Southern Water waste rates?

JBF

I was just wondering why our waste water rates are so high and whether it's actually possible to change waste water providers?

Looking at southern water our rate is £2.27/m^3 but looking at another provider, for example Thames water, their rates are much lower at £0.79/m^3.

It seems extremely unfair that we are paying 3x the rate for the same service so I wonder whether we can switch to another provider. If we can't switch to another provider surely the price should be regulated as they have a monopoly.

HappyMJ

JBF wrote: »

I was just wondering why our waste water rates are so high and whether it's actually possible to change waste water providers?

Looking at southern water our rate is £2.27/m^3 but looking at another provider, for example Thames water, their rates are much lower at £0.79/m^3.

It seems extremely unfair that we are paying 3x the rate for the same service so I wonder whether we can switch to another provider. If we can't switch to another provider surely the price should be regulated as they have a monopoly.

You can't change suppliers

The price is regulated. Southern Water have high costs so therefore the price is high.

Thames Water residents are closer together requiring less infrastructure therefore each property doesn't need to pay so much to meet the costs of disposing of waste water.

Just look at the numbers Southern Water has 368 treatment works processing 700 million litres of waste water.

Thames Water has 350 sewage works processing some 4.4 billion litres of waste water.

Thames can divide the cost of treating that water over many more customers bringing the cost per litre right down.

Your bills are higher due to a lower population density.

Cardew

South West Water is £3.34 m3 for sewerage(waste water)


No, unfortunately you cannot switch to another supplier.


You are quite right that it is unfair. However the rates are very strictly regulated by the Regulator(Ofwat) who authorises the revenue and profit for all companies.


This stupid situation came about when the water industry was privatised. - Blame Maggie!


Some areas(like Thames) are relatively small and have many millions of customers.


Others are huge(like South West) who also have a massive coastline to look after, and have relatively few customers.

JBF

Seems very unfair - I live in a densely populated town yet I have to pay more because my provider has chosen to cover a large area with a low population density when averaged out. Most of the people living in the middle of nowhere will probably have a septic tank anyway. To add to the insult while my fresh water is on a meter the waste is not so they charge based on a presumed ratio. If I want to water my lawn and vegetable patch every night through the summer not only am I paying for the water itself (which is fine) but I then have to pay for waste I'm not actually putting in to the system. It's insane.

It would be more fair if this followed the same model as energy or telecoms with the distribution/waste infrastructure being managed as one national network.

In reality it's all unfair and utilities should be run as a not for profit public service. There may be some flimsy smoke and mirrors 'regulation' but in reality these largely foreign owned companies are raking in billions in profit. Oh how my heart bleeds when they complain about costs of maintaining infrastructure and profit going down to only £x billion. One thing I can agree with labour on, re-nationalise utilities.

HappyMJ

JBF wrote: »

Seems very unfair - I live in a densely populated town yet I have to pay more because my provider has chosen to cover a large area with a low population density when averaged out. Most of the people living in the middle of nowhere will probably have a septic tank anyway. To add to the insult while my fresh water is on a meter the waste is not so they charge based on a presumed ratio. If I want to water my lawn and vegetable patch every night through the summer not only am I paying for the water itself (which is fine) but I then have to pay for waste I'm not actually putting in to the system. It's insane.

It would be more fair if this followed the same model as energy or telecoms with the distribution/waste infrastructure being managed as one national network.

In reality it's all unfair and utilities should be run as a not for profit public service. There may be some flimsy smoke and mirrors 'regulation' but in reality these largely foreign owned companies are raking in billions in profit. Oh how my heart bleeds when they complain about costs of maintaining infrastructure and profit going down to only £x billion. One thing I can agree with labour on, re-nationalise utilities.

It is possible for you to get a meter of your own on your outside tap to measure how much water is being used outside the house and not discharged to the sewer. They can reduce your waste water charges appropriately.

You have to buy the meter yourself though and record the readings then report that to the water company every 6 months so they can adjust the bill. If you use quite a lot of water outside you could save.

How much water do you use at the moment? If it's 155 litres per person per day or less then I wouldn't recommend the expense of buying a meter of your own as you won't save anything.

Southern Water doesn't make billions. It's turnover isn't even a billion pounds.

Cardew

JBF wrote: »

Seems very unfair - I live in a densely populated town yet I have to pay more because my provider has chosen to cover a large area with a low population density when averaged out.

Your provider has 'chosen' nothing.


When water was privatised England and Wales was split into regions by the Government and private companies(with shareholders) appointed to control water and sewerage in that region. Shares were sold, a proportion to customers, and billions raised. It was part of 'Selling off the family silver' to slightly misquote Harold Macmillan.


The huge rise in their share prices and large dividends since privatisation is because their charter gives them a win/win situation.

JBF

Oh right, I misunderstood, I thought that as a private company they could decide they don't want the business and shut up shop if it's not worth their while. I guess they just cut corners or avoid non-essential maintenance and investment in order to ensure they make as much profit as they are legally allowed.

When I say billions I'm thinking collectively as an industry. Thames water made £300+ million in PROFIT for 2014-2015. That's profit not turnover. Southern Water made £167 million profit in the same period. That's not a small sum. These are essentials that people need to live and in some cases (such as this) they have no choice but to obtain the service from one company. This should be run as a public service.

Our utilities model is insane. We worry about the Chinese trying to hack our SCADA networks then we decide let them build and operate nuclear power stations on our soil. "All your base are belong to us" :eek:

Cardew

JBF wrote: »

Oh right, I misunderstood, I thought that as a private company they could decide they don't want the business and shut up shop if it's not worth their while. I guess they just cut corners or avoid non-essential maintenance and investment in order to ensure they make as much profit as they are legally allowed.

When I say billions I'm thinking collectively as an industry. Thames water made £300+ million in PROFIT for 2014-2015. That's profit not turnover. Southern Water made £167 million profit in the same period. That's not a small sum. These are essentials that people need to live and in some cases (such as this) they have no choice but to obtain the service from one company. This should be run as a public service.

Our utilities model is insane. We worry about the Chinese trying to hack our SCADA networks then we decide let them build and operate nuclear power stations on our soil. "All your base are belong to us" :eek:

Absolutely agree that the water 'model' is a disgrace. The Government sold off a largely Victorian water infrastructure to companies who had carte blanche to charge customers whatever it takes to modernise. It is also disgrace that places like the South West can pay up to 3 times as much as other areas(I live in one of the cheaper areas)


However the water companies have no need to cut corners to get their agreed profit. They are given a 5 year plan and have to achieve certain targets, i.e. reduce leakage(which they rarely meet) lay x miles of new water mains etc and they are allowed to raise xx millions in Revenue and make yy millions in profit. They are in a win/win situation.

AndyJ52

JBF wrote: »

I was just wondering why our waste water rates are so high and whether it's actually possible to change waste water providers?

Looking at southern water our rate is £2.27/m^3 but looking at another provider, for example Thames water, their rates are much lower at £0.79/m^3.

It seems extremely unfair that we are paying 3x the rate for the same service so I wonder whether we can switch to another provider. If we can't switch to another provider surely the price should be regulated as they have a monopoly.

I too am a Southern Water bill payer having moved here from the Thames Water region...... and the increased bills here were quite a nasty shock! Whilst I accept the description of the area as less densely populated, part of the appeal in making the move, the taste/flavour of the water provided by Southern Water is dreadful in comparison to that provided by Thames Water. When consumed on its own it tastes very chlorine like. Doesn't seem to taint the taste of tea/coffee etc but to drink it straight from the tap is a very unpleasant taste experience! And I'm paying more for this! :mad: