Water Meter £50 a month, a dam Joke

Cardew

moonrakerz wrote:

Cardew, old chap, I think you have just destroyed your own point there !

If 70% will benefit, that means 70% will pay less. That means the water company's profits will fall, but there is absolutely no way that would be allowed to happen.

I must also disagree when you say the regulator has "lots of teeth" - if he has, they are "false teeth". His performance over the way the companies are not controlling leaks is adequate proof of that. Sadly, several of the companies have run rings round him.

I said I was a cynic !

I have in no way destroyed my own point.

It is self evident that if the 70% who stand to gain go on a meter, and pay less, then revenue will fall and that tariffs will increase for everyone to make up that lost revenue.

However that is hardly an argument for those 70% to pay more than necessary merely to subsidise other users.

You, understandably, are taking advantage of the situation to pay the lowest costs; myself the same. Surely the obvious solution is to make meters compulsory so we all pay for our consumption.

The ‘teeth’ of the Regulator we can argue about until the cows come home.

On the question of prices there is no question that they control them strictly. If they didn't we would be paying a huge amount more.

The water leaks is a totally different issue. True they could have imposed huge fines on the companies for not meeting the targets. However OFWAT in their report questioned what that would have achieved. The fines in the long run would be paid by us, the consumer. The companies put up a case that the targets set(in hindsight) were too strict and they simply do not have the resources to meet that requirement.

The popular press are hardly likely to report something like this in a balanced manner are they?

moonrakerz

1. "the regulator estimates that 70% of households will benefit by having a meter."

2. "It is self evident that if the 70% who stand to gain go on a meter, and pay less, then revenue will fall and that tariffs will increase for everyone to make up that lost revenue."

Sorry, but your two quotes are a direct contradiction of each other. How can you "benefit" when "tariffs increase", especially, as is happening now where people are afraid to flush the toilet because of the cost ?

Agree with your comments about fines, so what is to point of the regulator having them in his armoury when the companies know he won't use them ? Even if the fines could be taken out of profits, this just wouldn't happen - profits would fall, share values would fall, more shares would be sold etc, etc, etc ! Then the regulator would be blamed for making the water companies go bust.

I totally agree that the fairest way is to have meters for all, as with gas, electric etc, etc. What we have now is a complete shambles, imagine buying petrol or electricity on a similar basis !

BUT, for the water companies, and the regulator to say that we will all be better off with a meter is disengenuous to say the very least, which was the point I made in the beginning.

A final point - I believe that is is illegal for a water company to cut off someone's water supply, even for non payment - so I suppose the customer has the ultimate sanction over pricing, just don't pay the bill !!!

Cardew

moonrakerz wrote:

1. "the regulator estimates that 70% of households will benefit by having a meter."

2. "It is self evident that if the 70% who stand to gain go on a meter, and pay less, then revenue will fall and that tariffs will increase for everyone to make up that lost revenue."

Sorry, but your two quotes are a direct contradiction of each other. How can you "benefit" when "tariffs increase", especially, as is happening now where people are afraid to flush the toilet because of the cost ?

Who said I would benefit?- I am metered.


Of course the current system is a shambles. The point of a money saving site is to point out to people that they might paying less if they switch to a meter.

I really don't think it is a difficult concept to grasp. Lots of people on the RV system are subsidising those of us on a meter. If they want to do so - thats fine.

moonrakerz

Cardew wrote:

Who said I would benefit?- I am metered.

I didn't say 'you' personally would save money - that was a general 'you', not a royal 'you'.

Cardew wrote:

The point of a money saving site is to point out to people that they might paying less if they switch to a meter.

Exactly, "might" is the operative word. my first post on this thread pointed out that a lot of people were "misled" into believing there were big savings to be made by switching to a meter (which there were initially), now, sadly as evidenced by many of the posts on this thread - that " 'aint necessarily so " !

"Cheggers" very first post complaining that his metered bill had risen from £30 to £50 just goes to show that this is the case for many people.

Cardew

We just appear to be going around in circles.

Some people are better off on a meter. Some are not.

The Regulator states 70% of households will pay less on a meter.

I say 100% of people should look at the various factors that determine their water charges; and make decision.

I think we should leave it there

moonrakerz

Cardew wrote:

The Regulator states 70% of households will pay less on a meter.

Impossibility !

Cardew wrote:

I think we should leave it there

Agree !

trish06

just moved to devon,the water rates are very high
i pay 60.00 a month for mine :mad:

carol_a_3

I am on South west water too, just got my bill for next year...£777.62 just me on my own with two teenage children.

Daylight robbery. it says they cater for 1.6 million residents and 8 million visitors per annum!! I think the visitors should help out with our bills to clean the beaches etc.

dc

Rikki wrote:

10 ways to shrink your water bill.

HTH

Just been reading this thread with interest.

One point, Rikki, your? postcode is in the calculator link. I so you live at the opposite end of the village to the big pub, past the old pit near a man who builds fences.;)

Interesting arguments for and against metering, YW calculator estimates that 4/5 people living in my house (rv £177) would be no worse off metered.

Dont forget a cubic metre ( one unit) of water is 1000 litres, so OP is using nearly a quarter of a million litres a year.:shocked: :shocked: :shocked: That is eqiv to one litre a minute running non stop for 153 days!
I find that difficult to believe.

And a few pointers that confirm to me DD is not the way to go.

deanos

moonrakerz wrote: »

A final point - I believe that is is illegal for a water company to cut off someone's water supply, even for non payment - so I suppose the customer has the ultimate sanction over pricing, just don't pay the bill !!!

But its not illegal to restrict the supply to just a trickle which is more or less useless.

moonrakerz wrote: »

Sorry, but your two quotes are a direct contradiction of each other. How can you "benefit" when "tariffs increase", especially, as is happening now where people are afraid to flush the toilet because of the cost ?

Dont forget that as metered charges rise so will unmetered