URGENT: Thames Water to Stick customers for Extra £30

samsmoot

Cardew wrote: »

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.

Failing to keep to an agreement is almost fraud? Now who's being silly?

For the record here's the 'deleted' post:

samsmoot wrote: »

If I weren't bothered with getting a bad credit rating (which I'm not) I'd not bother paying anything at all (which I don't). If a judgement was made against you they'd have to find a way of enforcing it, which they can do by various means including attachments from wages or a charge on your property. I wouldn't worry too much about bailiffs. If you are not working and don't own your property they have little by way of a comeback.

An alternative (which they don't often tell you about) is to ask for the claim to be held up whilst you apply to the water company's Charitable trust for help with the charges. Or you could agree the payments (if they also agree), then seek help from the Trust after. But if you do pay some of the charges it might look as if you can afford them - perhaps £2 per week would be sensible, as the Trusts like to see you are at least trying.

There's nothing almost criminal about agreeing a payment plan subsequent, or alternative to, the claim not being held up whilst the application to the Trust is in progress, and then failing to stick to the plan for whatever reason. And I mentioned nothing about defaulting - the suggestion is that if payments are made they should be small. Perhaps the word 'when' might have been better in place of 'if' - as that does imply the possibility that the charges might not get paid - which they mightn't if they can't be afforded - as circumstances can change - so thinking about it again the 'if' was probably correct.

So a bit unfair, I would say, to characterise the post as containing a lesson in fraud.

Cardew

That is not your post - it has been edited!

You very clearly encouraged the OP to make an agreement with the water company and immediately break that agreement, then do exactly the same again.

Even your supporter posted see post#20:

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.

samsmoot

mart.vader wrote: »

They're not imagined grievances, otherwise I'm sure I would not have the support of my MP.

Mine aren't imagined either, otherwise the judge wouldn't have made the order.

samsmoot

Cardew wrote: »

That is not your post - it has been edited!

Yes, at 3.10 pm on 7/8/13 - three minutes after writing it. So if you thought it originally read differently you must have looked at it between 1507 and 1510 exactly on 7/8/13, then repeated what you thought you understood it to mean seven days later without further reference to what the post actually did say. So when you state that,

Cardew wrote: »

You very clearly encouraged the OP to make an agreement with the water company and immediately break that agreement, then do exactly the same again.

you are presenting a report on my 'last post' based on information which exists entirely in your own head.

Cardew wrote: »

Even your supporter posted see post#20:

Yes, re a deleted post totally unconnected to your accusative comments. I have no idea why the deletion. I did a simple draft letter, advised about TPDs and reiterated that the DWP and water companies conspire to steal money off the poor. I did start off by saying that the OP seemed capable of doing their own letter - wonder if that was taken the wrong way?

samsmoot

Cardew wrote: »

If you are not bothered about your credit record, the good news is they cannot cut off your water supply.

With a court order they can of course send in baliffs to seize goods. However you are better seeking advice on that issue in other sections of MSE where they have turned avoidance of debts into an art form.

What's this? Not the same Cardew, surely? Telling folk where to go for information on how to avoid paying debts? Must be some mistake.

mart.vader

Oi, Cardew, that's a bit unkind to describe me as Samsmoot's supporter !

I said,> "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."

Maybe it's because, some of the Water Co's believe that they are in a "Win/Win" position and because they have a captive customer-base, has caused some of them to also believe that they are above the Law ?

The Gas and Electric Co's have had to clean up their act, otherwise they would have a mass migration of customers, NOT possible, for Water Cos. Perhaps there's a connection ?

Cardew

On the thread that appears to have been deleted, iirc the OP hadn't paid water bills for 5 years - no pretence of a problem with the water company - they just couldn't/wouldn't pay.

samsmoot advised the OP how to make an agreement with the water company and immediately break the agreement. Then make another agreement which again should be broken.

To repeat, because of the real or imagined grievance with a particular water company, all companies are branded fraudsters, crooks and liars.

The whole point is encouraging people not to pay bills, simply means we others have to pay extra.

mart.vader

Cardew wrote: »

On the thread that appears to have been deleted, iirc the OP hadn't paid water bills for 5 years - no pretence of a problem with the water company - they just couldn't/wouldn't pay. Has the whole thread disappeared ? If so, that must have been done by a moderator

samsmoot advised the OP how to make an agreement with the water company and immediately break the agreement. Then make another agreement which again should be broken.

To repeat, because of the real or imagined ( I've already told you, it's not imagined - I could post proof, but I won't for legal reasons ) grievance with a particular water company, all companies are branded fraudsters, crooks and liars. If you believe any of what Samsmoot and I have been saying, at least two of the 33 Water Cos are crooks and liars. Do you find that an acceptable 'batting average', Cardew ? Most people wouldn't.

The whole point is encouraging people not to pay bills, simply means we others have to pay extra.

Bad Debts occur in all businesses, even for Water, Gas and Electric Cos. There are some people out there who just won't or can't pay. No, Really !

Bad Debt provision falls on the people who do pay - it could never come out of the Directors bonuses, could it ! However, I personally, am not aware of any Gas or Electric company who have actively defrauded or attempted to defraud money from any of their customers. That is why I don't (currently) post about them. But I am aware of a Water Co that has.

Perhaps the simplest way to address the problem, might be for the Water Cos. to adhere to 1) The Law. 2) Their Codes of Practice. A little obvious, I know. But OFWAT and the CCW sure ain't going to make them do it.

samsmoot

Cardew wrote: »

On the thread that appears to have been deleted, iirc the OP hadn't paid water bills for 5 years - no pretence of a problem with the water company - they just couldn't/wouldn't pay.

samsmoot advised the OP how to make an agreement with the water company and immediately break the agreement. Then make another agreement which again should be broken.

OK, if you say I said it, feel free to be contradicted if you continue repeating it. Unless you can prove it, of course.

Cardew wrote: »

To repeat, because of the real or imagined grievance with a particular water company...

OK, continue to believe I may be making it up if you like - don't believe that I went to court, proved the claim, and made two DWP barristers get brought almost to tears by the judge. The real heart of this is that water companies continue to do exactly what I made the law make them not do - but as no precedent is set in the County Court each individual has to make their own complaint and claim. So when you say,

Cardew wrote: »

all companies are branded fraudsters, crooks and liars.

like mart.vader said, two have been shown to be such, and others have been reported as being so. I will in future insert the word 'some' or 'many', as in 'Many water companies unlawfully obtain deductions from benefit for water charges subsequent to the DWP failing to adhere to the Regulations, and despite their knowledge that the deductions are unlawful and have been proven in a court of law to be such in similar circumstances.'