Severn Trent water and court

samsmoot · 12 March 2012 at 8:39PM

In other words, OFWAT, the regulator for the water industry, has no overriding power to force me, a cosumer, to pay for stuff I haven't had the benefit of - I mean those words: 'Charges are payable in advance' - what force in law do they have? They are meaningless unless referenced to legislation that says advance payment is required. Or legislation that says OFWAT can tell me what to do.

samsmoot · 12 March 2012 at 9:11PM

If you said to me, "Show me where it says I have to pay for a water supply and sewerage removal", I'd have no problem doing it. Where is the equivalent that compels advance charges? There is nothing very compelling about OFWAT's statement quoted above.

Timetraveller53 · 3 June 2013 at 2:26AM

Severn Trent have an aggressive and mostly automated system of pursuing alleged debts. Despite their claim to cater for "customers" having difficulties early recourse to the courts is taken.
Despite their claims that the £50 "solicitors fee" is at the direction of The Lord Chancellor, it is not mandatory for them to charge it, indeed most claimants don't.
Severn Trent do simply because they have captive customers and they make money by it. Despite their claims to help in cases of hardship, 80,000 poor customers a year are taken to court, generating STW some £4,000,000 a year in extra revenue that a solicitor goes no where near.
These are probably the poorest members of the community, struggling to make ends meet, and no doubt in many cases driven to Wonga by this greedy grasping company.
For £4,000,000 they cheerfully ignore the admonishments of the regulators, who seriously need to find some teeth here.
The argument that advance payments could be disputed in the county court is compelling. Note SWT now date their bills in Feb, for a service starting in April!
The regulators should review random samples of SWTs court claims in depth and put them to at least this test, and I would argue a minimum of a 90 day bill from when actually due. ie £30 for say April due on April 30, becoming a 90 day bill on July 31.
Bear in mind, apart from a relatively few itinerants, whom the court system is unlikely to track, most of STW's victims are ongoing account holders, struggling to pay many other bills, but unlikely to run off owing STW money.

Cardew · 3 June 2013 at 12:37PM

Timetraveller53 wrote: »

Despite their claims to help in cases of hardship, 80,000 poor customers a year are taken to court, generating STW some £4,000,000 a year in extra revenue that a solicitor goes no where near.
These are probably the poorest members of the community, struggling to make ends meet, and no doubt in many cases driven to Wonga by this greedy grasping company.
For £4,000,000 they cheerfully ignore the admonishments of the regulators, who seriously need to find some teeth here.
.

Welcome to the forum.

I think you need to examine the way all water companies are financed.

The Regulator, who has real teeth, strictly controls the revenue and hence profit of the companies. The £4million to which you refer - even if an accurate figure - is simply revenue; not extra profit.

I also suspect that any legal costs extracted from customers is dwarfed by the companies' legal costs to recover debts; as well as written off debts. Losses which of course they pass to us, the customer, in increased charges.

Don't you think your post is a little emotive?

samsmoot · 5 June 2013 at 11:37PM

Timetraveller53 wrote: »

The argument that advance payments could be disputed in the county court is compelling.

Thank you!

The apologists and naysayers on here would have you believe that a water company will get a judgement against you should you dare to even think twice about not paying up immediately. One might almost think they had some vested interest, such is the vigour of their insistence that the party line should be followed without question.

But the assertion that a judgement for advance charges would always be the inevitable outcome for a properly defended claim has not been proven, either by reference to the law or to any actuality of anyone who argued the point in court still being found liable.

The mantra, or rhetoric, that 'their profits are fixed, so why would they need to get up to shenannigans?', is easily answered when you realise the extent of their power and ability for wrongdoing: they have a lot of the former so can do a lot of the latter - and so they do! It's them and us - you know, us, the people, them the faceless machine that messes up people's lives because they can.

Why, I ask, would the Department for Work and Pensions collude with STW? Steal someone's benefit money and pass it over to STW? Defend their actions in court? Be prepared to be ordered to pay it all back (they were)? Because STW and the DWP are pals, and are them. And because we are poor and generally uneducated, and are us.

They don't care, and the regulators don't care - what you have to do is be prepared to stand up to them - for some a seemingly risky proposition, but for others it should be a priority - especially for those poor enough to have little or nothing to lose. Those with mortgages and jobs understandably have an aversion to some of the risks involved.

The sooner we realise these facts of life the better.

That's emotive.

Severn Trent water and court

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free