Water Meters

[Jamman960]

We were being charged £66/mo when we first moved in without a meter, we now pay around £25/mo on a meter despite not being particularly careful with water usage.

[chrisakak9]

from memory our old water rates were about £84, now on the water meter its about £28 (familiy of 3, plus cats, snake, fish and garden).

im sure they still allow you to switch to the meter then allow you to revert if your not happy within the first year. (any new occupant would have to metered)

Edited July 3, 2018 by ZeroHour

[witch]

When we moved in to our house we had a meter as they were being trialed in the area at the time (27 years ago). We opted to keep it after the trial expired - big mistake with a family of 5! Our water bills were always high.

However, now that only one child is still at home, our bills have fallen substantially and we pay a lot less. When we had a leak under the kitchen floor the water company (South West Water) noticed the huge jump in consumption and credited us £250!

Which was very kind as the leak was on our property.

 

Meters are far better in my opinion - pay for what you use .

Not convinced about smart meters yet though

[bossman]

So tell me again why people think water meters are a good thing........?

 

As I have already stated in my previous post if everyone was on a water meter and careful with the amount of water usage then the water companies would lose out as they need to make a profit for their shareholders.....

 

Most of these utility companies are owned by foreign investors so the profit goes out of our country into their pockets so the only way these companies can make a profit is to keep putting up the cost per unit although not re-investing in the infrastructure......

 

This goes for other utilities also.....Electricity....Gas....etc

 

So again tell me why people think its a good thing to have one?.....

[witch]

If that was the case, why would they even offer water meters in the first place?

[Achandler]

Water is regulated, well much better then the standard of the energy industry.

 

However, I do think there is an arguement to how a company can make profit while still leaking huge amounts of water and sewage (I'm aiming at Thames Water here, as they ar emsot high profile). Surely you fix those issues then benefit not continue to benefit while "continuing to improve" and the usual rubbish they come out with.

[Katy]

So people with meters paying £10-£20 a month, is that the total you pay (for water and wastewater) or just for the fresh water? I pay £39/month total at the moment without a meter.

[AMLinington]

This is an interesting thread to me because I literally had a meter fitted last week.

 

We live in a 3 bed semi-detached in one of those annoying areas where we pay 2 water bills - one to Portsmouth water for the water that comes through the tap, and one to Southern Water for the 'waste water discharge'.

 

As I understand it, our previous bills were calculated on 'rateable value' or based on an 'average' of what people in our neighbourhood use.

 

LeHusband and I use WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY less water than the houses either side of us - one house has about 10 people living in it (3 generations worth), and the other side have 2 kids and a pond.

 

We have 3 water butts down the end of the garden that we use to water the plants in preference to using the hose (although we have run them dry in this recent heat wave), and we primarily shower - I think I can count the number of times I run a bath in a year on one hand. We have recently bought a dishwasher so our water use is at the lowest it can possibly be. We even buy bottled water to put in the fridge compartment so it doesn't get all scaled up.

 

It is my opinion that our bills should be less than they were before, because compared to other houses in the immediate vicinity, we use less than half the amount of water - less people, less showering, less bathing, less washing clothes, ergo cheaper bills (in theory).

 

Because we use less water, our water bills from Portsmouth Water are already small, so I'm not overly worried about them, but the key factor is the second, much larger 'waste water' bill - if you have a water meter, you get charged waste water according to how much you use, not 'rateable value'. It's the Southern Water waste water bill I am hoping to reduce.

[elsiegee40]

Four bedroomed house with two bathrooms and two of us for half the year these days.

 

Currently it’s costing us £17 per month for water supply in and £25 per month for waste water out based on our metered water use.

 

With a meter you pay a standing charge plus the price per unit.

 

The standing charge for supply in is £2.65 per month. The standing charge for waste water is £5 a month!

 

It costs £1.72 per cubic meter for drinking water in... and £2.39 per cubic meter for waste water out!!!

[Katy]

The calculator reckons it'd be £29 a month instead of £39 a month (for both combined) so not too bad... Going to get one fitted as we don't really use that much water

[bossman]

If that was the case, why would they even offer water meters in the first place?

 

To regulate peoples water usage as they cannot meet demand whilst increasing the unit price therefore still maintaining a profit and not having to fix leaking mains or invest in infrastructure.....

 

Its a no brainer really.....commonsense....

 

Southern water companies are always moaning about water shortages but never fix the real issues as they would rather increase the cost per unit of the actual product than fix the infrastructure to make the cost lower to the consumer by streamlining the process....

 

This is dictated by the shareholders requirements for large returns for their investment and as I have stated already most of the utility companies in this country are owned by foreign investors so the profit is going to other countries who benefit from cheaper utilities off our backs....

 

Simple really...

[sparkeh]

@bossman has a good point. Like most private companies, the water utilities won't push a measure that would reduce their profits unless its mandated by law. Southern Water pushed some figures about its meter rollout that showed whilst 60% of households saved money the remaining 40%'s bills went by a larger amount, hence water meters resulted in larger profits. Why spend money on fixing leaks?

[mikeprice]

because if they don't fix the leaks then the consumers will move to one of the competing companies - which is the whole point in privatisation

 

I'm sure that is right 'cos when everything was privitised I remember that being the argument

 

so there can't be any fault in the above logic

 

????????

[Garacesh]

Are there competing companies? I was under the impression each company had their own section of the UK and there wasn't much overlap or competition?

[bossman]

because if they don't fix the leaks then the consumers will move to one of the competing companies - which is the whole point in privatisation

 

I'm sure that is right 'cos when everything was privitised I remember that being the argument

 

so there can't be any fault in the above logic

 

????????

 

But there is because those companies who fix the leaks spend lots of capital in doing so and therefore have to recoup from the consumer by putting prices up per unit....

 

The companies who don't fix leaks still put up their unit charge slightly below the other companies and therefore make more profit but because they push water meters also they can conserve their supplies but still maintain the profit margin...

 

Absolute no brainer.....

 

What these foreign investors want is profit above all else and as the Government could at any time bring these utilities back into public ownership at anytime they want it as quick as they can get it.....

 

Definitely no fault in that logic.....

 

So no matter how careful we are with our water or any other utility we the consumers will always pay through the nose for it.....

 

Answer this then:

 

If we all saved as much water ....electricity.... Gas and fuels as we could muster do you think for one moment the companies would bring the cost per unit down?

 

I think you will find the answer to this on every account would be.......NO!!!

 

Rest my case.....

[Achandler]

Yeah water you don't have a choice, I still find it amusing that all the pipes are linked, so Wales couldn't pump water to London. So you get situations where one place has a drought and another flooded, its genius.

[mikeprice]

because if they don't fix the leaks then the consumers will move to one of the competing companies - which is the whole point in privatisation

 

I'm sure that is right 'cos when everything was privitised I remember that being the argument

 

so there can't be any fault in the above logic

 

????????

 

 

just be clear - the above post contains trace of sarcasm:rolleyes:

[mikeprice]

Yeah water you don't have a choice, I still find it amusing that all the pipes are linked, so Wales couldn't pump water to London. So you get situations where one place has a drought and another flooded, its genius.

 

Yeah - places where they are allowed to build loads of houses with no consideration as to how much water is available

and then they concrete over loads where there used to be grass - so the water now flows off into pipes and then out to sea where it used to soakthrough into the water table

 

and these places want to pump water from places like Wales - that have to put up with much wetter weather and hence have lakes full of water (including some where the people have been forced out so their village has been flooded (also Yorkshire etc - not just Wales) - but at least they don't run out of water

 

Basically it all comes about because of a lack of planning from central people who see a demand for houses to be built so they build them and then wonder why other problems magically crop up

 

 

errr - apologies if that became a rant

[TechMonkey]

Southern Water pushed some figures about its meter rollout that showed whilst 60% of households saved money the remaining 40%'s bills went by a larger amount, hence water meters resulted in larger profits. Why spend money on fixing leaks?

 

But surely that just proves the point that 60% of households are paying for the above average use of the other 40%? If I and my neighbour are on a fixed rate but they have a 6 person family and enjoy baths, watering their garden and washing their car with the hosepipe every week while I have a 3 person family that shower and try and conserve water as much as possible then I am paying for my water and a portion of my neighbours. Whereas if we are on meters, I pay for what I use and they pay for what they use. IF they feel it is expensive and they are worse off they can adjust their habits. On a fixed rate there is no incentive to change their habits.

 

On the debate about leaky pipes, my view would be meters help that. On fixed rate if company X is pumping out a million gallons to an area then that is what they are dividing between the households, even if only 500,000 gallons reach the end user. On meters only the 500,000 gallons are paid for so the company has to swallow the other 500,000 as loss so have an incentive to fix the leaks.

[LeMarchand]

But surely that just proves the point that 60% of households are paying for the above average use of the other 40%? If I and my neighbour are on a fixed rate but they have a 6 person family and enjoy baths, watering their garden and washing their car with the hosepipe every week while I have a 3 person family that shower and try and conserve water as much as possible then I am paying for my water and a portion of my neighbours. Whereas if we are on meters, I pay for what I use and they pay for what they use. IF they feel it is expensive and they are worse off they can adjust their habits. On a fixed rate there is no incentive to change their habits.

 

On the debate about leaky pipes, my view would be meters help that. On fixed rate if company X is pumping out a million gallons to an area then that is what they are dividing between the households, even if only 500,000 gallons reach the end user. On meters only the 500,000 gallons are paid for so the company has to swallow the other 500,000 as loss so have an incentive to fix the leaks.

 

Or your neighbours are taking advantage of their "unlimited" tariff while you might be better off saving money on a metered one? I doubt pumping out 1M gallons of water costs that much more than 500K gallons - they're not losing money as they don't have to buy the water from another supplier (normally); so until the leaks are so bad they are unable to meet demand there's no incentive to fix them.

[AMLinington]

Last I looked, our water bill for Southern Water is £30 a month and Portsmouth Water is £13.27 per Quarter? I dunno, it was last requested in February so it might be every 6 months or every year - I don't have a clue.

 

I'm more interested in reducing the Southern Water bill tbh.

[bossman]

But surely that just proves the point that 60% of households are paying for the above average use of the other 40%? If I and my neighbour are on a fixed rate but they have a 6 person family and enjoy baths, watering their garden and washing their car with the hosepipe every week while I have a 3 person family that shower and try and conserve water as much as possible then I am paying for my water and a portion of my neighbours. Whereas if we are on meters, I pay for what I use and they pay for what they use. IF they feel it is expensive and they are worse off they can adjust their habits. On a fixed rate there is no incentive to change their habits.

 

The point is that if everybody would pay more per unit even if everybody was on a water meter....

 

The price per unit never comes down is what I'm saying even if we were all very conscientious about our water usage...

 

If company is pumping 1 million gallons a week and have no leaks and the consumers are using all of this then they get paid for 1 million units of water say...

 

If everyone was on a metered supply and suddenly decided to be extra extra frugal with their water usage that 1 million units of water would decrease to whatever so the company would lose money...the investors would have no bonuses and people would lose their jobs...(Hypothetically speaking)....

 

Its in the companies best interest to provide as much water as they can to the consumers so that they make a profit.....

 

So if they only pump 2/3rds of that 1 million units they have to up their unit price to make up the deficit....simple

 

So they make out that its cheaper to be metered when in reality its not.... we all pay the same rate for our water units except those on a metered connection have to be frugal with their usage otherwise they end up paying more whereas those people who are on a rateable monthly payment can use as much water as they like and therefore relatively speaking actually pay less for their water if they use it rather generously....

 

Long winded but you get the picture.....

[TechMonkey]

Or your neighbours are taking advantage of their "unlimited" tariff while you might be better off saving money on a metered one? I doubt pumping out 1M gallons of water costs that much more than 500K gallons - they're not losing money as they don't have to buy the water from another supplier (normally); so until the leaks are so bad they are unable to meet demand there's no incentive to fix them.

 

They may be, but why should anyone else subsidise them? If that family of 6 is saving money on the fixed rate then all props to them while it is an option. But why is there an issue with me paying for what I use, therefore saving me money?

 

Treating 1M gallons of water will cost more than 500K. They will lose money as they have paid to treat the water, if that water goes into the ground and the public is not paying for it then they are losing money. Meanwhile those on fixed tariffs will be paying for the loss as they know how much water the metered users have used, subtract that from the total used and then divide that up by the rest of the customers.

[LeMarchand]

They may be, but why should anyone else subsidise them? If that family of 6 is saving money on the fixed rate then all props to them while it is an option. But why is there an issue with me paying for what I use, therefore saving me money?

 

Treating 1M gallons of water will cost more than 500K. They will lose money as they have paid to treat the water, if that water goes into the ground and the public is not paying for it then they are losing money. Meanwhile those on fixed tariffs will be paying for the loss as they know how much water the metered users have used, subtract that from the total used and then divide that up by the rest of the customers.

 

There's no issue with paying for what you use, but paying more for unlimited services is pretty common: phone, mobile, broadband etc. Heck, two people could be on the same Sky/VM TV package but one might watch 24/7 whilst the other may only average an hour/night.

 

As for the second statement, the public is paying for it - through their bills, whether metered or fixed rate. Using your example figures, the public will be paying for double what they are using to cover the leakages. The water companies will just keep putting the prices up until the public will no longer put up with it or the leaks are so bad ,that they cannot meet demand and have to fix them. They won't do anything until profits are at risk or they are forced to by law or significant public opinion.

[TechMonkey]

The point is that if everybody would pay more per unit even if everybody was on a water meter....

 

The price per unit never comes down is what I'm saying even if we were all very conscientious about our water usage...

 

If company is pumping 1 million gallons a week and have no leaks and the consumers are using all of this then they get paid for 1 million units of water say...

 

If everyone was on a metered supply and suddenly decided to be extra extra frugal with their water usage that 1 million units of water would decrease to whatever so the company would lose money...the investors would have no bonuses and people would lose their jobs...(Hypothetically speaking)....

 

Its in the companies best interest to provide as much water as they can to the consumers so that they make a profit.....

 

So if they only pump 2/3rds of that 1 million units they have to up their unit price to make up the deficit....simple

 

So they make out that its cheaper to be metered when in reality its not.... we all pay the same rate for our water units except those on a metered connection have to be frugal with their usage otherwise they end up paying more whereas those people who are on a rateable monthly payment can use as much water as they like and therefore relatively speaking actually pay less for their water if they use it rather generously....

 

Long winded but you get the picture.....

 

From the random sample of this thread it has shown that it is cheaper to be on metered.

 

So if we take your premise that the company will always make money then the fixed rate people are paying over the odds to make up for being 'unlimited'. So they are probably paying more than the metered customers to cover this unlimited feature. Whereas the metered customers now know exactly how much they are using, the cost per unit, the standing charge and so have a transparent bill.

 

I'm not sure I understand your economics. The price per unit may not come down but if you use less you pay less, whereas the fixed rate user cannot change their outgoing. If a company only needs to process 500k units then their outgoings will be less so it will cost the company less, yes job losses will probably be necessary but that is how companies work.

 

I think the issue stems from your POV that all companies are trying to shaft all customers all the time. Now I am not so naive to believe that the companies are looking out for our best interests but I think there has to be some benefit of the doubt. Leaks make headlines these days and I would bet it is actually more beneficial to fix leaks than it is to leave them be and raise costs, especially as the companies are being fined in the millions for not fixing leaks.

 

There's no issue with paying for what you use, but paying more for unlimited services is pretty common: phone, mobile, broadband etc. Heck, two people could be on the same Sky/VM TV package but one might watch 24/7 whilst the other may only average an hour/night.

 

As for the second statement, the public is paying for it - through their bills, whether metered or fixed rate. Using your example figures, the public will be paying for double what they are using to cover the leakages. The water companies will just keep putting the prices up until the public will no longer put up with it or the leaks are so bad ,that they cannot meet demand and have to fix them. They won't do anything until profits are at risk or they are forced to by law or significant public opinion.

 

Sorry I have lost your argument in the first paragraph. You seem to be agreeing with me, that being on unlimited you are paying over the odds, but being on metered you are paying for what you use.

 

But metered customers have a price per unit, they have a measurement of the units they are using so they will only pay for what they use. Yes, I concede that the company may put the unit price up the next year to try and claw that back but you can count on there being a fuss kicked up about it. It would be like a company putting their prices up after receiving a fine for something.