Cheaper water bill because i have a water butt?

Cardew

Recyc-all wrote: »

British law has juristiction over OFWAT and is able to decide whether something is fair and just for the consumer.

So in short i want a british court of law to tell me that it is fair and just that i have to pay a company that pollutes my environment, that bills me on guess work when it doesn't have too and is leagally allowed to charge me for a service that it doesn't provide.

Whilst I am no fan of water privatisation, you appear to misunderstand the situation.

The water industry was privatised under the Water Act and the regulator(Ofwat) set up under the same Act.

This is an Act of Parliament and, by definition, is British law. So the water companies are, and Ofwat concurs, acting within the constraints of that law.

By all means petition your MP to get the law changed.

You also seem to direct all your anger at the water companies when they don't have discretion in this matter, and ignore the below quote:

The water companies don't care if you, and all other customers, pay Surface Water Drainage(SWD) or not. They are allowed to make £xxmillion profit by the Regulator and if they lose income from SWD they can raise other charges to compensate.

Recyc-all

Good morning,
This is interesting, you seem to assume that the government or their regulators are above the law? Nobody is above the law.
OFWAT is a regulator and interprets the law(the water act) as it see's fit. This does not meen that OFWAT is the law, far from it. If the regulations set out by OFWAT breach any other law then you don't argue with OFWAT you get a court of law to decide.
As a consumer i have right's, if a water company is breaching those right's i don't go to OFWAT to dispute them, i go to a court of law because OFWAT is not a speacialist in consumer law?
I have been led to believe that to charge for a service that it does not provide is a breach of my consumer rights. So i want a court of law to decide, not a biased OFWAT.
Well that is what i have been led to beleive from the leagl advice i have recieved.
I have recieved, today, a letter that implies that you wouldn't have to pay SWD if:
1. The property has water butts on all down pipes.
2. The property has an overflow system on the water butts that prevents any water falling onto it's paths etc when the butts are full.
3. All the guttering get directed onto the garden.
Upon receipt of this information, a rebate if any can be considered.

This letter is not what i requested and untill i get a copy of their Company Policy regarding this matter i wont publish what i have been sent. What i have is an interpritation of the company policy, this is not good enough.
I want No.3 to be explained and the etc in No.2 to be clarified but were nearly there.
Unless we challange this unfair system we will always be a slave to it.
As i put in the other post, i'm also reqeusting they confirm and garauntee that they deal with 100% of my waste because they charge me a price for doing so. If they can't do this, this would be also be a breach of my consumer rights and i will want a court to decide otherwise.
I might get nowhere but i might win? and i'm willing to try. The consumer council for water think i have an interesting perspective and are keeping a keen interest in the progress of the case because they too agree that i have a right to challange this in a court of law.
We'll see?

Gothicfairy

The CCW do seem to think a lot of things are interesting but I have yet to see them take one thing all the way..But that does not mean they will not in this case.
As far as I understand the water act and SWD...NONE of the water from the roof or property can return to the water course and it is not down to the water companies to prove it one way or the other.

I don't agree with the way SWD is charged but I am not sure it is as unfair as other options I have seen put forward and OFWAT concider.
The top and bottom of it all is though that as it stands they don't have to prove 100% or anything close, they don't have to do anything as the legal default is everyone pays SWD until the householder/ customer asks for a rebate or has a visit.
Water is not the same as all the other utilites and the laws and rights are not the same.

As you say though, we shall see

Recyc-all

Gothicfairy wrote: »

The CCW do seem to think a lot of things are interesting but I have yet to see them take one thing all the way..But that does not mean they will not in this case.
As far as I understand the water act and SWD...NONE of the water from the roof or property can return to the water course and it is not down to the water companies to prove it one way or the other.

I don't agree with the way SWD is charged but I am not sure it is as unfair as other options I have seen put forward and OFWAT concider.
The top and bottom of it all is though that as it stands they don't have to prove 100% or anything close, they don't have to do anything as the legal default is everyone pays SWD until the householder/ customer asks for a rebate or has a visit.
Water is not the same as all the other utilites and the laws and rights are not the same.

As you say though, we shall see

Your quote is one of the reasons why i'm going to a court of law, it is all in favour of the water companies and unfair and unjust from a consumer point of veiw. They have no answer to the question
" How do you expect old age pensioners, disabled people and people with mental health issue's understand this issue let alone to check whether they are on a soak away" this part itself is discriminative, unfair and unjust. In my oppinion.
But as we agreed we'll see

Gothicfairy

Recyc-all wrote: »

" How do you expect old age pensioners, disabled people and people with mental health issue's understand this issue let alone to check whether they are on a soak away"

I might not agree with the policy on SWD but I don't totally agree with you either..Sorry

Your arguement about the elderly, disabled and people with mental health issues is just not going to hold water I should think.
Any homeowner or tenant is in a better place then a water company to check if there is a soakaway..ie deeds and asking owners/ landlords.
I never really did understand why being disabled or elderly makes you somehow unable to deal with things and I for one would be offended if I thought that someone needed to speak for me about what I am able or not to do.
SWD can be difficult for anyone to understand but there is a bit on each bill that does say something along the lines of " if you think you are not connected contact us"..You can call them, email or write and ask that they send someone out to check..All water companies will do that, they might ask that you do a drawing of your property first but they should come out and check.
The reason that it is a default charge is that more houses do not have soakaways at the moment, that might well change and by then I should think the policy will be looked at again but as the moment the default charge is part of the water act and as such law..So not really sure what a local county court judge could do about it anyway.

Cardew is as usual correct..This is part of the law so the best option would be to go to your MP and get them to raise it.

But after all that I will still wish you good luck

Cardew

Recyc-all,

May I suggest you 'don't shoot the messenger'!

There are many, many flaws and stupidities in the way water charges are raised. Despite your 'crusade' against SWD it is far from the most important issue. e.g.

Why should, for instance, customers in the South West of England pay well over double the charges that I pay in my area for the same services - and my area is not the cheapest.

There are huge mansions that were unmodernised in 1973 and hence have a nominal Rateable Value(RV) and pay a fraction of the water charges of a estate semi. Why indeed should any property still pay water charges based on a notional rent the property could command nearly 40 years ago.

Why should each flat in a 20 storey block of flats(with just one roof) pay the same SWD charge as flats in a 2 storey block.

Whilst I agree that the SWD charging policy is a nonsense, personally I don't think your water butt scheme has any merit, for the reasons I explained above.