Latest news with #water bills
Telegraph
2 days ago
- Business
- Telegraph
Nothing stands between rotten water companies and their suffering customers
SIR – Our property is subject to water bills on the basis of an assessed household charge, which does not reflect consumption. This April, Thames Water raised the annual charge by 37 per cent; Ofwat had announced many months before that it was authorising water companies to increase bills by an average of 35 per cent over five years. Clearly, our new charge is excessive, but when I contacted the Consumer Council for Water, it was unable to help and suggested that I get in touch with Ofwat instead. I wrote to Ofwat and, after a delay of more than three months, was told that our water company was responsible for setting, publishing and explaining its charges. In effect, I should query the increase with Thames Water, taking me full circle. No wonder that Ofwat is to be abolished (report, July 21). It appears to be a completely toothless organisation. David Bray Godalming, Surrey SIR – It is probably of little comfort to Robin Willow (Letters, July 20) – whose Thames Water bill has increased by 38 per cent this year – that Severn Trent Water has raised our charges by 43 per cent. This is in spite of Ofwat's agreement with Severn Trent that it would limit its increase to 47 per cent over the course of the next five years. Needless to say, I too have been stonewalled by Ofwat. The sooner it is replaced by a consumer-based regulator, the better it will be for all. Bob Juleff Craven Arms, Shropshire SIR – Part of the problem is that there is still a mixed system of water charging. The original system, based on the rateable value of a property, effectively charged those who could afford bigger houses more than those in small houses, whatever their consumption. That method ended in 1990 with the community charge, and all new houses had to have water meters. As they could not be made compulsory for existing customers, only those for whom it was beneficial to fit a meter made the switch. Even with an above-average rateable value, we stayed on the fixed rate until our children left home. Our water bill then fell to less than half what it had been. Our daughter and her family live in a Victorian terrace with a low rateable value, so don't have a meter, but use considerably more water than we do. If every house had to have a meter, there would be more incentive to reduce consumption. Those on low incomes with children could be supported through benefits, rather than distorting utility bills as a tax by the back door ('Middle class face higher water bills', report, July 20). Roger Jackson Stockport, Cheshire
The Sun
4 days ago
- Business
- The Sun
Water bills to rise by another 30% in next 5 years as damning report calls for regulator Ofwat to be SCRAPPED
WATER bills are set to soar by 30 per cent over the next five years — as a damning review today called for regulator Ofwat to be scrapped. Sir Jon Cunliffe, who led the probe, said households are paying the price for years of underinvestment and warned 'massive' upgrades are now needed. 2 2 He told the BBC there has been a "really huge" rise in bills and they are going to rise by another 30 per cent in real terms. His report out today recommends scrapping Ofwat and replacing it with a single, 'powerful' regulator to fix what he called a 'fragmented and overlapping' system. The former Bank of England bigwig slammed the existing mess of regulators – and said only a 'joined-up' and 'powerful' single body could fix it. His long-awaited review said it was time to abolish Ofwat – which sets bills and oversees spending – and scrap the Drinking Water Inspectorate, as well as strip the Environment Agency and Natural England of powers. Sir Jon warned: 'Restoring trust has been central to our work. Trust that bills are fair, that regulation is effective, that water companies will act in the public interest.' He added: 'This is a complex sector... responsible for the second-largest infrastructure programme in the UK. Resetting this sector and restoring pride in the future of our waterways matters to us all.' The 217-page report – ordered after public fury over sewage spills, soaring bills and sky-high exec bonuses – calls for a massive overhaul not seen since privatisation. Environment Secretary Steve Reed piled in on Sunday, admitting: 'Ofwat is clearly failing.' Instead of several overlapping bodies, nine new local water authorities – eight in England, one in Wales – would deliver projects that match local needs and give communities a louder voice. Sir Jon's review said the shake-up must also bring tighter rules on bosses and owners, with better protection for customers and the environment. It comes as Mr Reed prepares to unveil a new legally binding water ombudsman, expand the Consumer Council for Water, and bring the system into line with other utilities. He will today say the report is a wake-up call to make sure 'the failures of the past can never happen again.' Over the weekend, the Environment Secretary vowed to halve sewage pollution by 2030 using £104 billion of investment. Tory Victoria Atkins warned Labour must be 'transparent' about what replaces Ofwat – but accused the party of copying old Tory ideas. The final report follows nine months of digging, with over 50,000 public responses helping to shape it.
Telegraph
4 days ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Britain's failed water system won't be fixed by penalising wealthier users
SIR – You report (July 20) that the Government could consider charging the middle classes more for their water in order to subsidise poorer households. It set me wondering where such manipulation of commodity prices – an indirect form of tax – might end. By this warped logic, could the middle class also be lumbered with higher gas and electricity prices, or more expensive food? The possibilities are endless. The Government would be able to claim it was sticking to its pre-election pledge not to increase taxes on working people – even working middle-class people. It would just increase costs to the working middle class under a different name. Terry Lloyd Darley Abbey, Derbyshire SIR – Middle-class households are being expected to subsidise others more and more. Paying higher water bills is now being proposed. Surely, however, the time will come when they can't afford to do this. Indeed, that time may have already arrived. Laura Madden Broughton Astley, Leicestershire SIR – My wife and I are both now retired, but were formerly working-class. We own our property and rely on our pension income, with no additional benefits. We pay our dues. I worry that, because we have been prudent throughout our 60 years of marriage, we will be categorised as middle-class by this class-obsessed Government. Why should we be charged more for our water supply in order to subsidise low-income families? They should be responsible for settling their outgoings in the same manner as pensioners and the middle classes. If our welfare system continues on its current trajectory, the desire to take up employment will become a thing of the past. We are already on the downward slope towards mass unemployment. John Hinchsliff Longridge, Lancashire SIR – I empathise with Robin Willow (Letters, July 20) over his increased Thames Water bills, but would add that the current pricing structure applied by that company penalises low users. The fixed charges for supply and waste have risen significantly, resulting in massively increased bills for those of us who use the least water. How can this be fair? Barry Sheldon Cholsey, Oxfordshire SIR – It appears that hydrangeas have joined the ranks of middle-class targets in Labour's war on perceived privilege. With peak water rates cunningly aligned with the flowering season, one must ask: where will all this end? Dermot Shortt Gerrards Cross, Buckinghamshire
