Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Sussex] Southern Water Price Increase



Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle
NSC Patron
Oct 8, 2003
57,738
Faversham
interesting question. an answer might be they are in genuine markets, competition and innovation, ability to upgrade and grow, have allowed them to prosper. other utilities are under tight regulation, no real market, barely any way to change. just deliver the service, while keeping up with 100 years of decaying infrastructure.

it's too simple to mix up the why and the how. many countries privatise their utilities, keeping the companies controled, directors on the board, retaining 50% ownership, golden shares etc. UK chose to go a different route ideologically, with mixed results.
Indeed.

Unfortunately in the UK we handed over public monopolies to private investors, increasingly foreign, for peanuts,
with minimal checks and balances (the UK being 'a great place to do business' as the Tories gloated at the time. Course it is, mate),
which allowed them to suck out all the profits even if it involved ransacking the business.
And then in some cases they have come cap in hand to HMG for a bail out.
Which is what has happened to rail.
And which is what will happen with water.

In the UK privatization was a political maneuver.
It started as a means of unburdening the tax payer from loss making business,
especially those with Annoying Unions, like coal mining.
Bosh! Two birds killed with one stone.
Most people were secretly (or not so secretly) pleased to see Scargill defenestrated.

Then it morphed completely.
It became an electoral wheeze to create a nation of share owners, with a new vested interest in capitalism.
Tell Sid.
Sid was presented as someone given a once-in-a-lifetime chance to make a killing, and become a capitalist.
By buying into a state assest at a knock down price.
A state monopoly, that was guaranteed to make money.
British Gas.

That had absolutely f*** All to do with saving the public from subsidising a loss making business.
 




May 1, 2023
31
Comical, poor and rather obvious trollery.
Unfortunately in my current career Ive had to work with SWS on hundreds of occasions down the years and whilst of course you cannot tar an entire organisation with the same brush, having witnessed first hand some of their on the ground practices, particularly related to their WTW, I’d wager that leak reduction and protection of the aquatic environment is not top of their list.

You seem to mis-understand the underlying reason any business exists. This is to make a profit and generate wealth... .that it, its the only sole purpose of a business.

Why would any business decide to invest in certain things if it doesn't need to in order to meet its objectives? - Why would it spend money on "leak prevention" or "aquatic life" if it doesn't need to. its not up to the business to fix this,that's up to regulations to be put in place to protect these types of things happening and then make the business play by the rules. That is not the business's ultimate responsibility

P.s just like to point out that people who disagree with your opinion aren't always trolls....
 
Last edited:


Since1982

Well-known member
Sep 30, 2006
1,664
Burgess Hill
It's worth noting that Southern Water hasn't paid any dividends since 2017, and they have invested in a lot of large scale waste water infrastructure projects in recent years.
Although they did manage to pay out £2.3bn in the years preceding 2017 and its largely down to its credit rating downgrade that it has had to suspend payments more recently. It has not stopped paying dividends because it has the best interests of its customers at heart.
 


BBassic

I changed this.
Jul 28, 2011
13,363
You seem to mis-understand the underlying reason any business exists. This is to make a profit and generate wealth... .that it, its the only sole purpose of a business.

Why would any business decide to invest in certain things if it doesn't need to in order to meet its objectives? - Why would it spend money on "leak prevention" or "aquatic life" if it doesn't need to. its not up to the business to fix this,that's up to regulations to be ut in place to protect these types of things happening and then make the business play by the rules. That is not the business's ultimate responsibility

P.s just like to point out that people who disagree with your opinion aren't always trolls....
That boot on your neck must be cutting off the blood supply to your brain.
 


Bodian

Well-known member
May 3, 2012
15,279
Cumbria
If you are still on water rates and haven't got a meter (pre 90s houses) you should strongly consider it to save cash and can always go back to rates if you choose according Martin Lewis.

47% hike is an utter piss take.

For some. There's only two of us, and we use comparatively little water. But using the calculator things, it still looks more expensive with a meter. Again - it will depend on the company you are with I guess.
 




Mustafa II

Well-known member
Oct 14, 2022
2,027
Hove
Looking at Martin Lewis suppliers chart too, it seems you only have to use Southern water without choice for the pipes and sewage but not the whole supply of the actual water.

Would it be cheaper to go to 2 bills and only use Southern for the minimum of sewage and drainage and one of the water only suppliers for the water itself, affinity water (south east region) or south east water, whose water only price is increasing by 20 odd %?

That is incorrect - you cannot choose who provides your water or wastewater services.

You will pay your water bill to whoever operate the water mains in your road, in the same way you will pay your waste water bill to whoever operates the waste water in your road.

The confusion is because not all water companies do both - and others overlap with each other.
 


Bodian

Well-known member
May 3, 2012
15,279
Cumbria
Looking at Martin Lewis suppliers chart too, it seems you only have to use Southern water without choice for the pipes and sewage but not the whole supply of the actual water.

Would it be cheaper to go to 2 bills and only use Southern for the minimum of sewage and drainage and one of the water only suppliers for the water itself, affinity water (south east region) or south east water, whose water only price is increasing by 20 odd % and not 47%?

May be worth comparing the cubic meter of water prices between Southern, affinity and SE water.

View attachment 195901
Dig yourself a septic tank, and avoid the sewerage charge altogether!
 


Cordwainer

Well-known member
Jul 30, 2023
672
You seem to mis-understand the underlying reason any business exists. This is to make a profit and generate wealth... .that it, its the only sole purpose of a business.

Why would any business decide to invest in certain things if it doesn't need to in order to meet its objectives? - Why would it spend money on "leak prevention" or "aquatic life" if it doesn't need to. its not up to the business to fix this,that's up to regulations to be ut in place to protect these types of things happening and then make the business play by the rules. That is not the business's ultimate responsibility

P.s just like to point out that people who disagree with your opinion aren't always trolls....
lol. Have a look here, maybe start with The Water Industry Act and then move onto other acts in order that you may end up with a better grasp of what the legal requirements are for SWS et al. Nothing more tedious than having to continually feed facts and aware of how boring threads become when dominated by back n forths, I’ll leave it here. Good luck.

 




1066familyman

Radio User
Jan 15, 2008
15,319
If you are still on water rates and haven't got a meter (pre 90s houses) you should strongly consider it to save cash and can always go back to rates if you choose according Martin Lewis.

47% hike is an utter piss take.

I haven't read that particular article, but it's my understanding that water metering in certain authorities, Southern being one of them, is compulsory. This is due to, what was deemed by Government a good while back, the high stress on water supply in certain areas of the country. The South East is such an area.

We would love not to be on a water meter, but we don't have any choice in the matter here I'm afraid.

If that article is suggesting that anyone can have a meter, see how it goes, and then switch back to unmetered if they want to?, then it's misleading.

Edit: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7342/
 
Last edited:




1066familyman

Radio User
Jan 15, 2008
15,319
That is incorrect - you cannot choose who provides your water or wastewater services.

You will pay your water bill to whoever operate the water mains in your road, in the same way you will pay your waste water bill to whoever operates the waste water in your road.

The confusion is because not all water companies do both - and others overlap with each other.
Exactly!

For the most part, water supply in this country is now simply a privatised monopoly.

A monopoly, where even the regulator is happy for companies to continue to pollute and provide bad service with very little consequence for the company, whilst increasing profits for their shareholders and increasing wages for their 'top' employees.
 




peterward

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Nov 11, 2009
12,461
That is incorrect - you cannot choose who provides your water or wastewater services.

You will pay your water bill to whoever operate the water mains in your road, in the same way you will pay your waste water bill to whoever operates the waste water in your road.

The confusion is because not all water companies do both - and others overlap with each other.
Furry muff. I stand corrected.
 


1066familyman

Radio User
Jan 15, 2008
15,319
I was informed that if you are a low income family then you could receive a 45% discount….
There is indeed the Water Sure scheme, but like a lot of things in this country, the working poor often don't qualify.

To be eligible at all, you have to be in receipt of some sort of Government 'benefit'. For example, a health issue alone that requires more water usage doesn't qualify you for the scheme. You have to tick both boxes.
 






1066familyman

Radio User
Jan 15, 2008
15,319
Furry muff. I stand corrected.
I appreciate that you're only trying to help. That list of different water company charges is actually quite useful.

However, it's not helpful to post info and articles that most likely give false hope for those hoping to find a way to reduce their water bills.
 


peterward

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Nov 11, 2009
12,461
I haven't read that particular article, but it's my understanding that water metering in certain authorities, Southern being one of them, is compulsory. This is due to, what was deemed by Government a good while back, the high stress on water supply in certain areas of the country. The South East is such an area.

We would love not to be on a water meter, but we don't have any choice in the matter here I'm afraid.

If that article is suggesting that anyone can have a meter, see how it goes, and then switch back to unmetered if they want to?, then it's misleading.

Edit: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7342/
It says after early 1990s all houses have compulsory meters, so they'd have no choice, but many pre 90s houses that didn't or haven't yet got one, could still try it out and switch back to rates only within 2 years if it wasn't cheaper.... he quotes one fella on there who had rates at circa 1400 pa and went to meter and was down to 250 odd pa saving over a grand.

His general rule of thumb is if there are less people in house than bedrooms meter is usually cheaper.
 


Thunder Bolt

Silly old bat
You seem to mis-understand the underlying reason any business exists. This is to make a profit and generate wealth... .that it, its the only sole purpose of a business.

Why would any business decide to invest in certain things if it doesn't need to in order to meet its objectives? - Why would it spend money on "leak prevention" or "aquatic life" if it doesn't need to. its not up to the business to fix this,that's up to regulations to be put in place to protect these types of things happening and then make the business play by the rules. That is not the business's ultimate responsibility

P.s just like to point out that people who disagree with your opinion aren't always trolls....
Water is essential for life. It's not a choice and therefore should never be a business for profit. Ever.
 


peterward

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Nov 11, 2009
12,461
I appreciate that you're only trying to help. That list of different water company charges is actually quite useful.

However, it's not helpful to post info and articles that most likely give false hope for those hoping to find a way to reduce their water bills.
False hope certainly wasn't an intent, I deleted that previous post.
 




1066familyman

Radio User
Jan 15, 2008
15,319
It says after early 1990s all houses have compulsory meters, so they'd have no choice, but many pre 90s houses that didn't or haven't yet got one, could still try it out and switch back to rates only within 2 years if it wasn't cheaper.... he quotes one fella on there who had rates at circa 1400 pa and went to meter and was down to 250 odd pa saving over a grand.

His general rule of thumb is if there are less people in house than bedrooms meter is usually cheaper.
He is totally neglecting the authorities that do indeed have the right to make meters compulsory, with no going back.

The South East is one such area.

Read the parliamentary link I put in my original post.
 


1066familyman

Radio User
Jan 15, 2008
15,319
False hope certainly wasn't an intent, I deleted that previous post.
I appreciate that. I can see you are genuinely trying to help (y)
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here