Water bill for £640 based on rateable value!

squeals

Hi

Can anyone help me please? I've done a lot of searching on the internet about this but can't quite get to the bottom of it.

I've just moved into a band E property in London, EC1 and Thames Water have sent me a bill for the forthcoming year of... £639.54!! I nearly fell over when I saw it. After numerous phonecalls to Thames Water I am still not getting anywhere, although this has got to be wrong. I couldn't even use that much water if I was on a meter and showered all day long. I've been told it's based on rateable value and that it is correct, but I live in a tiny 1bed flat. I have asked for a reassessment but have no idea how seriously it will be taken. The property is rented too, so I can't ask them to install a meter, which would definitely be cheaper.

Has anyone else had a similar experience? I would love to hear about it. Can anyone suggest any advice? I've called Thames Water, the council, Ofwat... am now at a bit of a dead end.

Thanks in advance!

Cardew

Welcome to the forum.

There have been a number of threads about Rateable Value if you do a search on this forum.

Your bill is almost certainly is not wrong as the Rateable Value system was a complete nonsense - it was abolished in 1989. Water companies are the only ones to use the RV.

Essentially RV was based on a notional value of the rent a property could command. If I had remained on RV I would be paying £1,190 pa instead of approx £400 on a meter.

You can ask them to install a meter - it costs nothing - and your landlord should thank you, bills should be £200 or so if you live alone.

If they cannot fit a meter - as it is not possible on some of the apartments - they should give you an assessed rate which is the average for a one bed flat - should be less than 50% of what you are paying.
I owned a flat(my daughter lived in it) in a listed warehouse block in Wapping and some of the flats there could not have a meter fitted.

deanos

If the landlord says he dosent want a water meter fitting (but one could be fitted without problem) in his flat then im not sure you can go on these charges ?

Cardew

deanos wrote:

If the landlord says he dosent want a water meter fitting (but one could be fitted without problem) in his flat then im not sure you can go on these charges ?

I think you are probably correct; but why would he not want one? It will be cheaper for all his future tenants - and make it easier to rent.

deanos

Dunno im not a landlord they are funny beasts

cattie

In my last property, which was close to central London I paid high water rates to Thames water. I know when I phoned to query it the girl on the phone mentioned I must live in an area where property was expensive as she agreed my water rates were higher than other parts of the borough.

Why don't you write to the landlord, pointing out how high the water charges are & suggest he try to get the property changed to a water meter instead? He can only say no & may just agree.

olly300

Just a legal point- under the 1999 Water Industry Act tenants with a fixed term tenancy of six months or less are not allowed to request to have a water meter fitted without their landlord giving approval. Tenants with other types of tenancy do not require their landlord's approval.

Beate

Well our landlady DID say no! It was one of the first things we asked, the estate agent said not a problem, the landlady then said, what, he never spoke to me about that, and no, you can't have one. When we asked why she said it is apparently not popular with a lot of tenants as they then have to watch their water usage. As after a year the meter cannot be taken out anymore, she would be stuck with it and might have more difficulty to rent the place out. In my opinion this is complete nonsense as it is a 2 bedroom flat and as a rule of thumb you save money with a meter if the number of people does not exceed the number of bedrooms. Then again, she had two couples crammed into the two bedrooms before. I just say bring the laws about water meters in every property on! This nonsense of paying over the odds has been going on too long in this country.
We pay over £300 a year to Thames Water by the way.

Cardew

Beate wrote:

Well our landlady DID say no! It was one of the first things we asked, the estate agent said not a problem, the landlady then said, what, he never spoke to me about that, and no, you can't have one. When we asked why she said it is apparently not popular with a lot of tenants as they then have to watch their water usage. As after a year the meter cannot be taken out anymore, she would be stuck with it and might have more difficulty to rent the place out. In my opinion this is complete nonsense as it is a 2 bedroom flat and as a rule of thumb you save money with a meter if the number of people does not exceed the number of bedrooms. Then again, she had two couples crammed into the two bedrooms before. I just say bring the laws about water meters in every property on! This nonsense of paying over the odds has been going on too long in this country.
We pay over £300 a year to Thames Water by the way.

Whilst I agree it is silly not to have a meter in many cases, your 'rule of thumb' just does not work.

The Rateable Value of a property is nothing to do with the number of bedrooms - it is based on the notional rent the property would attract. Thus the OP in his/her "tiny 1 bed flat" probably has a RV of £300+. Which is more than some 4/5 bedroom properties in other areas; or indeed nearby if it is(or was) a less 'fashionable area.

London EC1 is a very good example. It has lots of very desirable warehouse conversions on the Thames and close to the City, and also some areas that used to be very run down. The apartments converted before 1989 have very high RVs, yet prior to 1989 some large houses in the area had very low RV much lower than the apartments. Even though these areas have become 'fashionable' they have still retained their very low RV. So you can get a £1million 6 bed house with a lower RV than a 1 bed flat.

Beate

I was not talking about rateable value but about water usage, and for that my rule of thumb does work!

In fact, Martin has said it already in his article about the topic:
"As a rough rule of thumb, if there are more bedrooms in your house than people, you should check out getting a meter."

What this basically translates to is that if you are only 1 or 2 people in a 2 or even 3 bedroom flat, then these people are using much less water than if you crammed 4 to 6 people in (number of showers per person, more washing etc.) Rateable value is unfair in that it does not take the number of people who effectively use water into account. A 1 bed flat is usually only occupied by 1-2 people, and just because the value of the property might be higher than a 6 bed house does not mean that these people use up more water!

dougs

Beate wrote:

Well our landlady DID say no! It was one of the first things we asked, the estate agent said not a problem, the landlady then said, what, he never spoke to me about that, and no, you can't have one. When we asked why she said it is apparently not popular with a lot of tenants as they then have to watch their water usage.

our landlord said a categoric no as well for very similar reasons. This is a 4 bed house with high RV so the water rates are astronomical but with only 2 people living here, and based on our previous metered water usage at our property before this one, we knew we could save a fortune if we had a meter. But he wasn't having it at all and I was none too happy about it, even disregarding the cost to us of the RV method, I think it is still selfish and wasteful of what is becoming a dwindling resource.

But then the regional water company wrote to say they were installing meters in all properties without them, and it wasn't voluntary, it would be done.............and it has been :T

Result, and ultimately there was nothing he could do about it. But fortunately now we will see a benefit of lower water bills and his future tenants will be able to help conserve water whether they like it or not.