Should I get a Meter

dearlouise

Cardew wrote: »

Not so, - did you not read the post above you? If you initiate the switch to a meter you have 12 months to decide if it is beneficial. If it is not you can revert to paying based on your original Rateable Value(RV)


IIRC some while ago Ofwat estimated about 60% of those customers paying charges based on their RV would be better off with a meter.


That of course means 40% wouldn't be better off.


You just cannot make sweeping statements about who will be better off. Some very large old houses have a very low RV and would be better off staying on RV even with a single occupant, let alone a family of six.


These large old houses could have been modernised at any time since 1990(or before) and their RV won't have changed.


I know of an old derelict cottage that was demolished and a new 7 bedroomed house was built with outbuildings in over an acre; this all done with full planning permission and in accordance with building regs, and they retain the same RV as the old cottage. The Water company aren't bothered because the way they are funded, there is no advantage in getting the owner to pay more.

Oh apologies young sir, I was just repeating the conversation I had with the installer of MY water meter.

*slapped wrist*

Will be sure to become an expert on the topic before posting. Ahem. Oh wait, this is a forum. :rotfl:

Cardew

dearlouise wrote: »

Oh apologies young sir, I was just repeating the conversation I had with the installer of MY water meter.

*slapped wrist*

Will be sure to become an expert on the topic before posting. Ahem. Oh wait, this is a forum. :rotfl:

Just to clarify.

When there is a mandatory installation of a water meter, which can be enforced by the water company on change of occupant, the meter cannot be removed and that occupant and future occupants will be charged on a metered basis.

However if a resident customer elects to get a water meter fitted, they can revert back within 12 months to be charged on their original Rateable Value basis.

Note: the meter is not removed and future occupants will pay metered charges.

The beauty of a forum is that incorrect information, however well intended, can be corrected.;)

A._Badger

One slight caveat - you might have to 'get heavy' with your water company.

Southern Water switched me to metering 'in error'. When I put my foot down, I was told I could get the change rescinded within a year if the bills were higher, which they were. I had to threaten them with the regulator to get it changed

There is a good reason why so many of our water companies are now owned by foreign investors.

Cardew

Presumably that information about an error had not been input to the 'all knowing computer' and it 'thought' that it was a mandatory change.


You are absolutely correct about water companies being attractive to foreign investors. For all the power of the Regulator - and it does have teeth - companies are in a win/win situation; they get their revenue and profit regardless. Look at the share price of Severn Trent - doubled over the last 5 years and it is a racing certainty that there will be another offer from a foreign firm soon.


If since 1990 they had enforced the provision of the Water Act that allows them to fit meters on change of occupant, there would be far fewer unmetered properties and a fairer system of charging i.e. pay for what you use!

Fruit_and_Nut_Case

A._Badger wrote: »

There is a good reason why so many of our water companies are now owned by foreign investors.

I was about to ask our black-and-white faced friend to elaborate for simple-minded folk like myself when up popped...

Cardew wrote: »

Presumably that information about an error had not been input to the 'all knowing computer' and it 'thought' that it was a mandatory change.


You are absolutely correct about water companies being attractive to foreign investors. For all the power of the Regulator - and it does have teeth - companies are in a win/win situation; they get their revenue and profit regardless. Look at the share price of Severn Trent - doubled over the last 5 years and it is a racing certainty that there will be another offer from a foreign firm soon.


If since 1990 they had enforced the provision of the Water Act that allows them to fit meters on change of occupant, there would be far fewer unmetered properties and a fairer system of charging i.e. pay for what you use!

Thank you, kind sir :T

A._Badger

Cardew wrote: »

If since 1990 they had enforced the provision of the Water Act that allows them to fit meters on change of occupant, there would be far fewer unmetered properties and a fairer system of charging i.e. pay for what you use!

Well, that is a matter of opinion and one of those rare things we appear to disagree about. Personally, I consider metered water to be nothing more than an excuse to increase profits using a deliberately engineered 'scarcity' as the pretext.

Cardew

A._Badger wrote: »

Well, that is a matter of opinion and one of those rare things we appear to disagree about. Personally, I consider metered water to be nothing more than an excuse to increase profits using a deliberately engineered 'scarcity' as the pretext.

As you say - we rarely disagree. However given the financing of the water industry, whether properties are metered or non-metered, it doesn't affect the companies' profits.


Also on balance when people get a meter they pay less in charges.


The Regulator strictly controls the revenue and hence profit of the water companies - you may have read that next year prices are to be reduced by an average of 2%.


So Water Company A can raise £xxx million in revenue on a 5 year plan and make £yy million in profit. Now if, say, a 100,000 customers got a meter and their revenue decreased by say £2million, they can simply increase other charges by a small amount to recoup that lost £2million revenue.


Conversely if they gained £2 million then other charges would be decreased to compensate.


They are in a win/win position which is why their share price continually increases and the are so attractive to foreign investors.


So your contention that metered water is an excuse to increase profits is wrong on two counts.


Firstly on balance people on meters generally pay less; and use less water than unmetered properties.


Secondly even if it did raise more revenue, it wouldn't increase profits.


As you are aware all properties built since April 1990 are metered. Also from that date The Water Act gave water companies the authority to compulsorily fit meters on change of occupant. Some companies enforced that provision but most didn't; albeit recently there is a move toward enforcement.


If, as you suggest, fitting meters increased companies profits, it would be a racing certainty that they would have enforced that provision 100% and most properties in UK would now be metered; which was the intention of water privatisation. Only properties who haven't had a change of occupant in the past 25 years would be unmetered. But as meters are cost neutral they didn't bother.


P.S.
It is not a shortage of water that is the major issue, but the ever increasing demand creates problems for treating water and sewerage and using a largely Victorian infrastructure.


There is no doubt that metered properties use considerably less water than unmetered properties.

A._Badger

Cardew wrote: »

As you say - we rarely disagree. However given the financing of the water industry, whether properties are metered or non-metered, it doesn't affect the companies' profits..

For the sake of brevity - and to avoid drifting too far off-topic - I'll respond to just a couple of your points.

First:

Cardew wrote: »

Firstly on balance people on meters generally pay less; and use less water than unmetered properties.

Yes, they pay less now. But the operative word is now. Investors play a long game - particularly the kind of investors who have been gobbling-up British water suppliers. This isn't a typical investment in a company. There is no risk involved - it's more like a guaranteed bond than a share.

Using the railways as a model, there seems to me to be no justification for assuming that prices will not rise, or be allowed to rise in future. Why would anyone trust regulation in the UK, given its generally poor record?

Cardew wrote: »

Secondly even if it did raise more revenue, it wouldn't increase profits.

See above. The precedents are not good. The government is currently railing at energy companies for not having reduced prices in response to the recent reductions in the price of crude oil. But what has the government actually done about it? What has it done to moderate rail fares?

Government regulation of poorly privatised companies has not been good and I see no reason to believe it is likely to get any better, the current rules on water companies notwithstanding.

The problem is one of monopoly. I'm absolutely in favour of competition but where competition is stifled, or actually impossible, you need far stronger controls than governments (plural) have exerted over privatised monopolies.

I am, in any case, not in the least sure that reducing water consumption is necessarily a Good Thing. There is no shortage of water, as we are agreed. What there is is a shortage of catchment and delivery/removal infrastructure. Sorting that out seems to me a better solution that forcing people to treat a basic essential as if it were a luxury commodity.

Anyway, I'll leave it there.

Cardew

Whoa! You are attacking - with justification - the structure of the current water industry.


I am not in any way defending the privatisation of the water industry. Maggie pulled off a master stroke by selling off an industry with a largely ill maintained Victorian infrastructure and the customers are picking up the bill for sorting it out - and will do for decades to come.


To have some areas of the country e.g. The South West paying over 3 times the price for water than other areas is indefensible.(no personal interest - I live in one of the cheaper areas for water!)


My point earlier was to dispute your contention that metering was a way of increasing profits for the water companies - and it isn't. In fact the water companies have been guilty in not complying with the aim of the Water Act; which was to increase the number of metered properties.


On the wider issue of fairness. It is a nonsense that some unmetered properties are paying far less than average on the basis of their Rateable Value.(RV) The RV on most properties in England and Wales was assessed as long ago as 1973 on the basis of a notional rent the property could command. I gave an example in the last paragraph of post#11. Surely there is no justification for not paying for what water we consume.