Thames Water High Bills

[lyca2lyca]

Hi everyone I have a question that I hope someone could help.

It?s about my Thames water bills that seem high for a one bedroom flat.

The flat doesn?t have a meter but an annually one off payment of ?392.85 a year.

I visit a friend that live in Hertfordshire in her four bedroom house with a large garden and find out that her water bills was less than mine! Perhaps it?s a different water company but still.

I also check with my neighbour and she pay ?250 a year.

All this time I been a fool not to question Thames water about my bill and believed in them with good faith to work out my bill.

I think I once did ask them for a meter but they said I can?t get one because I live in a flat.

So I just want to find out if anyone in the Southeast London (East Dulwich) got similar bills or am I getting rip off by Thames Water?

I just need to gather some source and more info before I approach Thames water with my inquiry.

Hope someone can help. Thanks

[DulwichFox]

My last yearly bill was ?344.35p.

Do not have a water meter.

2 Bedroom House.

I live alone. So that is for 1 Person..

20 Years back I lived at another a address in E.D. 1/2 Bedroom Flat.

I asked about a water meter. Back then Thames Water wanted ?2,000 to fit a meter.

As they said it would not be in their interest to fit one Free.

If you are a family with 4 kids and the washing machine is going all day.

And the bath is being used day & night, they will be knocking at your door to fit one Free.

Dulwichfox

[Applespider]

You can ask for a meter but if they can't fit one (I can't as it's a flat in an old conversion), they will give a discount for one-bedroom properties. Think it's 20% off. I'm still sure I'd be cheaper with a meter since I often shower at work/gym but still... it's better than nothing.

[muffins78]

Hi, I had a water meter fitted and I am in a flat (second floor). They were really quick to fit it too when I moved in. The only thing about me, that may be different, is that if you have a disability (or certain health conditions), they will fit one for you - can't remember the background of that to be honest. But that may have affected it, because I rang up and said I have whatever condition and the ball was set in motion. There was also zero mention of any charges. I hope this helps!

[Burbage]

This is what you want.

[lyca2lyca]

Thank you everyone for your knowledge, thoughts and helpful advice.

Really helpful and really appreciated.

[Jah Lush]

?392.85 a year. I wish I was paying that. I live in a one-bedroom flat. I don't have a meter and my monthly direct debit is ?52.22 a month. That works out ?650.64 a year! WTF! That can't be right can it?

[muffins78]

That doesn't sound right at all! You should definitely ring them Jah Lush, and see what they say!

[Jah Lush]

I will.

[edhistory]

Jah Lush Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ?392.85 a year. I wish I was paying that. I live

> in a one-bedroom flat. I don't have a meter and my

> monthly direct debit is ?52.22 a month. That works

> out ?650.64 a year! WTF! That can't be right can

> it?

That would be ((?52.25 x 1) + (?52.21 x 7)) = ?417.79 ?

John K

[Jah Lush]

Even if your calculation is correct I reckon I'm still paying too much.

[Burbage]

Jah Lush Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Even if your calculation is correct I reckon I'm

> still paying too much.

Yes. For a one-bed, Thames' assessed rate is ?270 for 2013/4 - less if you're declare yourself a single occupant.

As Applespider suggests, you're best off asking for a water meter. If they won't/can't fit one, they have to charge you at the assessed rate. The plan might come unstuck if they do fit a meter, but that's unlikely to cost you more unless you've got an acre of garden or the hydroponic equivalent.

[muffins78]

As a result of this thread, I'm going to ring Thameswater, because now reading their site, even though I got the meter because of a condition - I'm not entitled to protected rates because I'm not on benefits! I'm really confused by it all now.

Now on Sky News, they are saying they want to up rates by 20%.

[Mason]

Well at least they are not allowed to increase rates now. These idiots want to keep on increasing tariffs yet look around and see how many leakages are prevalent. My friend in Herne Hill told me he reported water seeping slowly into his basement shop months before the deluge they suffered. They kept on insisted in was not their fault. Look what happened. Since December I have seen water seeping on South Norwood Hill. It is still on going. How can they justify increasing rates except to pay for their extra costs to rectify the mistakes they overlooked.

I am so glad Ofwat made a sensible decision.

[Jocky]

I've just been enquiring with Thames Water my high costs. 1 bedroom flat, ?455 / annum.

[jacks09]

I can't see this helping bills.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-39352755

[JohnL]

If you have a meter - make sure your cistern is functioning

OK - as I had a ?500 bill due that last year - and to make it

worse the whole thing was fitted in such an inaccessible way

I had to get a man in.

[JohnL]

jacks09 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I can't see this helping bills.....

> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-39352755

But it won't impact customers (you call that a Trumpy these days)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-38966857

[jaywalker]

OK I will get flamed for rehearsing my A-level economics, but that is not a Trumpy, that is strict economic reasoning, so to call it a Trumpy is a Trumpy :-).

Assumptions: Thames Water is a natural monopoly (thank you Tories). Thames Water profit maximises (at least as an approximation). Thames Water have some idea of where their demand curve is. For them, today is like tomorrow in the sense that there are very high barriers to entry and no real sign of competition. This is a lump-sum tax, not one that varies with output.

Conclusion: neither marginal cost nor marginal revenue have changed. Output and Price stay the same, the owners pay the lump-sum tax as they would be worse off if they tried to pass it on to consumers.

Hence the rationale for one-off taxes on the banks etc in the past.

Thames Water are also subject to RPI pricing regime - they will in any case not be allowed to build any variable cost of a less-polluting variable supply into their future price bids (well, that is not strictly true, as we saw with negotiations with water companies for cleaner beaches....)

None of this is to try to justify the current set up of an industry that should be nationalised immediately to give water free at the point of use, with reservoirs and distribution based on national need, not financial interest.

[JohnL]

jaywalker Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> OK I will get flamed for rehearsing my A-level

> economics, but that is not a Trumpy, that is

> strict economic reasoning, so to call it a Trumpy

> is a Trumpy :-).

>

> Assumptions: Thames Water is a natural monopoly

> (thank you Tories). Thames Water profit maximises

> (at least as an approximation). Thames Water have

> some idea of where their demand curve is. For

> them, today is like tomorrow in the sense that

> there are very high barriers to entry and no real

> sign of competition. This is a lump-sum tax, not

> one that varies with output.

>

> Conclusion: neither marginal cost nor marginal

> revenue have changed. Output and Price stay the

> same, the owners pay the lump-sum tax as they

> would be worse off if they tried to pass it on to

> consumers.

>

> Hence the rationale for one-off taxes on the banks

> etc in the past.

;) I'm told.

Anyway they deeply regret it - notice the name of the picture someones put in below (Generic prison pics COURTS Girls 10)

http://www.bucksherald.co.uk/news/thames-water-we-deeply-regret-pumping-sewage-into-waterways-1-7879079

[????]

"Water free at the point of use".....what could possibly go wrong.....

[jacks09]

Where do these fines go? Would think at least some of it, could go back to the customers.....

[ianr]

Sir Tony Redmond, Chair of the Consumer Council for Water's London and South East Region, was interviewed on R4 World At One today. He seemed fairly confident, iirc, that the accounting was transparent and easily monitored, and that CCWater would be very much on the case if there was any breach of the undertaking not to tax the customers for the incompetence. What actual powers CCWater has, I'm not sure. It's governed by a string of Memoranda of Understanding, and they have a Vision, and Values; details of all of which can be found at https://www.ccwater.org.uk/. I should have a recording of the interview that I may check later - it'll also be at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08j99fr - but there'll doubtless be much more varied media coverage and comment over the day.

Fines go to the Exchequer, don't they?

[jaywalker]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "Water free at the point of use".....what could

> possibly go wrong.....

well mine is? what is your point? The NHS is free at the point of use too - that does not mean it is free????

if the marginal cost is near zero (which it is on household quantities) then it is also allocatively efficient to have a zero price, as any free-market neo-liberal economist will tell you. Unfortunately, the market has no way of getting there, does it?

[Rob tolfts]

Slightly off topic, but the title of the post reminded me that last year Thames Water sent me an email saying a bill was ready, I happened to click through to check it.

The bill was for ?27900.

Did make me wonder how many people are being charged significantly more than they should be without really knowing.