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

Cardew

veryintrigued wrote: »

Anyone else feeling guilty that their Gas and Electricity tariff is being 'subsidised' by other customers at the same energy supplier who are on on higher tariffs?


No me neither.....

I suspect most of us would accept a subsidy, so there is nothing in this thread as far as I can see that makes any criticism of those who elected for the subsidised SoLow tariff.


The point being made is that some of the contributors to this thread dispute that the SoLow customers are receiving a cross-subsidy from other AW customers; despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.


Others, for some unfathomable reason, seem to think that AW SoLow customers are unique in UK and so they should continue to receive the subsidy.

matelodave

Sorry Cardew but I think you are flogging a dead horse.

Those who've been happily living off the backs of others will always complain when they are called upon to pay their fair share.
.

Mykidsmum

matelodave wrote: »

Sorry Cardew but I think you are flogging a dead horse.

Those who've been happily living off the backs of others will always complain when they are called upon to pay their fair share.
.[/QUOTE

I agree

Mee

How do you reach that conclusion? Evidence please as to how SoLow users were not paying their fair share. We pay a higher amount for usage per cubic metre in lieu of service charges! We currently have the worst of both worlds.

Re: "All the Directors and Management of Anglian Water not only believe, but KNOW, that the SoLow tariff gets a subsidy from the rest of AW customers."
How do you know that and would it be a surprise they voted the same way?

Mee

veryintrigued wrote: »

Anyone else feeling guilty that their Gas and Electricity tariff is being 'subsidised' by other customers at the same energy supplier who are on on higher tariffs?


No me neither.....

Pre-payment users may beg to differ!

Eagalitarian

Frankly, I didn't take kindly to the inference that I'm not a "thinking person". Especially in the context of the "subsidy", when I don't believe I've expressed on here a view in favour of it or otherwise. For the record, I quite agree that it is wrong for water efficient large households to subsidise other AW customers. The principle was wrong and needed to change.
My concern was that AW frequently use the term "water efficient" without any qualification. Thank you for your input on that aspect, it was helpful.
As you presumably were never a "SoLow" customer (or even an AW customer? Which of course does not preclude you from having a view on the subject.) you may not be familiar with all the implications of the standing charges. As a result of private correspondence with AW last year, they sent me a projection of my bills over 4 years. This indicated that the proportion of my bill that relates to actual water usage would be:-
2014/15 100%, 2015/16 81%, 2016/17 65% 2017/18 55%

Of course, they have since extended the "phasing in" period from 3 to 6 years, so I will ask for a fresh projection, but I'm quite sure that the underlying "trend" would remain the same. The opportunity to influence my total bill by water economy will steadily diminish, and of course this will apply to all So Low users. I feel this sends the wrong message in respect of water efficiency. Lower standing charges and higher per unit costs would seem to be a better solution. I appreciate though that this is a different situation to energy utilities, since not everybody has a water meter (20% of AW households don't apparently, which is a hefty chunk of houses) and that needs to be factored in, which could complicate the matter.

In short, at no point have I argued for a continuation of any subsidies, but remain unconvinced that AW's solution is the best though.

My other bone of contention, and the one that initially prompted to me to come on in support of Mee's and other users' point, was the way AW introduced it. In my case, it was essentially "your bill is going up by over 30%" (notification which was only received AFTER it had been introduced) without any explanation. That is simply poor business practice, although unsurprising given their monopoly position. However, if you'll excuse the pun, that is now water under the bridge.

Eagalitarian

matelodave wrote: »

Sorry Cardew but I think you are flogging a dead horse.

Those who've been happily living off the backs of others will always complain when they are called upon to pay their fair share.
.

That's a rather sweeping generalisation. I expect it was news to many of the SoLow customers that there was any subsidy. It was not their reason for joining the tariff, they only did so because AW advised they could benefit. If somebody is suddenly presented with an increase of over 30% in a utility bill for no increase in usage, and no opportunity to "shop around", it is hardly surprising that they complain.

Eagalitarian

Sorry, I should have made clear that my post 167 was a follow up to Cardew's 155.

Cardew

Mee wrote: »

How do you reach that conclusion? Evidence please as to how SoLow users were not paying their fair share. We pay a higher amount for usage per cubic metre in lieu of service charges! We currently have the worst of both worlds.

Extraordinary!

Evidence? This statement by AW:

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.

Surely they couldn't put it more clearly.

worst of both worlds.?


The SoLow tariff was never mandatory - you had to apply; you could have remained on the normal tariff like the majority of AW customers.(and subsidize the SoLow customers;)) If you now genuinely believe you have 'the worst of both worlds' then simply apply for the normal tariff now.

Cardew

Eagalitarian wrote: »

you may not be familiar with all the implications of the standing charges. As a result of private correspondence with AW last year, they sent me a projection of my bills over 4 years. This indicated that the proportion of my bill that relates to actual water usage would be:-
2014/15 100%, 2015/16 81%, 2016/17 65% 2017/18 55%

Of course, they have since extended the "phasing in" period from 3 to 6 years, so I will ask for a fresh projection, but I'm quite sure that the underlying "trend" would remain the same. The opportunity to influence my total bill by water economy will steadily diminish, and of course this will apply to all So Low users. I feel this sends the wrong message in respect of water efficiency. Lower standing charges and higher per unit costs would seem to be a better solution.

If you read the various comments on amendments to The Water Act, the subject of Standing Charges(SC) v water/sewerage charges is often raised. Across England and Wales there is a wide variation in standing charges.


Your solution of a lower SC and higher unit cost would generally suit single occupants, couples or those with a holiday 'cottage'. However it would not suit larger households, even if more water efficient.