surface water charge when no roof on property? (apartment) and a sewerage volume Q

jazzist

Hi,

Just wondering if anyone could help me with a query about my water bill.

I have been charged over £29 for surface water/highway drainage but my property does not have a roof as it is an apartment with another apartment above it. My ceiling is my "roof", the roof is connected to the apartment above and not mine. The only surface water which drains off the apartment is off its face if you argue that not all rain falls vertically.

Do you think I could dispute this charge and, if so, what would I need to say/quote?

Also, I have been charged for sewerage for the same amount of water as used. This is clearly incorrect as it does not account for evaporation from baths, showers, food, and people [, etc.]. Do you think that I would be able to persuade them to reduce this by, say, 10%?

Thanks in advance.

okra

I think you're liable for water falling on the roof, collectively. I would imagine that it also covers water draining from areas such as paths, gardens and parking areas - I would imagine that you have paths to access your property at the very least.

As for evaporation, I can't see it working but no doubt someone will correct me if it would. The amount of water you'd lose via evaporation would be tiny compared to the amount you put into the sewers.

Cardew

If any part of the rain water enters the sewer system you are liable for surface water drainage. That could include rain water simply running from your grounds into the road and hence sewer.

Modern flats should not let that happen and should be designed so that all surface water goes into a soakaway.

Although you are charged for the same amount of sewerage as water, there is in fact a 10% allowance for evaporation and watering garden etc. So if you used, say, 100 cu mtrs of water, they might charge you £90 for sewerage. This means that they have assessed the sewerage charge at £1 per cu mtr. however instead of 90 x £1 = £90, they have billed you as 100 x 90p =£90.

If you can prove that you return less than 90% of your water to the sewer you can get a reduction on your sewerage charges; but I understand that 10% is a generous assessment for most people.

nikkimaclean

Hi

You cant make a claim for a swd on the basis that your particular flat doesnt have a roof, because it is still classed as benfitting from the service. Also as mentioned shared areas if connected would make you liable anyway. Its also covered under some water act or another but cannot remember specifically which.

Also as said by pp Water companies already make allowances for "normal losses", either by a much lower unit price or by charging at 90 or 95% of the water used.

rogggg

OK, so the rules are fairly straight forward. You pay for the runoff because you are in the building it runs off. The problem i have with this is that i pay £70 per year for surface water and highway water. They say this is 1/3 of the actual cost i pay, but the rest is hidden in the 'water' charge, (to emerge some time soon). So i'm paying £210 for this. I also pay council tax for the roads etc. And i pay car tax for the roads etc. So i don't feel i should be paying further for highway water. But secondly, there are 200 flats in this building, with about the same surface area as say, 4 houses in a suburb. So for this small square of land they are receiving £210 x 200 = £42,000 for surface and highway water. Do they claim that this is reasonable because there are so many roads in the country which all need drainage? This doesn't seem the most logical way of going about things. Any thoughts? I can't be doing with taking this to court, and they give a very short answer on the phone with regards to my claiming back on the basis of not using the services..