Prince increase differences between metered and unmetered water: Grossly unfair

swinstan

Not sure if anyone else has come across this but I have just discovered on the Severn Trent website that the price increase for unmetered water is far higher than for metered water.

Cut and paste from my account on their website:

Unmetered 2021-22

Please be aware the following charges differ depending on the rateable value of your property and where you live:

• A typical unmeasured household bill (full service) is increasing by 5.8% (around £1.50 per month)
• Water supply charges are increasing by 5.3%
  
• Charges for waste water treatment are increasing by 6.4%   

Metered 2021-22

• A typical metered household bill (full service) is increasing by 1.9% (around 50p per month)
  
• Water supply charges are rising by 1.4%
  
• Charges for waste water are increasing by 2.4% 

I know that a lot of single and/or elderly people have stayed with unmetered supply as cheaper for them but it now seems that water companies - this one at least - may be trying to force people to swap. I'm metered so not affecting me personally but someone needs to speak up for this injustice. Martin?

JJ_Egan

( I know that a lot of single and/or elderly people have stayed with unmetered supply as cheaper for them )

Why would you think unmetered would be cheaper .

A single or elderly household is almost certain to pay more unmetered .

My RV payment was cut from £700 PA  to £300 PA  once metered as where many more that i persuaded to go metered .

PS  MARTIN ? sold this  site many years ago .

swinstan

Please take the time read my post again. You have entirely misunderstood my reasons for posting. Personally I'm not affected, as I said. I just feel that Severn Trent are taking advantage of some people without them knowing - and they deserve to at least know that their prices are increasing disproportionately. Why should they bear an increase of over 5% when other are only having to take less than 2%. As I said before - grossly unfair!

PS. I did know Martin had sold this site. It was merely a way to suggest that someone with some influence take this up on behalf of all the people unfairly affected without having to actually say "Someone should take this up on behalf of all the people unfairly affected"!!!

freesha

Everyone should have to pay for what they use anyway - it is coming, no one knows quite when, but it WILL happen.

theoretica

A lot of people will have calculated whether they think they would be better off with metered or unmetered water - and low users got meters, leaving high users unmetered.  As more people get meters and leave more of the highest users without them it is understandable to me that unmetered users will be charged more to reflect this.  So long as there is some way of protecting users who cannot, rather than choose not to, have a meter.

sebtomato

freesha said:

Everyone should have to pay for what they use anyway - it is coming, no one knows quite when, but it WILL happen.

Usually, people are put or stay on unmetered for a valid reason, not just by choice.

QrizB

swinstan said:

I know that a lot of single and/or elderly people have stayed with unmetered supply as cheaper for them ...

I would imagine that the majority of single people would pay less for a metered supply than they do for an unmetered one. "Elderly" on the other hand covers everyone from that nice Mrs Potts at number 27 to Lord and Lady Fotherington-Wells in their stately home. Mrs Potts could also be better off with a meter.

macman

Where on earth do you get the idea that a single person would pay more for metered than RV billing? In almost every case they would pay considerably less, unless they have a tiny property with a very low RV.
My late mother had a 3 b/r property and lived alone: switching to a meter reduced her billing by 75%.

Cardew

About 20 years ago(iirc) it was calculated by the water companies that only approx 25% of households would be better off staying on RV based charges. Obviously that percentage has been drastically reduced.

It should be borne in mind that the stated aim of The Water Act that introducing metering in April 1990 was that all properties would eventually have meters(those who couldn't have one fitted would have an assessed charge). When the bill was being debated in Parliament examples were brought up of large families living in properties with a very low RV who would face huge increases in their water charges. So the decision was made to give all existing account holders 'grandfather rights'.

However to meet the aim of getting all on meters, the Water Companies were given a mandate to make it compulsory that on change of owner/tenant/account holder a meter would be fitted. So, in theory, only properties that have had the same  owner/tenant/account holder for the past 31 years should have the right to remain on RV based charges.

However the majority of water companies didn't bother to enforce that provision of The Water Act.

The reason for this is the stupid manner in which these Water Companies are financed. Put simply it doesn't matter, in financial terms, to the companies how many are on RV charges or how many are metered. Ofwat approve a water company to raise £xxx million in revenue, and  provided certain targets are met they can make £yy millions in profit.

So if they could increase their revenue by, say, £1 million by enforcing meters on RV charge customers, they would have to make a compensating decrease in charges for metered customers to stay within the Ofwat imposed revenue limit, and it would not affect their profit.

It is only in recent times with water shortages and lack of sewerage facilities that the Companies have a target to reduce water consumption and have the power to make all properties in some areas have a meter, and increase price differentials between RV based and metered customers to encourage RV based customers to get a meter.

The whole privatisation of the Water industry was, and is, a disgrace. The Government sold off a largely Victorian crumbling infrastructure to regional water companies who they gave a monopoly. So we now have directors paying themselves a fortune. An example in 2017:

'Liv Garfield, the chief executive of Severn Trent, was paid £2.45m last year, making her the UK's best-paid water company boss. Garfield took home a salary of £674,000, a £615,000 bonus, and long-term incentive shares worth £975,000, a pension contribution of £168,000 and other benefits worth £18,000.   5 Jun 2018'

wild666

For a single person or a couple it more than likely works out cheaper  with a water meter as the companies estimate 1 person uses 50 cubic meters of water per year, 50,000 litres. that's 100,000 litres per year for two people. 

wild666

freesha said:

Everyone should have to pay for what they use anyway - it is coming, no one knows quite when, but it WILL happen.

They should only pay for what they use for me a meter sent my yearly bill down from £450 to £108. Water companies are ripping of single people as they might be paying far more than what they would if they had a water meter. The downside is large families that might use more than they would on RV.