Water bills

[screenman]

You have a problem somewhere in your system. That is way too high for an average family. Believe me, I have lived in a house with 5 people who has no sense of saving energy, use dishwasher every night, washing machine 5 times a week etc. Still our water bill was maximum about £60.

No problems apart from we use a lot, are you saying your bill was £60 per month, how long ago was this, what area, our washing machine is 14 times a week.

 

[screenman]

£900 wow! I have a three bed semi and I pay £370.

Is that metered?

 

[Andy_R]

It isn't just the clean drinking water you get that you are paying for. There is all the infrastructure associated with storage, cleansing, and supply. Then there is also the associated problems with removal, cleansing and re introducing to the environment water that you have used in it's many guises. There is also the problem of surface water drainage and what to do with that. Everytime it rains and all the cr*p gets washed off the streets into the dirty water side of things, it has to be cleaned by the water companies before being reintroduced. This all has to be "done" by someone, so maintenance, cleaning and production workers have to be paid, etc., etc., etc. The product and service provided are incredibly cheap when you consider all the facts. Don't forget, some people are stupid enough to BUY a 500ml bottle of water for a quid.

 

[screenman]

Both side of us are houses with large above ground swimming pools and have more people living in the house than us, they are on bills rather than metered and it costs them a lot less.

 

[midliferider]

No problems apart from we use a lot, are you saying your bill was £60 per month, how long ago was this, what area, our washing machine is 14 times a week.

Northampton, last year.
But as others have pointed out, it is a large bill for a an average home.
But if you run your washing machine twice a day for seven days, it is bit more than average. Perhaps your bill is not high, you just use lots of water.

 

[midliferider]

Both side of us are houses with large above ground swimming pools and have more people living in the house than us, they are on bills rather than metered and it costs them a lot less.

And now we know why your water bill is high!

 

[screenman]

Northampton, last year.
But as others have pointed out, it is a large bill for a an average home.
But if you run your washing machine twice a day for seven days, it is bit more than average. Perhaps your bill is not high, you just use lots of water.

That is how I see it, in truth I find it good value.

 

[screenman]

And now we know why your water bill is high!

Go on tell me?

 

[midliferider]

Your neighbors with more people living in the house and a swimming pool pay less. There are several possibilities.

You don't have a meter.
You are not thoughtful about how you use water.
What I really meant was neighbors probably have a swim at your expense. These things do happen.

 

[midliferider]

There was an interesting story sometime ago about a GP practice having a large electricity bill. No one could just work out what was the problem. Then one day, one person discovered that when he switches on the outside light at the end of the day, they light up the entire adjacent car park.

 

[TVC]

Is that metered?

No, rates paid monthly, keep meaning to get moved to a meter, as there is just two of us using a shower, out all day and two washing loads a week I could save a couple of quid.

 

[screenman]

Your neighbors with more people living in the house and a swimming pool pay less. There are several possibilities.

You don't have a meter.
You are not thoughtful about how you use water.
What I really meant was neighbors probably have a swim at your expense. These things do happen.

We have the meter they do not, it often happens around here that those who are meters pay more.

I put the pipes and nobody else is connected between myself and the metre 85 yards away from my house, we have checked for leaks etc.

As for being thoughtful, you better have a word with the wife about that, I only pay the bills.

 

[Smurfy]

I don't think Railtrack is a good example of your argument. The shareholders did not in fact 'cream off lots of profits'. There were dividends, granted, but most of them lost far more than that when HMG forced the company into administration, assisted by lies for which the Secretary of State was twice forced to apologise.
There is not and never has been a business plan which will allow railways to be built and run without taxpayer subsidy, usually in colossal amounts. You get chronic underinvestment whether it is nationalised or privatised, because subsidy is always needed and the consequences of underinvestment are generally the other side of an election ie in political terms, invisible.

I used to know someone who worked for Railtrack, they used to brag about what a well performing company Railtrack was, and how the share price had risen so high. Unfortunately the public didn't find out until years later and a spate of fatal rail accidents that Railtrack had been neglecting important safety-related maintenance. I never felt sorry for the Railtrack shareholders, their dividends had the blood of passengers on them. It wouldn't surprise me at all if water companies are pursuing a similar plan, although fortunately the eventual outcome is likely to be less gruesome than a rail accident.

 

[ASC1951]

Never has been? Are you sure? They were originally built to run for profit.

Fair point. What I really meant was "in living memory". You are right that in the early days of the of the UK railways, individual lines and individual companies did make money - but fares were generally quite a bit higher than they are now.

 

[ASC1951]

I though they were still profitable in your lifetime# and only became unprofitable as more people bought cars toward the end of the 50s and into the 60s.

Well, I think that would be a different meaning of profitable ie excluding construction costs and probably many other costs which you would include in a whole-life commercial account. What happened in the 60s, I think, was that revenue dropped below operating costs even when repairs and renewals had been unsustainably reduced. So far as I am aware, all post-war railway projects have had to write off some or all of the construction costs and most don't even operate profitably thereafter. The debate in different countries is largely whether it is better to nationalise and risk the inefficiencies which usually accompany state run enterprises, or to run them privately and have to put some money towards investor return - I don't think anyone believes railways can be run without substantial taxpayer subsidy whichever way you do it.

#taking a bit of a punt on your forum name.

Ah well, that's the model number stamped on my Sturmey Archer three speed fixed hub. I am <cough> very slightly older.