Not Paying Your Water Bill

samsmoot

NICHOLAS wrote: »

I've just had a bill come from south staffs, addressed to the guy who lived here before.

What do you think will be the outcome then? I think the owner of the property will end up becoming liable for the bill which will mean i probably have to pay... Wont it.. unless i moved out and she got a new tenant in who then started paying the bill...

I'm probably going to be here for another year or so yet so i have plenty of time to think yet i guess... the bill is less than a grand so it wouldn't bankrupt me if i had to pay it... i would blag them into instalments though to ease the pain

South Staffs will most likely keep sending bills in the same name.


If they chase up the owner you can, of course, reimburse them if it comes to it.


I'm pretty sure that if you had to pay you could spread the cost if you insisted - they would likely accept an amount which you'd probably find easy enough to part with. You don't strike me as someone who'd suffer too much by having £20 a week less in their pocket, so maybe an offer along those lines would be acceptable.


If someone else moved in and they started paying I imagine that would be the end of it as far as you are concerned. It crosses my mind though that the next tenant may receive post in your name at the address and if asked by SS they may pass on your details. Just a thought, but you could take the precaution of having all of your mail redirected.


As long as you are willing and able to sort it if need be I see no reason to do anything right now.


South Staffs are quite poor IMO in the scheme of things when it comes to debt enforcement. They will probably keep sending bills in the same name for years to come if nobody stops them. They seem to have a different approach to Severn Trent (whose methods vary from the malicious to the criminal) in that their legal threats can be flimsy, not acted on or unsupported by facts and their debt collectors, customer services and legal department can be amateurish, or at least not up to the standard of ST. I have been playing South Staffs up for years but I'd tread a lot more carefully with Severn Trent.

MothballsWallet

Cardew wrote: »

He is back.


You are wasting your time with samsmoot on anything to do with water charges.


If you delve into his previous posts, he experienced a problem with a water company and thus wrote scores(hundreds?) of posts attempting to advise(badly) people how to avoid paying legitimate bills.


He is fully aware of the financing structure of the water companies, and that any such avoidance and/or legal expenses incurred simply mean that the losses/expenses are paid for by other customers in higher charges - the water companies suffer no loss of profit.


Yet he just continues with his stupid vendetta.

Absolutely - I remember that while I still worked for a water company, I reported one of samsmoot's posts to the MSE Forum Team & they asked me to relay it to someone in the water company's legal team, which I did.

I also related the legal team's response to MSE and they took action based on that response.

samsmoot

MothballsWallet wrote: »

I remember that while I still worked for a water company, I reported one of samsmoot's posts to the MSE Forum Team...

It was because you perceived defamation of your employer, wasn't it?

MothballsWallet wrote: »

...& they asked me to relay it to someone in the water company's legal team, which I did.

And I said I relished the thought, didn't I?

MothballsWallet wrote: »

I also related the legal team's response to MSE...

Presumably because the legal team had no power to prevent the truth being told. It's difficult to prove defamation when you have been fined £47,000,000 for lying to the regulator.

MothballsWallet wrote: »

...and they took action based on that response.

Did they? Can't say I noticed, though it's usual for the MSE team to appease pretty much anyone up on their high horse.

MothballsWallet

Actually, samsmoot, the water co's legal team reviewed the evidence from your posts and decided to provide an answer to respond to what you said.

samsmoot

MothballsWallet wrote: »

Actually, samsmoot, the water co's legal team reviewed the evidence from your posts and decided to provide an answer to respond to what you said.

You mean they made a post? If so I did miss that, and can't seem to locate the thread.

samsmoot

Just for the record, here's a link about water charges and benefit claimants:


http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmenvfru/1186/4110311.htm


This is a 2004 Memorandum submitted by WaterVoice to the Select Committe on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and which at Paragraphs 21-23 proposes that the Government act to provide financial assistance for water charges as a right through the benefit system. No such action was taken by the government and the situation remains as it did in 2004, leaving most benefit claimants with no means by which to pay for water charges.


You can read the Minutes of Evidence here:


http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmenvfru/1186/4110301.htm


And EFRA's subsequent 19th Report here:


http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmenvfru/1186/118602.htm#evidence


'The consumer groups WaterVoice and the National Consumer Council told us that... there is no provision in the benefits system to reflect the wide regional variation in water bills.COLOR=#000080]31[/COLOR Thus, the proportion of an individual's benefit payment that is spent on water and sewerage charges varies across the country. People on low incomes in areas with high charges can therefore face acute problems. The Government's own figure for affordability of water is that less than 3% of income should be spent on water charges.COLOR=#000080]32[/COLOR But WaterVoice argued that, based on the draft determination, by 2010 pensioners in the South West would be paying almost 11% of their disposable income on water and sewerage charges'


http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmenvfru/1186/118607.htm

Robsmum

Cardew wrote: »

They do make huge profits, and are in a win/win situation.


However the win/win situation means that you proudly ripping off the water company, doesn't affect the company's profits as they are allowed to simply raise prices for all other customers to compensate.


Similarly if the companies were ordered by the Government to give free water to 'those in poverty' it wouldn't affect their profits. They run a system called 'water sure' that subsidises certain customers and the rest of their customers pay for that service in higher charges.


Nice to see your concern for 'those in poverty' though.

So carry on with your tactics - trolling or not - you are not alone in 'rip off Britain'.

Is it right that people on benefits can get 'water sure ' for illness that demands more water use , and people not on benefits can't ?

phsci

Robsmum wrote: »

Is it right that people on benefits can get 'water sure ' for illness that demands more water use , and people not on benefits can't ?

Yes. See OFWAT WaterSure (vulnerable groups scheme):
http://www.ofwat.gov.uk/consumerissues/assistance/watersure/

Cardew

Robsmum wrote: »

Is it right that people on benefits can get 'water sure ' for illness that demands more water use , and people not on benefits can't ?

Not sure if that is a question on the regulations, or a comment on the fairness of the regulations.

As stated above, you have to be in receipt of a benefit to qualify for 'watersure'.

If it is asking for a comment on the fairness of the scheme - pass!