Thames Water meters now compulsory?

lndac02 wrote: »

I seem to remember this same argument being used by Margaret thatcher back in 1989/1990 in the Rate versus Poll tax debacle. The idea being that anyone in a house was using the services and should therefore pay accordingly. This meant single occupied houses paid a lot less than a house with 5 occupants. I remember that ending badly for Thatcher. Fast forward 26 years later and we see the same argument being used here. single occupancy homes will be much better off and therefore the water companies will look to multi occupancy properties to make their profits. Anyone who thinks the water companies for spending all this money digging up the streets for environmental reasons is deluding themselves. This is simply a revenue generation operation that will ensure the companies will recover all the costs of doing it in a short period of time by raising charges. The water companies have one interest and that is to their shareholders, the profits made on a fundamental of life (water) are shared amongst them and the boards of these companies. finally I am considered a "customer" of my water company. since I cannot take my "custom" elsewhere, can someone be kind enough to explain to me what the correct definition of customer is and if this term correctly pertains to our relationship with our water suppliers Thanks

Interesting that you mention Margret Thatcher, as her government was largely responsible for the water privatisation debacle.

You need to understand the financing of the water companies and their licencing conditions. It can all be read in the various iterations of 'The Water Act' and Ofwat publications.

Put in simplistic terms the Regulator(Ofwat) lays down a 5 year plan for all the water companies with targets they must meet. Ofwat sets a maximum revenue they can raise and hence profit levels. The overall percentage increase/decrease in charges is stipulated for each year. As the water companies have a monopoly it is only the Regulator that can keep them in check.

If we take an example of water meters. The original Water Act stipulated that whilst those occupants on Rateable Value(RV) based charges could elect to remain on that system, on change of occupant(account holder) a meter could be fitted. Thus there would be steadily increasing percentage of properties on a meter as only properties where the occupant had been in situ prior to April 1990 would now not have a meter.

However the water companies largely didn't bother enforcing this provision. There is simply no financial incentive for them to do so.
They are allowed to raise £xxx millions in revenue and make £yy millions in profit. So getting, say, £100 million extra from people put on a meter does not increase the revenue they are allowed to raise as they will have to charge other customers less to compensate.

Thus this argument does not hold true:

therefore the water companies will look to multi occupancy properties to make their profits. Anyone who thinks the water companies for spending all this money digging up the streets for environmental reasons is deluding themselves. This is simply a revenue generation operation that will ensure the companies will recover all the costs of doing it in a short period of time by raising charges.

This puts the water companies in a win/win situation; which is why their share price have steadily increased since privatisation.

brewerdave wrote: »

...with the notable exception of HYDER/Welsh Water/Dwr Cymru ----their shares lost me a lot of money:(

When was that, presumably prior to 2001?

I thought Welsh water became a 'not for profit company' in 2001 and there are no shares in the company.

http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail/other/12776456.html

http://uk.practicallaw.com/9-101-3276?sd=plc

I have now received a letter form Thames Water giving me a date when my meter will be read which makes it pretty clear that it's not an online thing.