Am I nuts to not move to a meter?

Cardew

Mmm.

For over 20 years metering has been compulsory for new properties. The Water Privatisation Act envisaged that eventually all properties in UK would be metered.

All water companies have been able to fit meters on change of occupant - some companies have enforced this regulation, others haven't. In some areas they are fitting meters even to properties with long term existing occupants.

Personally I agree that water(as any monopoly) should not have been privatised - but it was!!! The trouble is that we have a largely Victorian/Edwardian water/sewerage infrastructure that successive Governments neglected for decades and now it needs £billions spent.

However I can't understand your objection to compulsory metering(other than your personal expenditure) - surely it makes sense for us to pay for what we use - rather than rely on a RV charging system where charges are based on the hypothetical rent a property could command in 1973. Where a mansion worth £millions can have a lower RV(and hence charges) than a 2 bed estate semi.

The problem is that the way Water companies are regulated it makes no difference to them if properties are metered or not. The Regulator(ofwat) determines what profit they can make and if they lose revenue from unmetered properties, they charge metered properties more to compensate. Classic robbing 'Peter to pay Paul' and you are obviously a 'Paul'!!!!

Regards

'Peter'

A._Badger

Cardew wrote: »

Classic robbing 'Peter to pay Paul' and you are obviously a 'Paul'!!!!

Regards

'Peter'

Well, not really that much of a 'Paul' - which was rather my point.

I was extremely surprised (understatement alert) when I checked the figures at the end of the year, to find how close I was to break even with just one person in residence.

My feeling about the figures is that there is some seriously creative accounting going on and that, in the end, the water monopolies are going to come out extremely well - if not in terms of actual profit, then in terms of income which they can manipulate in all manner of interesting ways.

What worries me is how calmly people seem to be taking this.

Cardew

A._Badger wrote: »

.

What worries me is how calmly people seem to be taking this.

Not sure I understand what you mean?

Obviously nobody likes the high water charges and some people who don't have meters(the Pauls) are upset that they may have to pay the same as the others.

However surely the only fair way to charge for water is on how much you use rather than a 40 year old system based on a notional rental value.

A._Badger

Cardew wrote: »

Not sure I understand what you mean?

Obviously nobody likes the high water charges and some people who don't have meters(the Pauls) are upset that they may have to pay the same as the others.

However surely the only fair way to charge for water is on how much you use rather than a 40 year old system based on a notional rental value.

Without checking (pressure of time this morning) I'd have guessed it was a good deal older than 40 years, but I may be wrong.

As for fair? I'm not sure it's inherently any less fair than charging by use. A family of six may have a low income and yet, if charged by use, pay the same as a wealthy family of six.

I accept that is true for food and fuel, too, but if 'fairness' is our yardstick, it could be argued that isn't essentially fair, either, while a rateable value assessment acts more like a tax on wealth - albeit a clumsy one.

The question I would ask is, do we need to be charging by volume at all? The water companies have jumped on the 'Green' bandwagon with alacrity, pretending the issue is one of water shortage, but the real problem, as we seem to agree, is a lack of infrastructure - which they have been notoriously poor at upgrading.

A proper 'national grid' could solve the problem of overall quantity. Instead, we are allowing privatised water to operate local monopolies. And while you might e 'Paul' today, will you be tomorrow?

The signs aren't good.

My bet is that water prices will continue to rise, while the providers (I'd rather not call them producers) under a sustained barrage of propaganda about 'sustainability' and 'shortage', continue to ramp up bills. Meanwhile what were once jobs overseen by lowly paid town clerks, will continue to be held by hugely paid CEOs - and all the rest that goes with a modern corporation.

In short, I think we have devised a very poor system that benefits no one but the companies themselves. I think MSEers should be opposing it, rather than shrugging and putting up with it because, if we don't, one day, turning on the tap will cause the same sort of angst that filling-up the car does for any but the comfortably well off.

And unlike with petrol - where water is concerned there is no real need or excuse for that.

macman

Water rates are based on rateable values set between 1973 and 1990. so Cardew is quite correct in saying that the system is now around 40 years old.

Gothicfairy

I am not really sure I understand the arguement really as it will not mean an increase overall. OFWAT agree the profit and that is then broken up however.So more on meters or less whould not effect any profit the company makes.
Some would indeed pay more on a meter but again that is paying what you use and even the most expensive water company is still cheaper then buying water from a store.
One thousand litres for a couple of quid is a good deal, and then there is all the waste taken away. Try a country that does not get that and see how much better off we are.
In some parts of the US you can pay over 2k per year on sewerage alone depending on where you live.

Our system is by no means perfect here and has it's problems but it also works and we do get clean fresh water on tap and our waste removed at a flush. People will happly pay hundreds every 3 months for gas/electric but talk about water and people suddenly think a couple of hundred a year is to much.
It should never have been privatised but it was and we have to get over that and move on. Meters are going to happen and I honestly don't think there is much we can do about it as it part of the water act and as such a legal matter rather then a customer issue.

A._Badger

Gothicfairy wrote: »

Meters are going to happen and I honestly don't think there is much we can do about it as it part of the water act and as such a legal matter rather then a customer issue.

You don't believe governments can undo what governments have done?

While a move back to what we had before is unlikely, forcing the government to put some backbone into regulation isn't.

Incidentally, comparisons between energy and water really don't wash (!). Water isn't an internationally traded commodity with a huge infrastructure and all sorts of commercial markets involved. It drops out of the sky, is collected, purified and transported through pipes.

I still find it surprising that MSEers seem so docile. But I haven't the time or the inclination to keep banging on about it.

Cardew

A._Badger wrote: »

You don't believe governments can undo what governments have done?

While a move back to what we had before is unlikely, forcing the government to put some backbone into regulation isn't.

Incidentally, comparisons between energy and water really don't wash (!). Water isn't an internationally traded commodity with a huge infrastructure and all sorts of commercial markets involved. It drops out of the sky, is collected, purified and transported through pipes.

I still find it surprising that MSEers seem so docile. But I haven't the time or the inclination to keep banging on about it.

The thrust of your argument seems to have shifted from metering/RV charging to a general criticism of the water supply industry.

Personally I tend to agree that the concept of privatising a monopoly was essentially wrong; and water companies are in a win/win position - reflected in how well their shares have performed even in times of recession.

However your original criticism in this thread was about metering and the unfairness of moving people to meters.

On that point IMO your criticism are not valid. To base water charges on a Rateable Value(RV) that was determined by the notional rent the property could command in 1973 is patently absurd. Your statement that "while a rateable value assessment acts more like a tax on wealth - albeit a clumsy one." is just not true.

I know of mansions in several acres that are Band H and worth £millions. The have a nominal RV of £50 or so, because in 1973 they were unmodernised and nobody would dream of renting such a property with all the upkeep. So their water charges now are a fraction of that an estate semi pays.

Old terraced houses in the then unfashionable parts of London(Fulham Islington etc) could have a stupidly low RV in 1973 - yet now are owned by the rich!