Surface Water Drainage Question

leftatthelights

Hi all,

I currently live in an apparment block and have done so for the last 3 years. I have suddenly received a bill from United Utilities for £255 for SWD (surface water drainage)!
When we moved into the flat it was made clear to us that the water rates were included in the rent and that the water bills would be taken care of by the owners of the building which has been the case from day 1.

We have spoken to a neighbour and she has received the very same letter with an identical amount to be paid (she is refusing to pay).
Apparently, every single flat has received the same letter with the same amount.
The letter says "to the occupier" and has gotten to the red letter stage which is a little worrying but at least our names arent on the bill!

Can anyone advise me as to who is liable for this payment and why the building owner neglected to inform us of this payment as they are saying it is our responsiblity to pay up even though they initially told us to post the bill onto them to pay it but thyen changed their tune and passed it back to us????

Sorry for the long post:D

CrashUK

your name is not on the bill so your not liable to pay anything... Put it in your records but dont act on it. If they do send a bill in your name pass it on to the owners of the building and if they dont pay it and you get any more with your name on them.. Pay it and take it out of the rent. As you say water rates are inc in the rent.

Cardew

The 'default' position is that all properties are liable for SWD unless they claim exemption from that charge - normally because their surface water(from gutters and grounds) does not enter the sewerage system and from gutters goes into a soakaway.

Incidentally this stupid ruling is part of the Water Privatisation act and not the fault of the companies. It is even more stupid to expect a block of, say, 12 flats to pay 12 SWD charges.

If the landlord pays the water charges - then it is up to him to claim exemption from SWD or pay.

Recyc-all

Cardew wrote: »

The 'default' position is that all properties are liable for SWD unless they claim exemption from that charge - normally because their surface water(from gutters and grounds) does not enter the sewerage system and from gutters goes into a soakaway.

Incidentally this stupid ruling is part of the Water Privatisation act and not the fault of the companies. It is even more stupid to expect a block of, say, 12 flats to pay 12 SWD charges.

If the landlord pays the water charges - then it is up to him to claim exemption from SWD or pay.

Hi,
i'm sure you'll be interested to know that 2/3 of rural britain is built on soak aways and the water boards are legally allowed to charge for SWD because of a clause put in at privatisation.
Iv'e had a rebate for mine just recently and am now in the process of trying to get my estate to apply as the 300+ houses are all on a soakaway and southeren water doesn't have to tell them untill they contact them and ask?!?!? HOW IMORAL IS THAT.
I've just refused to pay my bill and asked them to take me to court so they can decide if the system is antiquated for a modern socioty that we live in.
i could rant for hours but have to go and watch the football will continue later.:T

Recyc-all

sorry just got to say "it's not the fault of the companies" statement isn't exactly true as far as i know.
It's a bit like the polititions expenses, they new what they were doing was wrong but they did it because they were allowed to.
The water authorities know that to charge someone for a service that they don't provide is wrong but because they're allowed to, they do?
If it's not the companies fault, then it was never the MP's fault, surely?

Cardew

Recyc-all wrote: »

sorry just got to say "it's not the fault of the companies" statement isn't exactly true as far as i know.
It's a bit like the polititions expenses, they new what they were doing was wrong but they did it because they were allowed to.
The water authorities know that to charge someone for a service that they don't provide is wrong but because they're allowed to, they do?
If it's not the companies fault, then it was never the MP's fault, surely?

As I said in an earlier post the whole system of SWD charges is a nonsense.

However your statement is not quite accurate:

the water boards are legally allowed to charge for SWD because of a clause put in at privatisation.

The innaccuracy is the use of the word 'allowed'. They are in fact 'mandated' to charge for SWD until an exemption is sought. This despite the fact that it is very difficult to get planning permission for building properties unless there is provision for a soakaway.

You are also incorrect in your assumption that water companies know if a property has surface water entering the sewers or not - they don't, how would they know? Conduct detailed examinations of every property in UK? That presumably is why the Government madee the 'default' position that you should be charged for SWD until proven otherwise.

However what you appear not to appreciate is that it doesn't matter at all to the water companies if they charge for SWD or not. They are allowed by the Regulator to raise £x million in revenue which covers their outgoings and profit.

So if they, say, have an income of £500,000 from SWD and they lost all the income from that source, they would simply be allowed to raise the same £500,000 from other charges(e.g. water/sewerage) and still make the same profit. So SWD charges are not a source of 'additional' profit.

In fact if you read Ofwat's website they give this as the reason why SWD charges cannot be backdated for previous years. Namely to compensate the companies for the loss of any refunds for earlier years they would need to charge all other customers extra.

bluewire

Cardew.........It is so nice to see someone talk about what they know when they actually know about it rather than the usual too much day time TV knowledge that others can have.

I am not saying anything bad about people who have posted but sometimes people need to do a little research into their own knowledge.