Powers of water Companies

mart.vader

(I previously posted this on the sticky, but perhaps I should have posted as a new thread)

Hi All,

I think I read somewhere that Water Co's no longer practice disconnection for outstanding bills. Can anyone confirm : Is this true?

I live in a converted house in London, in one flat with a shared or common supply with another flat. The point where the pipe divides into two is on my property. There is one meter on each supply.

I have a longstanding grievance with the WC, but they refuse to accept my complaint into their complaints procedure. I have offered them most of the bill, but not all, because they have not fulfilled their statutory responsibilities, but they will not accept a penny less than the water bill. They owe me a large sum of money for their negligence and dishonesty (many times the water bill) but they will not acknowledge this.

OFWAT will not get involved, at all and Consumer Council for Water are useless (and toothless).

The WC have been threatening legal action for around the last year, but so far have not done so.

Is the WC's only option to go to court?

mogchops

You are correct. They cannot disconnect your supply, but they can and will take you to court for non payment.

Cardew

mart.vader wrote: »

(
I think I read somewhere that Water Co's no longer practice disconnection for outstanding bills. Can anyone confirm : Is this true?

I live in a converted house in London, in one flat with a shared or common supply with another flat. The point where the pipe divides into two is on my property. There is one meter on each supply.

I have a longstanding grievance with the WC, but they refuse to accept my complaint into their complaints procedure. I have offered them most of the bill, but not all, because they have not fulfilled their statutory responsibilities, but they will not accept a penny less than the water bill. They owe me a large sum of money for their negligence and dishonesty (many times the water bill) but they will not acknowledge this.

OFWAT will not get involved, at all and Consumer Council for Water are useless (and toothless).

The WC have been threatening legal action for around the last year, but so far have not done so.

Is the WC's only option to go to court?

Firms will normally accept any amount of money. However are you trying to get them to accept less than the sum on the bill in 'full and final payment'?

What 'negligence and dishonesty' do you mean? Have you got a court order in your favour? or have you decided to award yourself damages?

If you have a complaint against the water company and ofwat and CC for Water will not get involved, then they presumably don't think your case has merit.

Either sue the Water company, or wait until they take action against you.

mart.vader

Hi, thanks for the replies, I just wanted to make sure that disconnection was not an option for them.

As you have been considerate enough to reply, its only fair that I try to give you some background.

This is a complex situation, so I won't go into all the details,

Cardew, - It's not that they think my case has no merit - It's that OFWAT will not get involved with ANY local complaint or dispute and will tell you that they are only concerned with setting the amount that WC's can charge consumers. The CCW have NO teeth. In my case, they asked the WC to reconsider - the WC said "NO" and that was the end of CCW's involvement !

The short version is that the WC were unable to find several water-leaks under the highway outside my house for two years, although there was subsidence, pot-holes, large fissures and leaks appearing in the road. In addition to all the nuisance, mud and vibration, my property was also damaged, The reinforced concrete highway (a main trunk "A" road) was damaged to the extent that 200 yards of it had to be reconstructed (ie not just resurfaced).

The WC and the council blamed each other, and neither would accept that they had damaged my property. I took them to small claims court, Their solicitors said they needed absolute proof that the two events of damage (mine and the highway) were linked as they would not accept the evidence of my surveyor. The WC solicitors said that the WC had no leaks, although during the reconstruction of the highway, numerous leaks were found ( about seven, I think, and one broken water-main, about 15 metres away from my house) All parties were ordered to disclose, but they withheld evidence from the court, whilst making the legal declaration that they had disclosed all of their relevant evidence.

The case was transferred into the Fast Track where, I could not any longer afford the costs risks, so I had to halt the case, before it had been heard by the court. They then came after me for costs and, solely because I had halted the case, the WC and the Council were awarded a small proportion of what they sought. (Still some thousands of £££)

I then obtained under Freedom of Information Act, evidence from the council that showed that the WC had been warned that their leaks were damaging the highway, but the WC simply repeatedly denied that they had any leaks. The info released also showed that the council had allowed traffic to use the highway for around a year AFTER their chief engineer told the WC their leaks had caused the highway to become dangerous and likely to collapse. This evidence pre-dated the court order to disclose, but was not disclosed during my claim.

I have not "decided to award myself damages", but as they made false declarations to the court to bias the evidence in their favour, in order to extract large amounts of money from me, I don't think they have the moral (or legal) high ground here.

I have offered to pay only part of the water bill - as they did not carry out any successful leak detection for two years in my area. The WC don't accept this. They will not discuss their withholding of evidence, and have been threatening legal action against me for around a year now. I have now sent them copies of the evidence that they withheld during my claim, but they will not discuss the return of the money that they dishonestly extracted from me. As I said above, they got several times (about six times) more from me than the amount of the water bill.

The council took the WC (and another party) to court for damage caused to the highway, but discontinued the case. The costs of their case and of reconstructing the highway, (£250,000+) were ultimately paid by the tax-payer, not the WC.

The court are not in the least bit interested that false declarations were made to the court, and are unhelpful almost to the point of being hostile.

My MP is a wet blanket, has not been able to influence the council at all, has not even replied to letters I sent him in April. (He is a Tory MP and the council is Tory run) I managed to get the local paper to do a story about the highway being in unrestricted use for a year after it was declared likely to collapse, but the WC and the council aren't that bothered, after all, it's just a local paper. BBC Watchdog haven't bothered to get back to me.

Cardew

If the courts, ofgem, your Council, CCW, your MP and the BBC Watcdog wil not take up your case, you have problems!

The point is that it is your view that you are owed money, not the other organisations.

Situations like this can, understandably, take over your life; only you can decide if it is worth pursuing!

StuieUK34

Thats infuriating read that
Wonder how it will work if you stop paying them completely, wait for them to take you to court, and then bring up all the above in court ?

energysavingexp

if it had caused damage to your property why did you not claim on your house insurance and let them try and claim it off them
it would have cost you less in the end.
as for cutting off your water i have read somewhere that they cannot cut you off but they can reduce your supply to a trickle

if you dont pay in the end it will cost you more as they will also charge you for costs may be they might get the Bailiffs in

eeeeeee

they can and they cant dependent on your water company ; if the water supply too your property is not supposed too be in use ; too protect the owner of the property the water may may choose too shut off the mst ( main stop tap ) too prevent you from being flooded l; this is mainly done too sole supply properties too prevent flooding in cases such as severe frost or snow

mart.vader

energysavingexp wrote: »

if it had caused damage to your property why did you not claim on your house insurance and let them try and claim it off them it would have cost you less in the end.
as for cutting off your water i have read somewhere that they cannot cut you off but they can reduce your supply to a trickle

if you dont pay in the end it will cost you more as they will also charge you for costs may be they might get the Bailiffs in

Yes, I had house insurance and, yes, I did try to claim on it, but it had an exclusion for "gradually operating" causes. The Ins. co. classed the damage as just that, so they did not accept the claim. (e.g. If a lorry had run into my house, I would have been covered, but not for subsidence due to leaking water-mains) Perhaps it's my fault for not reading the small print in my policy. Nevertheless, the WC are statutorily liable for the damage caused by leakage from their water-mains (unless of course, they manage to lie to the court, withhold evidence and hoodwink the court, - which is exactly what they did.)

My understanding is that a court order would be needed before bailiffs can be instructed. Unless they enter my property with a warrant, and fit the trickle device on the pipe under my stairs, on the branch that feeds my flat only, they will have to fit it on the single pipe in the footway, and thus they will also be reducing my neighbour's supply to a trickle.

Originally Posted by eeeeeeee they can and they cant dependent on your water company ; if the water supply too your property is not supposed too be in use ; too protect the owner of the property the water may may choose too shut off the mst ( main stop tap ) too prevent you from being flooded l; this is mainly done too sole supply properties too prevent flooding in cases such as severe frost or snow

Thanks eeeeeee, but I am the owner of the property, and the water supply to my property is supposed to be in use, and I am not being flooded. (and there is no frost or snow round here !)

Stuie34UK. This is exactly what I am doing, at the mo'. They threatened legal action around a year ago. but for some reason they have not started it yet. Hmmmm, I wonder, what could be the reason ? It can't be that they are just generally "nice guys". I found that out when they pursued me for costs.

They have a complaints procedure, but they don't want to address my complaint and give me compensation (or my money back) . If it goes back to court, the WC know that I will bring up the evidence that they withheld from my claim. Not being a legal professional, I don't know if the court will allow me to present it, though.

StuieUK34

i'd seriously look through the yellow pages for solicitors who give free 30 mins advise (and then ask the same question to a few)..
I would assume that if the WC seeks an order/warrant/judgement against you, you have the right to defend.
If it comes to them taking you to court, you would be able to present evidence to the case.
Also, checkout: http://www.barprobono.org.uk/
End of the day, a brief wont work for nothing now, but should the WC take you to court and a date is set, then through pro bono, someone wanting to make a name for themselves in the corp' kinda way may take up your case...
Hope so,

mart.vader

Hi,

In the light of the articles currently in the news about how the Consumer Council for Water were taking a more proactive stance and upholding the rights of the consumer, I thought I'd ring and ask them if they'd assist, as they hadn't done when I contacted them before, when this matter began.

Still no change - the CCW can't get involved in any matter where it could go to court. The "advice" I got from CCW was, to go back to court. I naively thought they might be able to talk some sense into the Water Co. prior to any further court case. As I previously said, the CCW are completely toothless

(Thanks StuieUK, but round here in London, there are no solicitors who give even 30 mins advice for free, believe me, I've tried to find one. (There was one who wanted a £5,000 retainer, up front, though !)

When the WC were trying to extract from me, at least £9,000 plus, (probably up to £14,000 or so) in legal costs, I had tried an outfit very similar to "barprobono", (called Law-works) but they wouldn't take my case, as I am a homeowner.) In other words if you have savings or a home, they won't help.