Jump to content

Recommended Posts

just wondering what peoples thoughts/experiences are of smart water meters?

They were installed in our road in November 2022 and it was explained we would be told when they were activated so that we could compare metered charges with charges based on rateable value - with no obligation to change at this stage.

I've just checked and 13 months later they've still not been activated. As there are only two of us in the house now with no kids having endless daily baths I'd imagine we'd save money if metered so would like to know what people think and what's going on

any thoughts?

Edited by sandyman
update info
Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/338824-smart-water-meters/
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Sue said:

I saved £200 a year when I changed to a water meter a few years back.

I mostly live by myself, and I'm very careful with water now, but I do water the garden with a hose in the summer 

did you request a meter and was it activated quickly? they were put in all the way up our street without us asking but over a year later they've not been activated. It's almost as if they know bills would be lower if the meters worked...

As I understand it, the meters are installed and you then get a 12 month window to compare the cost of unmetered vs metered bills and at the end of the 12 months they switch you over automatically. However if you choose to switch during the 12 month window, that years bill will be based on the meter readings, but if you wait for the switch you won't save over the 12 months if your metered bill is lower than unmetered.

So it may be that it is active but not being used to bill you yet. 

 

29 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

As I understand it, the meters are installed and you then get a 12 month window to compare the cost of unmetered vs metered bills and at the end of the 12 months they switch you over automatically. However if you choose to switch during the 12 month window, that years bill will be based on the meter readings, but if you wait for the switch you won't save over the 12 months if your metered bill is lower than unmetered.

So it may be that it is active but not being used to bill you yet. 

 

Thanks - yes that's pretty much what their leaflet through the door said when they fitted the meters in the street, but it said it would be 12 months from activation and their chatbot tonight said they meters have not been activated yet. Chatbot did give me a phone number though so maybe i can get a clearer answer from a human tomorrow as to why the meters have not been activated.

Edited by sandyman
2 hours ago, sandyman said:

did you request a meter and was it activated quickly? they were put in all the way up our street without us asking but over a year later they've not been activated. It's almost as if they know bills would be lower if the meters worked...

Yes I did, and yes it was installed and activated quickly.

I'm sure it's not always the case that bills will be lower - it obviously depends entirely on how much water your household uses!

When I applied for mine, there was a quiz thing on their website you could do beforehand to find out if you were likely to save money, and at that time, if you weren't happy after 12 months you could go back to your old payment method ( but obviously I didn't want to!)

Have you asked Thames Water about activating the meter? They surely must have given you some information when they installed it?

ETA: Sorry, my post crossed with yours!

Edited by Sue

My understanding is you get a year of comparison costs to see whether you pay less metered or unmetered and during that year you have a choice whether to switch or not but after the one year period you will be switched to metered bills whether you want to or not.

When meters were installed here it took about three months before they were activated.

12 hours ago, sandyman said:

just wondering what peoples thoughts/experiences are of smart water meters?

They were installed in our road in November 2022 and it was explained we would be told when they were activated so that we could compare metered charges with charges based on rateable value - with no obligation to change at this stage.

I've just checked and 13 months later they've still not been activated. As there are only two of us in the house now with no kids having endless daily baths I'd imagine we'd save money if metered so would like to know what people think and what's going on

any thoughts?

Ring them up. They assessed the household on the phone, agreed that we would almost certainly save money and activated it.

I don't understand.  Are these meters readable, irrespective of whether they are smart or activated?  And if so, are the readings, however they're made, used as the basis for billing?  A sight of the accompanying leaflet or other published information might be helpful.

1 hour ago, ianr said:

I don't understand.  Are these meters readable, irrespective of whether they are smart or activated?  And if so, are the readings, however they're made, used as the basis for billing?  A sight of the accompanying leaflet or other published information might be helpful.

I can see that the meter is working by lifting the lid and looking at it, I presume it just isn't sending the readings that would be used for billing through. Can't be that difficult to activate. 

In the short term some of us will save money, in the long term it’ll end up just like the gas & electric currently is!

I am very much against the water meters & prefer to pay what I pay now!

it’s all a big con just like all the other charges we are forced to pay!

all they are looking for is someone to pay their self created debts!

whilst things are privatised, work will always be of a lower standard, if not they’ll all eventually be out of work.

think about it 🤔🤨

It depends entirely on your circumstances.

After I switched to a smart water meter I paid about £5 per month for the first year as I had so much credit in hand based upon what Thames Water calculated I'd been (over)paying previously.  I now still pay around £450 less per year than I was pre-smart meter.

I requested my meter a couple of years ago and it was installed and activated about a week or so later.

  • Like 1

I can only imagine that your circumstances and usage are not average.
Water consumption depends on multiple variables e.g.:-

Number of people in household.
Days of actual occupancy throughout the year.
Garden area if appropriate.
Frequency of flushing toilet(s)
Usage of washing own m/c or other arrangements.
Car washing
etc, etc.
Have yet to find anyone who is better off with a meter so it begs the question  .... why are water companies so keen to get us on to one.


Is it because they could get by with smaller storage reservoirs and so flog off the spare land for development?

  • 2 weeks later...
On 02/01/2024 at 18:49, vladi said:

Have yet to find anyone who is better off with a meter

Well, look no further.  A couple of those have already posted, and I'll add my name to the list!  Glad that I'm no longer paying for those who waste such a valuable resource 😀

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

And another! My water bill is about 35-40% of what it would have been had I still been paying water rates.

As to activation, although a few years ago now, I seem to remember that I was under the impression that activation would happen automatically. After a few months of nothing, I contacted Thames Water who said I had to request activation. Don’t ask me why they didn’t make that clear from the outset! However, the money paid in water rates was used against my account so the first year’s charges were negligible. 

 

20 hours ago, froggy said:

Well, look no further.  A couple of those have already posted, and I'll add my name to the list!  Glad that I'm no longer paying for those who waste such a valuable resource 😀

And me!

We pay for gas and electricity according to how much we use, so how is water different?

Edited by Sue

I think that the introduction, painful as it will be for some, is good 

An average family of say 5 would consume 5 times more water than the average consumption of a single person so it does even up the costs.

Before with a tariff set by the rateable value, there was no real awareness of individual consumption so longer showers, taps left running and other wasteful practices went on unchecked, now there is a consequence in the form of a higher bill. 

As always, there will be winners and lovers but the playing field will end up fairer as it will be based on actial consumption.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

But this is being implemented by Thames Water - the very last people I would trust. The amounts of water lost by Thames through leaks is huge (more than would be needed by population growth over the next 20 years) and their repair policy and implementation  - including full replacement, is lamentable - the stretch on the South Circular outside the Horniman is regularly repaired (which has included full replacement, which took months) every 18 months or so for almost as long as I have lived in ED (35 years). Their revenues have been diverted into dividends (and debt repayment for a debt leveraged purchase) and away from maintenance and repair.

You are right that a fully occupied house with say, a family of 5, will properly use more water than a family of one or two, but Thames will use this as another nice little earner and not a way of 'being fair'. They expect to impose rationing on families so they don't have to mend their leaks.

And I would trust Thames even far less than the Post Office as regards handling computerised tariff information - 'smart meters' are very scary when Thames is handling the data crunching.

Stand by for £milllion pound bills.

  • Thanks 1

I’m cynical about the water meters due to a recent experience- 
 

We had a water meter installed last year- I have been monitoring the rates but not switched yet. 
 

Recently Thames Water contacted me saying the meter reading suggested a leak on our property (one of their questions when they called was ‘Do you own a swimming pool?’ Lol). 
 

They sent an engineer out (6 weeks later) who determined the fault was not on my property but on the street next to where they installed the meter (hmmmmm….). I’m currently waiting (+6 weeks) for a building team to come out and dig up the pavement and fix it. 

Because of this my recent meter readings have been off the charts expensive. I mentioned to TW that I was about to switch and what could I do about the meter reading issue. I was shocked to discover that even though none of this is my fault once you have a meter it becomes is your responsibility to submit a long ‘leak claim’ form requesting they adjust your bill. I did this and still haven’t heard back from them. 
 

Be warned. 

Water metering is a  scandal that merits another ITV  drama-documentary along the lines of Mr Bates vs The Post Office.

The lobbyists who "persuaded" MPs to pass the legislation should be investigated.

I'd dearly like to know how many ex-MP's now work for the utility companies or the foreign private equity companies who bought out the water companies.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...