rateable value

ambience111

why is it possible for a company to charge different prices for the same service and same product, depending on where you live, surely this is wrong..

HappyMJ

You can opt in to a meter then you'll be charged the same as everyone else on a meter for your water no matter where you live.

ambience111

then i will still be paying more for my water than someone on the lowest Rateable value scale,, why should i pay more for the same service and same product.

i dont want a meter, cos of a service charge, why should i have to pay for a meter, cos then even if i dont use any water at all am still paying.

everyone should be paying the same, not better off people paying more. 1 adult living in a mansion 1mill+income cos he went to school, shouldnt pay more than 2 adults with 4 kids who are clearly goin to use more..

sounds like the great water tax rip off if you ask me

HappyMJ

ambience111 wrote: »

then i will still be paying more for my water than someone on the lowest Rateable value scale,, why should i pay more for the same service and same product.

i dont want a meter, cos of a service charge, why should i have to pay for a meter, cos then even if i dont use any water at all am still paying.

everyone should be paying the same, not better off people paying more. 1 adult living in a mansion 1mill+income cos he went to school, shouldnt pay more than 2 adults with 4 kids who are clearly goin to use more..

sounds like the great water tax rip off if you ask me

The meter itself is free. You are paying a service charge to cover the provision of water to your property and the provision of sewage services and surface drainage.

Get a meter and use less water and you will pay less. Don't concern yourself with others on the lowest rateable value. You are paying less than someone with a meter so are better off. The only thing that will change is higher charges for those on rateable values which you seem to be against or compulsory meters which you are against.

I can pretty much guarantee that the mansion would have a meter by now. Do they water the lawn with a sprinkler? Have a swimming pool? Then a meter is compulsory.

ambience111

i think your missing the point, meters or not,, the original question is,

why is it ok for a company to charge different prices for the same product and service, depending on where you live.

would you not except the same service and charge in macdonalds as the person in front of you for the same happy meal.

macman

ambience111 wrote: »

i think your missing the point, meters or not,, the original question is,

why is it ok for a company to charge different prices for the same product and service, depending on where you live.

would you not except the same service and charge in macdonalds as the person in front of you for the same happy meal.

Almost all companies work on this basis-the only exception I can think of (that isn't distance related) is Royal Mail-and they're finding it impossible to maintain that model. People in rural Scotland pay more for petrol than I do in London-is that fair?
It cost more to deliver water to rural areas and maintain the network than in urban ones for obvious reasons.
And the water companies did not invent the RV billing system, they had it imposed on them-they have no choice whatsoever as to how they bill you.
You pay service charges whether on RV or on a meter, so your objection to a meter is not valid.

Cardew

ambience111 wrote: »

i think your missing the point, meters or not,, the original question is,

why is it ok for a company to charge different prices for the same product and service, depending on where you live.

would you not except the same service and charge in macdonalds as the person in front of you for the same happy meal.

I am not sure what you meant in the original question by 'depending where you live!

People pay more in Cornwall than in Yorkshire for both metered water and charges based on the RV. The reason is that it is more expensive to supply water in Cornwall and on Water Privatisation they were left with a more dilapidated infrastructure and restrictions on how sewerage could be disposed.

If you are querying why some houses are charged on their Rateable Value and others are metered then it is more complicated and you should go and ask Maggie Thatcher - as it was her Government that was responsible for the Water Privatisation fiasco.

The original intent was the all properties would be metered(and supposedly still is). However as this would have impacted heavily on some families, there was to be an interim period of 10 years for this to be phased in; that idea got dropped.

To base water charges on Rateable Value(RV) is simply a nonsense.
The RV is based on the notional rental value the property would command. For many houses this was assessed in 1973.

It is possible to have a mansion in 20 acres and now in H band for Council tax, to still have an RV lower than a 2 bed estate semi; and hence lower water charges.

The reason this situation still exists is because of the way water companies are funded. The Regulator(ofwat) determines how much revenue each company can raise each year and thus how much profit they can make.

So it really doesn't matter that some properties with loads of occupants pay little for their water because they have a low RV. It doesn't affect overall how much revenue they collect; thus they have no incentive to sort out the anomalies in charging.