URGENT: Thames Water to Stick customers for Extra £30

Cardew

samsmoot wrote: »

And we have another prominent poster whose comments only encourage a response. And who fails to address - or even mention - the well publicised reasons for the non-payment.

It's because the water companies are crooks and liars, BTW.

You have a real or imagined grievance with one particular company;and apparently are not concerned about credit record etc and therefore don’t pay your water bill.

However you pop up on many threads boasting that you haven’t been taken to court and encouraging everyone not to pay water bills simply because you don’t like water companies. As your rather silly last sentence demonstrates.

All that happens is other customers have their bills increased to pay for people who won’t pay their bills.

mart.vader

You might like to ponder why the Water co's haven't taken Samsmoot or myself to court, yet. (The proof of the pudding . . . , and all that)

Cardew

mart.vader wrote: »

You might like to ponder why the Water co's haven't taken Samsmoot or myself to court, yet. (The proof of the pudding . . . , and all that)

Could it be that they can simply increase charges for all their other customers to cover 'bad debts'?

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/82399/bad-debt-consult-condoc-120123.pdf

1. Bad debt (the failure of some customers to pay their water bills) adds approximately £15 per year to the bills of paying customers. Government wishes to tackle this cost.

mart.vader

Cardew wrote: »

Could it be that they can simply increase charges for all their other customers to cover 'bad debts'?

Then why do they bother chasing any of their customers who don't pay ? They could just increase their charges straight away, without going through all that unnecessary unpleasantness of threatening letters etc.

Cardew

mart.vader wrote: »

Then why do they bother chasing any of their customers who don't pay ? They could just increase their charges straight away, without going through all that unnecessary unpleasantness of threatening letters etc.

Are you being serious?

mart.vader

Cardew wrote: »

Are you being serious?

No, Cardew, that wasn't entirely serious.

Of course, the Water Co could simply take me to court, and recover their money: they've said they are going to, since Feb 2010, I think. It should be an open-and-shut case.

Like you, I found it hard to believe that a Water Co would indulge in a little bit of criminal activity, - until I was on the receiving end of it.

As I told you a while ago, when the Water Co in question are prosecuted for Fraud, I will post the details here and you can ask them why they did it. Don't expect a reply, though.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/58373941#Comment_58373941

Sorry, it's taking so long, but the County court don't want to follow the Civil Procedures Rules (Can you believe that ?) and have been ignoring the abundant and incontrovertible evidence for the past 2 years or so. However, this is Cameron's Britain, where nothing works. My MP is trying to find out why the court are so reluctant to follow the rules.

(Before anyone in the cheap seats points out that the Civil Rules don't cover Criminal offences, they do. They contain instructions for courts when Criminal acts are committed during Civil cases.)

Cardew

What you do about your issue with your water company is your problem.

My objection is samsmoot, apparently with your full support, encouraging people to simply not pay their water bills.

His last post(which appears to have been deleted?) was little short of a lesson on fraud. i.e. encouraging people to make an agreement with the water company to pay arrears, immediately default on that agreement, make another agreement and break that agreement etc.

The end result is that non-payment, together with any costs associated with attempting to recover money, is simply paid by a levy on the rest of us.

Samsmoot's stance is he is on benefits, living in subsidised accomodation which makes his landlord responsible for water bills, and he simply cannot afford to pay his water bills. Yet he can of course afford the internet.

mart.vader

Cardew wrote: »

What you do about your issue with your water company is your problem.

Yes, I know, it's my problem, but this is a forum where apparently people post about their problems in the hope of warning or advising others. I post as a warning to others. If (when, I hope) the Water Co. are prosecuted for fraud, any financial penalty and legal costs will fall on all of that Co's water-bill payers. So it may then be of interest to others, don't you think ? They willingly paid their solicitors £20,000 of your money in legal costs, to evade the consequences of their negligence.

You always seem to post your view that Water Cos are as honest as the day is long, and shamefully, the truth is an awful long way from that.

My objection is samsmoot, apparently with your full support, encouraging people to simply not pay their water bills. No, you're wrong there. I would only advise people not to pay their bills if the Water Co have acted in a criminal or provably dishonest way towards them. I have some sympathies for Samsmoot's position, as he and I appear to be two of the few on this forum, that fully realise the blatant dishonesty of some Water Cos.

His last post(which appears to have been deleted?) was little short of a lesson on fraud. i.e. encouraging people to make an agreement with the water company to pay arrears, immediately default on that agreement, make another agreement and break that agreement etc. I can't see the post now, either, I don't speak for Samsmoot, but as I remember it, he was saying that Third Party Deductions should only take place after two agreements are in default.

The end result is that non-payment, together with any costs associated with attempting to recover money, is simply paid by a levy on the rest of us. In my case, there is no non-payment, the Water Co owe me money. (And I'd like it back !! ) As to general non-payment, if the Water Co get a court order for repayment and costs, then that money would surely reduce the "levy on the rest of us."

Samsmoot's stance is he is on benefits, living in subsidised accommodation which makes his landlord responsible for water bills, and he simply cannot afford to pay his water bills. Yet he can of course afford the internet.

If his LL is responsible for water bills, Samsmoot doesn't need to afford them ! No doubt he will explain how he affords the internet, if he thinks you need to know.

Cardew

You always seem to post your view that Water Cos are as
honest as the day is long, and shamefully, the truth is an awful long way from that.

If you read my posts on the water industry you should be fully aware that I think privatisation was a big mistake, and the companies are in a win/win situation.

However it is an inescapable fact that there is no advantage in them defrauding individual customers as their revenue and profit is fixed ahead for Five years.

By all means post your problems and keep the forum informed of developments. What is indefensible - and frankly stupid - is to brand all water companies as crooks and liars because of your experience;

It's because the water companies are crooks and liars

and on the strength of your real or imagined grievances, actively encourage everyone to not pay their water bills. A course of action that simply means the rest of us pay for those bad debts.

mart.vader

Cardew wrote: »

If you read my posts on the water industry you should be fully aware that I think privatisation was a big mistake, and the companies are in a win/win situation.

I agree, privatisation was a bad move overall, particularly for the customer, however, it does not excuse illegal actions. Win/Win ? Maybe, in terms of revenue raising, perhaps. But they're not above the Law !

However it is an inescapable fact that there is no advantage in them defrauding individual customers as their revenue and profit is fixed ahead for Five years.
So, why do they do it, then ? I think they're on a "power trip". What do you think ?

By all means post your problems and keep the forum informed of developments. What is indefensible - and frankly stupid - is to brand all water companies as crooks and liars because of your experience; Are you quoting me, or someone else ? Maybe they're not all crooks and liars then, just the one I'm dealing with. (Though Samsmoot would include the one he deals with) Obviously I quote from my experience, if I quoted from your experience, I could only say that all Water Co's are positively saintly.

and on the strength of your real or imagined grievances, actively encourage everyone to not pay their water bills. A course of action that simply means the rest of us pay for those bad debts.

I don't recall encouraging people not to pay their water-bills, unconditionally - They're not imagined grievances, otherwise I'm sure I would not have the support of my MP. (Just about the only person who gives a monkey's). If the Water Co have dishonestly appropriated money from their customers, then the term "bad debts" is a misnomer. It is more of a reasonable refusal to pay (more) money to fraudsters