water bills and the ban

mcldy

would it help the water board fix all their leaks if we all stopped paying our bills, then there would not be a shortage, hit em where it hurts, in the pocket, if we cant use water, what are we paying for, the priveledge NOT to use it ??????????

davetrousers

You currently pay for a 99.999% system.

Are you prepared to pay for a 100% system?

ChiefGrasscutter

Actually in many cases it costs more to fix a leak than the monetary cost of the water that has/is escaping from it.
This is because the price of mains water is too cheap.

Start working out the true costs of putting in a rainwater harvesting system at your house along with the serious cost of a large tank and you will rapidly discover you might as well not bother and just switch the mains tap on instead.
This is because the price of mains water is too cheap.

Ich_2

Water companies have leakage reduction targets set by the regulator, breeching these is taken into account when they request a price increase. If they have not reduced leakage they get allocated a lower price increase

pinky2681

stop paying your bills and have raw sewage coming from your taps and a turd in your morning brew water companies are not stopping you using water just the way you use it what would you prefer a hosepipe ban or no water to your house and have to take a bucket to a stand pipe at the end of your street every moring

deanos

pinky2681 wrote: »

stop paying your bills and have raw sewage coming from your taps and a turd in your morning brew

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

kaya64

mcldy wrote: »

would it help the water board fix all their leaks if we all stopped paying our bills, then there would not be a shortage, hit em where it hurts, in the pocket, if we cant use water, what are we paying for, the priveledge NOT to use it ??????????

according some people on here that would be theft , you see i stopped paying my bill last November because i disagree with the added flouride in my water supply, i don't agree with flouride and refuse to be forced to drink water with it in.
So you will be labelled a theif if you stop paying your bill becuase of the leaks and the ban.

ilikewatch

kaya64 wrote: »

according some people on here that would be theft , you see i stopped paying my bill last November because i disagree with the added flouride in my water supply, i don't agree with flouride and refuse to be forced to drink water with it in.
So you will be labelled a theif if you stop paying your bill becuase of the leaks and the ban.

Do you agree with paying for your sewerage service, and any water that you use other than drinking water, or do you think that everyone else should pay these for you?

kaya64

ilikewatch wrote: »

Do you agree with paying for your sewerage service, and any water that you use other than drinking water, or do you think that everyone else should pay these for you?

I won't go into all this again because we all have our concerns and mine is fluoride in the water which is strongly disagree with , when the Poll tax was in dispute people stopped paying their bills until something was done about it , do you think they were right or wrong and would you label them thieves ??

ilikewatch

kaya64 wrote: »

I won't go into all this again because we all have our concerns and mine is flouride in the water which is strongly disagree with , when the Poll tax was in dispute people stopped paying their bills until something was done about it , do you think they were right or wrong and would you label them thieves ??

I quite agree that ideally you should be able to choose whether your water is flouridated or not, but it is obviously impractical to offer a choice of supplys to each customer. It would seem to be a far better plan for you to equip yourself with a water filter which is capable of removing flouride, thus meaning that the majority of people who prefer a flouridated supply get one, but you can have drinking water without flouride.

In response to your question I think that put in simple terms the community charge defaulters were thieves, - they were using services and not paying for them, just as I would argue that people who watch TV without a licence are thieves, or people who lie to get free prescriptions are thieves.

The big difference that I can see is that people who defaulted on paying the community charge were likely to make a change to the way we were governed, and this form of protest proved effective. Given that the vast majority of water users would prefer to continue to receive a flouridated supply, what do you think you will achieve by not paying your water bill? Do you think you will end up receiving a flouride-free supply, or just save a few quid?

kaya64

ilikewatch wrote: »

I quite agree that ideally you should be able to choose whether your water is flouridated or not, but it is obviously impractical to offer a choice of supplys to each customer. It would seem to be a far better plan for you to equip yourself with a water filter which is capable of removing flouride, thus meaning that the majority of people who prefer a flouridated supply get one, but you can have drinking water without flouride.

In response to your question I think that put in simple terms the community charge defaulters were thieves, - they were using services and not paying for them, just as I would argue that people who watch TV without a licence are thieves, or people who lie to get free prescriptions are thieves.

The big difference that I can see is that people who defaulted on paying the community charge were likely to make a change to the way we were governed, and this form of protest proved effective. Given that the vast majority of water users would prefer to continue to receive a flouridated supply, what do you think you will achieve by not paying your water bill? Do you think you will end up receiving a flouride-free supply, or just save a few quid?

firstly I just want to say thank you for replying to me in a civilised manner , i have received some replies which were just plain ignorant so your reply was welcoming and i appreciate it very much .

It is my hope that water companies will stop flouridating the supplies because i believe flouride is a poison an is being forced upon the population , you can research it to know why i protest about flouride . If the majority of people prefer flouridated water then if we are to pay for it then the water supplier should issue a water filter to those who do not want the water flouridate , that is only fair and if they offered this i would accept it , as it happens i do have a filter which i use and it does take the flouride out but my point is that the water is flouridated and forced upon me without my consent .

i think in order to protest against something people need stand up for what they believe in and if it means stopping payment to show you disagree then it must be done. I f i keep paying for the water which is contaminated with what i consider poison and against against my consent then it shows i am happy with what they are doing , so i stopped paying , if this is considered theft then so be it ,but i would willingly pay every penny back if the water supplier stopped adding flouride .