is shortly to be a "revised mechanism" enabling the water companies to recapture in year 2 revenue unanticipatedly lost in year 1, that seems to me clearly to imply that there is no such mechanism today.

Granted the quote related to taking up meters, not the assessed charge. But if there is no mechanism for that issue, it is surely most unlikely that there is one for the issue, relatively minor in the companies' overall revenues, of the assessed charge.

In any case, even I am wrong on that point, you haven't answered my point that money tomorrow is not money today. And it is a matter of fact that water companies--at least none that I've ever met--don't issue to the general body of their customers revised bills for a year that is already under way.

Still, this is indeed a side issue. What matters is Thames Water's deliberate failure to inform customers, and Ofwat's grotesque approval of that policy of silence. PlutoinCapricorn reports that Ofwat is--it says--thinking of (well, maybe, perhaps) a new attitude. Very welcome that would (well, might) be. But as far as I'm concerned--and no doubt thousands of others--£1,500 too late. Unless Ofwat gets not just a new attitude but a new management and one that insists (pigs might fly) that those who have been ripped off blind with its approval, are to be repaid.

Cardew

Stephen,
I think we are in agreement about the major issue - the lack of publicity.

We disagree on the motive for their action - so be it!

stephenhj

Cardew: Fine. We agree on what matters

stephenhj

Back 15 months later to the same topic of Thames Water's policy of deliberate non-information. It's plain why they follow this policy: they make more money. But it's not so clear--except to cynics--why Ofwat supports this policy of anti-consumer secrecy.

I wonder how long Ofwat will be able to main its own anti-consumer attitude now that Thames have gone one step further in secrecy.

The Thames pamphlet of "information" that used to come with each year's water bill did in the past (though I'm not sure about 2010) at least mention the Assessed Household Charge, albeit on a page conveniently headed "Thinking about a meter?" that few non-meterable households would ever look. The 2011 version of this pamphlet does not even mention the AHC. To learn about it you will have to delve into the Thames website, for a charge you've probably never heard of and in a section (it's labelled 'requestameter') whose title, just as with the pamphlet, will probably ensure that few non-meterable households will ever look at it.

How can Ofwat tolerate that? Still, I don't doubt it will be able to think up arguments. I've publicised some of its manifest claptrap earlier, that reached me by email from the horse's mouth, Ofwat itself. A wretched broken-down nag it may be, toothless (at least to bite water companies) and fit only for the knacker's yard, but it's probably still quite able to dream up nonsense--which, as before, by happy coincidence, will suit its friends in the water monopolies.

PlutoinCapricorn

Stephenhj, it is good to see that you still feel so strongly about this.

I was forced to apply for a meter even though I know I can't have one, and after more than one year am STILL waiting for TW to do something about putting me on the single user, low tariff. I sent two emails, they said they would pass them on but nothing has happened.

I suppose that I should write yet again. I am so demoralised and hate having to explain it over and over again.

mobile48

PlutoinCapricorn wrote: »

I sent two emails, they said they would pass them on but nothing has happened.

I suppose that I should write yet again. I am so demoralised and hate having to explain it over and over again.

Have a check of the following.

http://www.ofwat.gov.uk/consumerissues/rightsresponsibilities/standards/

I gotten £10 from my Water company for a late response before however I also came across following when looking for above.

http://www.thameswater.co.uk/cps/rde/xchg/corp/hs.xsl/5171.htm

Cardew

stephenhj wrote: »

Back 15 months later to the same topic of Thames Water's policy of deliberate non-information. It's plain why they follow this policy: they make more money. But it's not so clear--except to cynics--why Ofwat supports this policy of anti-consumer secrecy.

.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2110007

Oblivion

The wife and I are in a modest flat 'served' by Thames Water and our bill this year based on RV was £304.

Thanks to this thread and others like it, I applied for a meter knowing we could never have one as we share a common riser with the flat above plus a shared loft tank.

I have to say that in contrast to what some have reported here, my experience with Thames Water has been good. I applied online for a meter at the end of March ... one week later a TW inspector/engineer called and examined our setup and took a couple of photos, and filled in a form saying we were unmeterable.

Three weeks later I rather bizarrely received a letter from TW welcoming me to my new home and enclosing a pamphlet of their services. !!!!!!! ... new home? ... I've only lived here 36 years!

So I phoned them up and it transpired that the letter had been automatically triggered on their system because I had been given a new account number as a result of being put on an assessed charge ... YEH! :T :beer:

A few days later, another letter arrived confirming that we had been put in band 1 (2 people and 1 bedroom) and my charge of £304 had now been reduced to £237 and a refund was being arranged.

It was quick, it was easy, it was painless and I've saved myself a significant bit of cash each year

My thanks to the OP and everyone else who offered the advice. :A