MSE News: Ofwat rejects Thames Water's bid to hike bills
Options
Comments
-
Sadly Nope,
Leaks can cost far more to fix than the cost of the water leaking from them.
What this means of course is that water is too cheap. If it was more expensive and hence valuable then leaks would be more financially viable to fix quicker.
Sadly, also, Nope,
It may not be cost-effective to chase every last dribble of a leak on a water main, but when the water is pi$$ing out wholesale, then it definitely should be worthwhile for the Water Cos to fix the leaks.
The problem is not that water is too cheap, (overall it isn't) - the problem is that waste of water is of little or no consequence to the Water Cos. until it has been metered or if it is leaking and causing damage. The other problem is that Water Cos have captive groups of customers, so it doesn't matter to them whether you approve or not.0 -
It's nice to see Ofwat reject and stop something like this from happening, something which would be extremely unfair on the consumer.
I agree that it must be very difficult for water companies to go after the scum that use the water and don't pay for it but that is surely a reality of being a provider of such a service? Why should the compliant customers have to pay more because of that? They ought to reduce their own profit margins or be actively lobbying for changes in the law to enable them to more effectively manage people who fail to pay their bills.
A blanket increase in charges to all customer, whether ongoing or as a one-off is the easy / lazy option, too right that its been rejected.0 -
It's nice to see Ofwat reject and stop something like this from happening, something which would be extremely unfair on the consumer.A blanket increase in charges to all customer, whether ongoing or as a one-off is the easy / lazy option, too right that its been rejected.
Do privatised utilities such as TW provide good value for money for the consumer? Let's face it as a private company TW's main target will be to obtain a hefty profit. Apart from the restrictions on price rises and fines what else can OFWAT do to ensure TW perform, can they change the management if they don't perform?
Would a public water company or a not for profit organisation provide better value? If accountable and managed properly it probably would.0 -
I agree that it must be very difficult for water companies to go after the scum that use the water and don't pay for it but that is surely a reality of being a provider of such a service? Why should the compliant customers have to pay more because of that? .
The water companies are all in a win/win position because the Regulator controls their prices and hence profit. If their revenue falls because of the 'scum'(as you put it) who don't pay for their water, charges rise for the rest of their customers.
The problem is that the water companies 'cannot go after'(as you put it) the non-paying customers because the Government have now decreed that water supplies will not be cut off, or even restricted, for non-paying customers.
For the companies to take these customers to court is a long winded and expensive procedure. These people often are not bothered about a court order, or getting a black mark on their credit record. They might get a court order to pay a couple of pounds a week off their debt, but they still don't pay for their on-going bills; and even that court order is, in practice, unenforceable.
We have a poster who contributes regularly to this forum. He boasts openly that he hasn't paid his water bill for some years because of a dispute with Severn Trent and is not bothered about a poor credit record. He also encourages others to avoid paying their water bill on any pretext.
Effectively the Government's actions in refusing to allow water companies to cut off supplies to non-paying customers, makes it inevitable that the rest of us pay more to cover their non-payment.0 -
We have a poster who contributes regularly to this forum. He boasts openly that he hasn't paid his water bill for some years because of a dispute with Severn Trent
South Staffs. But as I have previously pointed out I recently discovered that I am not liable for the charges anyway. That's what I told the debt collector's solicitor, who surprisingly for someone supposedly versed in and attempting to apply the law is unable or unwilling to provide a legal basis for the threatened claim.
Severn Trent were the ones who got the DWP in trouble with a judge via a court order and a telling off of barristers after obtaining unlawful Third Party Deductions via a fraudulent document, and who don't get paid due to their thievery. Nothing to do with me though - another unhappy and stolen from customer chooses this particular lawful action.
As you mentioned it.0 -
Who do you think pays your bill? and all the others you encourage not to pay?0
-
-
Who do you think pays your bill?
Who do you think paid for the court claim mentioned above?
That's two hearings before a District Judge which take into account 100+ pages of paperwork, legal administration costs, barrister fees - plus their travel expenses for 110 miles x 2 x 2, their attendance fees, claim issue fees, hearing fees, DWP administration costs and repayment of the money claimed.
Involvement with this claim cost me time, effort and money - not to mention the stress and difficulty of having to attend a hearing to try and convince the judge of the merits of the claim - so they owe me.0 -
354 for an average houshold bill sounds very cheap, mine is only 100ish less for one very low water user on a meter.0
-
I'd just like to elaborate on what was IMO a very seedy and unsettling business by way of a few rhetorical questions:
1. Why did Severn Trent submit to the DWP a form which they changed so as to deceive? A form which looked like the specified form but which they had altered?
2. Why did Severn Trent state on the form that the customer had failed to pay when they hadn't even requested payment in the first place?
3. Why did the DWP action an unapproved document?
4. Why did the DWP not stop the subsequent Third Party Deductions when told the facts?
5. Why did the DWP waste a ton of tax payers money in defending the claim when the law said clearly that they were in the wrong?
6. Why do water companies continue to make applications for TPDs even when they have no right to, and why do the DWP approve them even thought they are unlawful, as this recent thread clearly shows they are still doing:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4803012dirtyflannel wrote: »I have been claiming JSA for a few months and not been fortunate to find a job. As a result I fell slightly behind with my water rates that I paid monthly £40. I owe almost a month and a half so I rang and they wanted me to pay 54 pounds a month and I just couldnt afford it. They have arranged payment direct from my JSA benefit £12.85 per week are they allowed to do this ? Im a single person and am trying to get a water meter fitted to reduce my bill but I dont know if Im doing the right thing because my friend did so and got a shocker of a bill over £1000 for the year.
7. Are we to condone or condemn this behaviour?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 248K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards