Severn Trent water and court

samsmoot

Gothicfairy wrote: »

Direct payments can and are taken when it is felt the account is getting into arrears, there is no need for either the water company or the DWP to advice the customer until those payments are set up .

Yes, but there is a need for the customer to have failed to budget for those charges - hence the court order against the DWP.

samsmoot

Cardew wrote: »

Samsmoot,

You entered this thread questioning the legality of water companies demanding payment for the year ahead.

You are now seemingly trying to justify not paying for water on the grounds you don't like the company.

Not a very logical or admirable stance.

I was merely giving an answer to energysavingexpert's post. I was explaining that my reaction to South Staffs is because of their attempted bullying of me. That's why I don't pay. Had they not made threats to to take me to court for money I didn't owe I'd be fine with them.

samsmoot

energysavingexp wrote: »

PEOPLE LIKE YOU MAKE MY BLOOD BOIL.:mad:
people like you imo are worse then the fat cat bankers

Maybe I should ask for a government bailout then.

energysavingexp

samsmoot wrote: »

Maybe I should ask for a government bailout then.

typical
thats the kind of answer i would expect from you
treat everything like its just one big joke and not act like a adult and face up to your responsibility and pay what you owe
what goes around comes around
and i hope one day they take you to the cleaners and end up on the streets where you belong

samsmoot

I will leave the thread here to save any more bad feelings - don't want to upset anyone, just wanted to question the status quo.

Thanks for all the responses.

Cheers.

Kernel_Sanders

Cardew wrote: »

You probably have a marker against your account saying something like 'humour him/her - they will eventually pay and it is not worth the expense of taking court action'

Don't tell him that, he'll be demanding to see his file under the Freedom of Information Act! :laugh:

samsmoot

Just for the record, when I refused to pay advance charges many, many years ago I got back a letter from a senior manager who said I could pay monthly due to my misunderstanding of the situation, or something along those lines. It really was a very silly reply, and that alone makes me think they have no leg to stand on re collecting advance charges.

Funny how they backed down so easily - and at the time they were totally unaware of my financial situation. Could it be remotely possible that the law was not on their side? And that was why they never pursued a claim? I'm certain it was, and along with a reading of the relevant legislation I am still unconvinced that advance charges can be forced - the law simply does not allow for it. if any of you on here can make a counter argument based on the law, then I'd like to hear it.

samsmoot

The law, BTW, can always be interpreted differently:

Up until recently, for example, I understood that Section 7 of the Education Act 1996 gave parents the right to home educate. Looking on the net you will find the Government, Education Otherwise and many others quoting Section 7 as the legislation that gives this right. An Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) judge, however, in a recent decision, found that Home Education was not a right.

After some more study and a bit of thought I now realise that Section 7 does not actually bestow a right on parents to home educate their children, and that the judge, on a strict reading of the letter of the law, is correct.

Now, it does not suit me at all that my previous opinion looks wrong, but I can't fault the judge's reasoning. I still believe that home education is a right - but under Section 9.

The point I am trying to make is that on a strict reading of the relevant legislation, once all the hairs have been split, there is no force of law that gives the water companies a right to recover advance charges. They may believe otherwise, OFWAT and the CCW may believe the same, most on this forum will also accept the status quo. But that does not mean you are all correct and I am wrong.

My other point is that I am not simply stubborn - I wish to show that I am indeed a reasonable person, and that although I feel strongly about something, I am not blinded to opposing arguments and can be open minded enough to not only consider other views, but to take them up if they are sufficiently persuasive.

Gothicfairy

and where does it say they are not ? RV bills are the same as council tax and always have been.

Payment plans are allowed but the debt becomes due the 1st April no matter what.

samsmoot

Gothicfairy wrote: »

and where does it say they are not ? RV bills are the same as council tax and always have been.

Payment plans are allowed but the debt becomes due the 1st April no matter what.

And where does it say you don't have to pay me a million quid?

'...the debt becomes due the 1st April...'. Says who? And so what if they do - it's meaningless to say it becomes due in the context of what i have said and the law quoted above.