water company want me to pay via benefit

giraffe69

which is the scumbags that want to steal your money.

These will be the scumbags who want you to pay for the water you have used.
On another point why should a lodger end up costing you money? Seems a good way to make some money especially if you have a spare room.

paulineb_2

matelodave wrote: »

I think those who call it a bedroom tax should actually be aware that anyone who was in private as opposed to social housing have only been allowed a rent allowance that reflects the number of rooms they "need" as opposed to "want" for the last 7-8 years. If they wanted more rooms then they had to pay the extra above the housing allowance from another source.

The reduction in rent allowance to reflect needs instead of wants is only now catching up with what been happening in the private sector for several years.

I "want" another couple of bedrooms, but I can't afford it so I live in a place that I can afford with as many rooms as I need. Likewise I make sure the important bills like rent, rates, water and energy are paid before I can even contemplate stuff like mobile phones, Sky/Virgin, broadband, drinking, smoking or even the lottery - we even had a period of several years when we had our landline phone disconnected as it was a cost we couldn't afford.

Well maybe people could understand what its like to be in a 2 apt flat and have no 1apts to downsize to. There are 5 1 apt flats vacant in my area, which covers about 100 000 people as my council covers a widespread area. Most of the 1apts go to elderly people

Btw, what does drinking, smoking or lottery have to do with anything. The OP is talking about water rates, that has nothing to do with what some people perceive people on low incomes spend their money on.

My broadband costs me £23 a month. But I dont have a TV licence and I cut back on other things to be able to afford it.

And its not always needs v wants. Some councils simply dont have 1apt homes to allocate to people. If I had been offered a 1 apt Id have taken it.

Some people who are paying the housing benefit cut actually work but are on a low income. Nowhere has the OP spoken about mobiles, sky, lottery, drinking, so why bring this up?

PollySouthend

paulineb wrote: »

Well maybe people could understand what its like to be in a 2 apt flat and have no 1apts to downsize to. There are 5 1 apt flats vacant in my area, which covers about 100 000 people as my council covers a widespread area. Most of the 1apts go to elderly people

Well maybe some people could understand what it's like to be in privately rented accommodation and not tax payer substituted accommodation. I know people that pay almost the same price for a 3 bed council place as i was paying for a 1 bed rented.

matelodave

I think the whole crux of this is should the OP default on the water bill so that the rest of us have to subsidise it bearing in mind that they are getting JSA, housing benefit and presumably council tax benefits which are already being paid by the rest of us via our taxes. Social housing is also subsidised so moving to a privately owned flat would be even worse as it's unlikely that the housing benefit would cover the rent, even for a one bedroom apartment.

I'm not suggesting that they aren't entitled to the benefits but it's a case of prioritising where they get spent and water is one of the more important ones and if they have "fallen behind" then it's not unreasonable for the water co to take steps to limit the deficit before it becomes totally unmanageable.

Nada666

It is your choices - either you pay your bills and keep up or you face direct payments. The advantage of paying yourself is that you maintain control over your income and outgoings. The big disadvantage of paying direct is that although arrears are paid off at an affordable, trivial rate your ongoing costs are also ripped out at source.

It is down to you - either pay the £40 or £54 straight away when your recieve every other payment or face the prospect of each and every payment being reduced by £27 at source. (It also means a long delay if you do adjust your usage where metered.)

(And when you phone up to moan the idea is to tell them you are going to pay - you do not say that you are not able to pay them back. That is just stupid. It ends up with the consequence you have delivered to yourselves.)

samsmoot

matelodave wrote: »

it's a case of prioritising where they get spent and water is one of the more important ones and if they have "fallen behind" then it's not unreasonable for the water co to take steps to limit the deficit before it becomes totally unmanageable.

That would not be unreasonable. But there is a big difference between trying to limit a deficit and trying to obtain money by deception. One is a bit like budgeting, the other is a bit like criminality.

What I am saying is that water companies wrongly but routinely treat Water Direct as a state-sponsored debt collection scheme for themselves, which isn't the purpose of the legislation. It's for those in difficulties who have been shown to have failed to stick to a payment plan (or two), and it must also be in their best interests. The OP does not fall into the category of claimants who can lawfully be subjected to TPDs.

Water companies make disingenuous applications for Third Party Deductions, and the DWP unlawfully make deductions. These are facts, and should be of concern to anyone who believes in the order of law.

Nada666

samsmoot wrote: »

What I am saying is that water companies wrongly but routinely treat Water Direct as a state-sponsored debt collection scheme for themselves, which isn't the purpose of the legislation. It's for those in difficulties who have been shown to have failed to stick to a payment plan (or two), and it must also be in their best interests. The OP does not fall into the category of claimants who can lawfully be subjected to TPDs.

But both customers contacted their suppliers. They have told them upfront they had no intention of paying the minimum (same rate as direct) payments on a reasonable plan.

mart.vader

Nada666 wrote: »

It is your choices - either you pay your bills and keep up or you face direct payments. The advantage of paying yourself is that you maintain control over your income and outgoings. The big disadvantage of paying direct is that although arrears are paid off at an affordable, trivial rate your ongoing costs are also ripped out at source.

It is down to you - either pay the £40 or £54 straight away when your recieve every other payment or face the prospect of each and every payment being reduced by £27 at source. (It also means a long delay if you do adjust your usage where metered.)

(And when you phone up to moan the idea is to tell them you are going to pay - you do not say that you are not able to pay them back. That is just stupid. It ends up with the consequence you have delivered to yourselves.)

I guess that's easy to say, but harder to do - if my arithmetic is correct the OP gets JSA of £71.70, and after the Water Co have taken their deduction of £12.85, the OP is left with £59 or so per week. It's not a huge amount to play with, as it has to include rent, food, and probably gas, leccy and transport. Yes, its money provided by the tax-payer, for people seeking work (hence the name "Job Seekers Allowance")

Third Party Deductions are only allowed when the consumer has failed to comply with two payment arrangements. I don't think that has happened here.

One solution might be to apply to the YW Community Trust.

Apparently, according to Yorkshire Water, it was set up, " to enable applicants to break the circle of debt and to resolve their debt problems in the long term" and "to help Yorkshire Water customers who are in conditions of need and are unable to meet or pay charges for the supply of water and sewerage removal".

So, if that's what its for, why not use it for that ?

samsmoot

Nada666 wrote: »

But both customers contacted their suppliers. They have told them upfront they had no intention of paying the minimum (same rate as direct) payments on a reasonable plan.

Maybe so - but not sure about 'both' customers - nevertheless when it comes to the legality of TPDs in this situation there's insufficient evidence to support them.

The other reason for TPDs being enforced would be to save the customer from court proceedings - but it would still have to be in their interests. What mart.vader says below applies to the issue at hand, and I believe he is qualified to comment on such matters:

mart.vader wrote: »

Third Party Deductions are only allowed when the consumer has failed to comply with two payment arrangements. I don't think that has happened here.

matelodave

Are we sure of this?