MSE News: Anglian Water SoLow customer? It's axing the tariff meaning bill hikes

matelodave

I'm all in favour of getting rid of these subsidies - if we all paid for what we used rather than contributing to someone else getting it cheaper then all bills would be more equable and potentially cheaper across the board.

All subsidies just distort the market and then people whinge when they are removed - subsidies are just unfair on those who have to pay extra.

Ken68

Good point Cardew, am researching the organisation. No names yet but see they have a whistle-blowers charter.
Probably another quango without teeth.

Cardew

matelodave wrote: »

I'm all in favour of getting rid of these subsidies - if we all paid for what we used rather than contributing to someone else getting it cheaper then all bills would be more equable and potentially cheaper across the board.

All subsidies just distort the market and then people whinge when they are removed - subsidies are just unfair on those who have to pay extra.

Totally agree, although AW still have 'social tariffs'

We've got two social tariffs for customers receiving certain benefit payment and for those who use high amounts of water. They're called WaterSure and AquaCare Plus

The subsidy for those on SoLow was not based on the ability to pay and 'was also rewarding small households, not water efficient households.' and as you say the justified removal of the tariff has caused people to whinge; as this thread demonstrates.

Ken68

It makes sense to staff OFWAT from the ranks of the consumer organisations, plus a few technical reps. Certainly NOT from the profit makers.

MiserlyMartin

matelodave wrote: »

I'm all in favour of getting rid of these subsidies - if we all paid for what we used rather than contributing to someone else getting it cheaper then all bills would be more equable and potentially cheaper across the board.

All subsidies just distort the market and then people whinge when they are removed - subsidies are just unfair on those who have to pay extra.

I agree with you about subsidies. The problem is that this tariff was NOT a subsidy. You have fallen for and been brainwashed by the Anglian Water spin that they are using to justify their axing of the tariff.

Cardew

MiserlyMartin wrote: »

I agree with you about subsidies. The problem is that this tariff was NOT a subsidy. You have fallen for and been brainwashed by the Anglian Water spin that they are using to justify their axing of the tariff.

What spin is that?

It is as plain as day that those on the SoLow tariff receive a subsidy paid for by other AW customers.

AW have put the following in writing:

Why is this Happening

In short, SoLow customers receive a subsidy on their bill and that subsidy is paid for by other customers. The subsidy amounted to every non-SoLow customer paying an £7 extra per year to fund the preferential SoLow rate.

Making bills fairer


SoLow customers were paying less because other customers were paying more.

If AW are incorrect/misleading/lying why not report them to CCW/Ofwat/Trading Standards?

Why is it so difficult for you(and others) to accept that those on the SoLow tariff are receiving a subsidy paid for by other AW customers?

Mee

Cardew wrote: »

What has anything in that post to do with the phasing out of the SoLow tariff by AW?


Could it be that one of AW's customers has complained(with justification) that it was unfair that they were subsidising SoLow customers?


You apparently dispute AW's written statements that SoLow customers are subsidised by other AW customers, and also likewise dispute that AW make no money by removing that subsidy.


That being the case, why not take action against AW? You doubtless will have grounds to prove AW are lying??

Dear Mr. Corporate /Cardew,

1.Said articles have everything to do with the issue of how water companies behave of which AW is one. Try to see the bigger picture.
2. Show me the data to prove this was a subsidy paid for by non SoLow water users. Neither can one argue that the SoLow tarriff did not encourage/reward water efficiency - no one has presented or anaysed the data either way. Speaking from experience I was conscious of the need to save water to remain within the qualifying threshold. I assumed the tariff was one of the 'green' tools used to encourage more efficient water use and I didn't think we were encouraging large families period.
3. I have the right to free speech (not whinge) and I am not a litigious person.

No doubt you would champion the removal of the single person council tax discount too?!!!!

Cardew

Mee wrote: »

Dear Mr. Corporate /Cardew,

1.Said articles have everything to do with the issue of how water companies behave of which AW is one. Try to see the bigger picture.
2. Show me the data to prove this was a subsidy paid for by non SoLow water users. Neither can one argue that the SoLow tarriff did not encourage/reward water efficiency - no one has presented or anaysed the data either way. Speaking from experience I was conscious of the need to save water to remain within the qualifying threshold. I assumed the tariff was one of the 'green' tools used to encourage more efficient water use and I didn't think we were encouraging large families period.
3. I have the right to free speech (not whinge) and I am not a litigious person.

No doubt you would champion the removal of the single person council tax discount too?!!!!

'Mr Corporate' - can you not do better? As for 'try to see the bigger picture' that is rich coming from someone who has clearly no idea of water company financing. Your entitlement to 'Free Speech' would be more effective if it was based on facts and not plain silliness. e.g.'I didn't think we were encouraging large families period.'



I am on record in many posts in stating the privatisation of the water industry has been a disaster. 'Selling off the family silver' to slightly misquote SuperMac. Maggie sold off a largely Victorian water infrastructure and all the costly improvements are funded by the customers whilst the water companies enjoy huge risk free profits - just look at their ever increasing share prices.


There are huge inconsistencies across all water companies charging schemes. Why for instance should the South West customers pay three times as much for their water as some other districts.


I don't need to 'show you the data' about SoLow. UW have stated in print 'The subsidy amounted to every non-SoLow customer paying an £7 extra per year to fund the preferential SoLow rate.' If your argument is that this is not true, then why don't you prove they are lying.


There is a financial incentive for EVERY metered customer(including SoLow) in AW, and all other water companies to use less water.

Mee

1.It was silly of me to call you 'Mr. Corporate' - and I shall endeavour to do better next time, Cardew.
2. Do enlighten me on 'water company financing'.
3. Apologies for my 'silliness' in saying 'I didn't think we were encouraging large families period.' It must be the Malthusian in me.
4. AW 'The subsidy [sic] amounted to every non-SoLow customer paying an £7 extra per year to fund the preferential SoLow rate.' IMHO, the onus is on them to qualify that assertion and provide more evidence. I would never use the term 'lying'...

I guess when you are living on a tight budget the slightest external change in expenditure caused by things like the removal of the SoLow tariff seems/is magnified manifold.

I apologise for the 'silliness' of my opinions.

Cardew

Your obvious genuine apology is accepted;)