Surface Water Rebate

Mikemill

I recently became aware of this rip off by the water suppliers, and have been sucsesfull in getting a rebate.
But the thing that annoys me is why do they hide this item within the waste water charge, the only referance is in very small type on the revese of the bill, if they were acting as honest suppliers they would itemise the charge on the front of the bill along with the other charges, so users would know if the charge was approprate
Then it gets worse, having applied for the rebate they only back date it for one year. I have lived in my house for fourteen years,
as the anual charge is around £40, that amounts to £560 they owe me.
The regulator Ofwat has agreed the one year rule with the suppliers!!!
Is this not an outrageous rip off
Its about time this fraud was brought out in the open, so come on Martin do your best to stop this daylight robbery

Thanks
Mike

Gothicfairy

There are many many threads about this on here and many different points of view but the main thing is that SWD is a default setting for all properties and that was down to the government rather then the water company.

There is a leaflet that is sent out with all RV bills each year and that does explain about the rebate and I also think that there is a section on the back of the bill itself about it (well there is on mine) so as far as my bill goes I can see there are options. It is really down to the customer to read the whole of the bill to be honest and as long as it is there in black and white then I am not sure what else anyone can expect them to do.

I just don't agree with terms like "fraud" as this is a clear policy and agreed by the government/ OFWAT and the water companies.

Problem is that most companies that offer any kind of rebates usually leave it down to the customer to sort out and this is just one of those things as more people then not should be paying SWD.

Cardew

Welcome to the forum.

The post above by Gothicfairy is 100% correct.

Without being unkind, by calling the practice fraud you are demonstrating that you have no idea how the water companies are financed.

Firstly as stated above, it was mandated by the Government(of Maggie) when water was privatised that the 'default' position would be that properties would be charged for SWD(Surface Water Drainage). As an aside it is not easy without investigations to establish if propereties have soakaways - even owners can't easily find out - and it just wouldn't be possible for water companies to inspect 20 million properties in UK.

More importantly, it doesn't matter a jot in financial terms to water companies if they charge for SWD or not. The company's income and profit is controlled by the Regulator. i.e. they are allowed to make £x million profit. So if, say, they raised £1 million less from SWD, they would be allowed to increase other charges by £1 million to compensate.

So to accuse them of 'fraud' or even 'sharp practice' is well wide of the mark. As they have a monopoly in their district they are in a win/win situation without having to resort to such tactics

Of course the whole business of charging for SWD is a nonsense. For instance why should all occupants in a 10 storey block of flats pay SWD!! However that is a Government problem to grasp.

Mikemill

I thought this site was to advise against sharp practice, my point was if the SWD charge is legitimate why not show it on the front of the bill along with other chages, so its easy for a customer to understand what you are being charged for.
If the water companies choose to hide the SWD charge which they do, it should be the default position that they reimburse customers to the full value of the excess charges, they can't have it both ways
In my opinion this arangement is similar to the 'terms and conditions' argument where a firm can hide unfair practice within reams of text and then say when a dispute arises, 'you agreed with the terms and conditions when to signed up' because they know poeple don't spend hours reading through legal gobaldygook.
I am just argueing for a level playing field.

Thanks
Mike

Cardew

Mikemill wrote: »

I thought this site was to advise against sharp practice, my point was if the SWD charge is legitimate why not show it on the front of the bill along with other chages, so its easy for a customer to understand what you are being charged for.
If the water companies choose to hide the SWD charge which they do, it should be the default position that they reimburse customers to the full value of the excess charges, they can't have it both ways
In my opinion this arangement is similar to the 'terms and conditions' argument where a firm can hide unfair practice within reams of text and then say when a dispute arises, 'you agreed with the terms and conditions when to signed up' because they know poeple don't spend hours reading through legal gobaldygook.
I am just argueing for a level playing field.

Thanks
Mike

Well at least you have toned down your accusations of fraud! Also I am still not sure if you understand that SWD is not a way of increasing profits?

My water company(Severn Trent) do indeed show the SWD charge on the front of the bill; are you sure yours doesn’t? Perhaps you can give an example of the charges on your bill?

It is a valid criticism that water companies don’t give prominence to measures that might reduce bills e.g. SWD and metering . It is all the more reprehensible in that, as explained above, it has no effect on their profits if everyone got relief from SWD or got a meter.

You really need to read the OFWAT website which explains fully why water companies cannot refund SWD charges for previous years. Essentially because those rebates for previous years would have to be paid for now in increased charges for current customers.

The Government are responsible for the way water charges are structured and the Regulator(OFWAT) are responsible for enforcing those regulations. You will find that few of us are fans of water companies and IMO water should never have been privatised, but in the case of SWD the companies are obeying extant, and stupid, regulations. So I suggest you aim your arrows in the right direction.

Lastly I fail to understand your implied criticism of MSE for not standing up against ‘sharp practice’. SWD has been discussed in many threads and Martin’s staff wrote an article about SWD.

Gothicfairy

I totally agree with Cardew and also you say you want a level playing field, well that is kind of what you have now. Everyone pays SWD as default and it is then down to the customer to ask about a rebate.
The info about SWD is listed on bills and the water companies web sites so they do what they are required to do. It is a legitimate charge, not popular but legitimate all the same.

I am not really bothered by water companies as such but really don't agree with the OFWAT / Government side as I would rather we either had free choice of which company we use or be public.