Enforced Water Meters

[Underhook]

sally buying Wrote:

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

> Perhaps it would give people a better idea if you

> could tell what sort of property you live in, how

> many people, adults and children mlive in it and

> if you have a garden.

>

> If it?s only you it is pretty useless give the

> above

>

> I think it is yet another nose led rip off by

> companies who only have their shareholders in

> mind. As long as green comes into it people will

> follow like sheep.

The entire point of a water meter is that you pay for the water you use. Not more, not less. Your post completely contradicts this. I also don?t follow how you think shareholders of a water company benefit from this move to metering

[rupert james]

Perhaps this might explain the thought re shareholders. Perhaps water will be charged on use during the day.

Posted by jazzer Today, 03:07PM

I have one such "smart meter" which was fitted 18 months ago and my charges have been based solely on the amount of water used, so far there has been no indication that the costs are being determined by peak or off peak timings. I guess this is a possibility bearing in mind the recent press reports of how some energy companies (OK, three so far) are intending to alter the costs throughout the day.

I suspect Thames Water are using this is one way of reducing the "costs" of a man coming twice a year to read the water meter in the pavement, very similar to the way energy meter readers of gas and electricity are being slowly phased out. How often do you see one and if you do, they are not from your energy company, but have been sub contracted out to a third party who "specialise" in meter reading. Arghhhhhhhhhhh.

So yes, water meters are being made "smart"

And avoid a smart energy meter unless you want a bill that may charge you a different rate up to 48 times a day. In last Thursday's Daily Telegraph (no, it's not my daily paper) it was the neighbours after I saw the front banner about how a journalist objected to energy smart meters (well worth a read).

[jazzer]

I am not nor have I ever been one

[KidKruger]

Underhook Wrote:

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

> sally buying Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Perhaps it would give people a better idea if

> you

> > could tell what sort of property you live in,

> how

> > many people, adults and children mlive in it

> and

> > if you have a garden.

> >

> > If it?s only you it is pretty useless give the

> > above

> >

> > I think it is yet another nose led rip off by

> > companies who only have their shareholders in

> > mind. As long as green comes into it people

> will

> > follow like sheep.

>

>

> The entire point of a water meter is that you pay

> for the water you use. Not more, not less. Your

> post completely contradicts this. I also don?t

> follow how you think shareholders of a water

> company benefit from this move to metering

I admire the faith in shareheld water companies that charge for water by the meter.

Meters are profit control tools. That?s it.

They?re not designed to save water or improve the envt.

On the IOW in the eighties when meters were first implemented there in England (plus across Scotland as a whole), water demand went down by around a significant %. The following year the cost of water went up by something like the equivalent %.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

cidolphus Wrote:

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

> That's OK until you get a dry summer.

> Then they lobby for a hose ban!"

The only hosepipe bans in London in the last thirty years were in 1992, 2006, and 2012. Am I forgetting any?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4799446.stm

https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/assembly/water-postcode-lottery

[Underhook]

KidKruger Wrote:

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

> Underhook Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > sally buying Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > Perhaps it would give people a better idea if

> > you

> > > could tell what sort of property you live in,

> > how

> > > many people, adults and children mlive in it

> > and

> > > if you have a garden.

> > >

> > > If it?s only you it is pretty useless give

> the

> > > above

> > >

> > > I think it is yet another nose led rip off by

> > > companies who only have their shareholders in

> > > mind. As long as green comes into it people

> > will

> > > follow like sheep.

> >

> >

> > The entire point of a water meter is that you

> pay

> > for the water you use. Not more, not less. Your

> > post completely contradicts this. I also don?t

> > follow how you think shareholders of a water

> > company benefit from this move to metering

>

> I admire the faith in shareheld water companies

> that charge for water by the meter.

> Meters are profit control tools. That?s it.

> They?re not designed to save water or improve the

> envt.

> On the IOW in the eighties when meters were first

> implemented there in England (plus across Scotland

> as a whole), water demand went down by around a

> significant %. The following year the cost of

> water went up by something like the equivalent %.

Your example of the IoW pre-dates privatisation, so I don?t follow the shareholder angle in this case at all. Furthermore, in Scotland the water network was and remains state owned, so again no shareholder or private capital involvement.

[oimissus]

I still think it's a bit rich for a water company that itself wastes *millions of litres of water a day* to start slapping the wrist of its customers for apparently wasting water, as though the customers are the problem, not them.

If they can demonstrate that Londoners waste as much water through unnecessary usage as they do through leaks they'd have more of an argument.

[Nigello]

How about this - both the customers and the organsiation itself are teh problem and both can work to solve the problem! DOes that work for you? It does for me.

[oimissus]

The problem to the same extent? No.

This simply gives Thames Water a get-out from sorting out their side of the issue and blaming Londoners.

They need to get their house in order first.

Do you genuinely not see the hypocrisy? I got my leaflet on about the third day of water pouring down the street where I live in Peckham. Three days it took Thames Water to deal with that massive loss of water.

Nigello Wrote:

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

> How about this - both the customers and the

> organsiation itself are teh problem and both can

> work to solve the problem! DOes that work for you?

> It does for me.

[Penguin68]

Thames Water plan to use price rationing (which will hit the poorest hardest, and will actually benefit the company by increasing revenues) to relieve them from the expense of mending their own leaky pipes. Granted that it is a difficult job, but the fact that they are, right now, losing more water than they will require to provide additionally by 2100 is an absolute disgrace. They have been given a get out of jail free card almost in perpetuity - with the ability to blame the customer for the effects of their own lack of diligence. Their shareholders will be delighted. And no doubt pillage the utility for years to come. If HMG required them to mend even 50% of the leaks before they were allowed to pay another dividend (or to forbid their equity holders to load the company with debt to their own benefit) things would be different, perhaps. But this is a robbers charter.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> Thames Water plan to use price rationing (which

> will hit the poorest hardest...)... to

> relieve them from the expense of mending their own

> leaky pipes... They

> have been given a get out of jail free card almost

> in perpetuity - with the ability to blame the

> customer for the effects of their own lack of

> diligence...If HMG required them to mend even 50% of the

> leaks before they were allowed to pay another

> dividend...

> things would be different, perhaps.

This is conspiracy theory-tinged twaddle. Please kindly inform yourself about how the water industry is regulated in this country. Metering consumer usage doesn't mean that Thames Water doesn't have to fix leaks. It is not a get out of jail free card. The government DOES limit how much Thames Water can pay in dividends if it fails to hit leak fixing targets - example below. Low income consumers are among the smallest consumers of water - they don't have huge lawns to water - and there are social tariffs targeted to them.

https://www.ofwat.gov.uk/pn-22-18-thames-waters-failure-tackle-leakage-results-65m-package-customers/

https://www.thesun.co.uk/money/17497482/water-bills-price-cap/

[Penguin68]

Low income consumers are among the smallest consumers of water - they don't have huge lawns to water

But they often do have large-ish families, often with young children, high domestic consumers of water. If you really think, around here, that the wealthy are marked by having 'huge lawns' I suspect you are sadly mistaken. The huge lawns around here are in the many public parks - which also have to pay for the water they use.

And quite clearly the enforcement of usage meters - when the 'shortfall' could be met by actually mending leaks - is all about excusing Thames Water from effective repair. Thames Water's performance locally has been miserable - with regular failures to repair leaks effectively, and some times at all. It is the fact (and it is a fact) that leaks constantly occur in the same places - outside the Horniman for instance - even when the road has been shut for long periods to 'replace' the water mains running there - which suggests that Thames Water is wholly incompetent, either with its own direct labour or though its contractors.

This meter introduction is displacement activity - the labour and costs would be far better directed at effectively improving the delivery infrastructure - this has 'shifting the deck chairs on the Titanic' written all over it. Meters are a charging mechanism, pure and simple - and focusing on installing a new charging mechanism (and one hugely more expensive than the automatic rateable value based charging, which has virtually no cost attached other than sending out an annual bill) is a very poor use of our money.

If you believe this is being done for any better reason than it benefits Thames Water and its owners then I'm afraid you are startlingly na?ve. That's not the way big companies work, especially ones with 'leveraged' ownership. Ofwat is a weak regulator (most, other than Ofcom, are). They see their job as avoiding controversy and not upsetting their main 'customers'. The water companies. Clearly HMG is a customer too, but the water companies have them over a barrel - voters will punish a government if the water stops flowing, and that's something the water companies can 'threaten' if they don't get their way. That's the threat Thames Water has already successfully exercised in getting their universal usage charging enforced in their delivery area. 'If you don't do this, then we'll run out of water, and then what will the electorate say?'

No Government (or regulator) would dare to say - 'if you run out of water because you can't, or won't, mend your pipes (which is the position now) then we will confiscate your water asset without compensation and bring it back into public ownership'.

[JohnL]

Electricity companies are likely to change the rate charged depending on the time of day using the smart meter as the tool to do this.

Is this what water companies are planning ?

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> quite clearly the enforcement of usage meters

> - when the 'shortfall' could be met by actually

> mending leaks - is all about excusing Thames Water

> from effective repair. ...

> If you believe this is being done for any better

> reason than it benefits Thames Water and its

> owners then I'm afraid you are startlingly na?ve.

1) The Environment Agency first called for meters to be installed in London 15 years ago

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6314091.stm

2) If you look at the OFWAT document from a decade ago, you will see that even then 40%+ of consumers had a meter fitted. Today it will be even higher. Despite that, Thames Water and all the other water companies still have leak fixing targets imposed on them by OFWAT, and if they don't hit them, they get penalised.

It is simply untrue that consumers getting meters means Thames Water won't have to fix leaks any more. It is also untrue that meters are something new - although perhaps they are new to you.

[jazzer]

P68 - I hear what you are saying about meter enforcement. Clearly you are not happy and want to continue on the rateable value. So first question what is your annual water bill? Mine on a meter is about ?260 a year.

I agree that TW are negligent in both managing the network, lack of a plan to replace mains, especially in East Dulwich, Forest Hill, Peckham etc, BUT if you take a look at a lot of the current and recent works they are Thames Water working on upgrading the network. And yes it's well overdue.

And Yes, they still need to be far more proactive about reducing the amount of water lost and wasted from bursts and leaks.

I agree OFWAT is weak, but as are many other "regulators"

The water companies will not cut people off, so that one can be parked immediately, will water run out, I hope not.

[KidKruger]

Oftwat !

[ed_pete]

I found this thread where a number of posters said their bills had gone down since having a meter.

Just sayin'

https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,2030886,2040647#msg-2040647

[jazzer]

Article on the front page of today's Daily Telegraph (bottom righthand corner) says water meters can be forced on householders.

See

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/E24B/production/_123313975_the-tele-nc.png

[Penguin68]

I found this thread where a number of posters said their bills had gone down since having a meter.

Of course you did. When meters are voluntary people choose to have them where they think their usage is below 'average' - perhaps a couple living in a 5 bedroomed house with a high rateable value. It is the compulsory nature which means that usage charges (for those who wouldn't have chosen to have a meter installed, because they believe their usage may be higher than average - for instance a large, young family living in a small property - or even average - why risk it for no gain?) may actually rise, and rise for quite a few.

Simple cognitive dissonance would mean that those who chose a meter, and then found their water bills had increased would tend not to put themselves forward as they would appear to have been foolish.

[XDoc]

Water running down my road for three years...

[Sue]

XDoc Wrote:

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

> Water running down my road for three years...

Have you reported it?

[XDoc]

three or four times...

[Waseley]

I understand that Thames Water has rented some local properties for their engineers seeing that they are here permanently. I don't like whining but the number of major leaks gets me down. How long can you blame crumbling infrastructure.

Happy with my water meter, this identified a leaking mains pipe into the property, which with a combination of Thames Water, their mole, and a private engineer means the end of lead into the house.

[sweetgirl]

I am almost 100% sure my bill will be halved when I have to get a meter installed

I am still very much against getting one!

I am certainly not looking forward to the yearly increases, just like the forthcoming gas & electric prices that?ll screw many people over, the same will happen with water meters!

We are doomed!

[Waseley]

Odd that you object to reducing your water bill. But you will be pleased to hear that water is, generally, not traded internationally unless you count Wales supplying Birmingham with their water

If you want a reason to object you could look at pensioners who no longer go to a place of work where they can use company water. If they are smart workers could shower, toilet and drink at work. Some may even pilfer water and take it home.

I expect few pensioners have large families at home not earning. Therefore shouldn't use anywhere near what a family with school kids will use.