http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4759960.stm

Good or bad?

cheers,
Pete.

Pete C wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4759960.stm

Good or bad?

cheers,
Pete.

With our gas and electricity going uo 25% it was only a question of
time before the water companies got in on the act. Add to that a
doubling of council tax in the last 10 years will any of us having any
spare spending money in 5 years time.

Kevin

Up until now water companies didn't want you to be on a meter so I knew
(in 1986) that it would be a good idea. I have saved money ever since
- not a fortune since you will find that most of your bill is still for
the standing charge i.e. to maintain the water mains and the sewerage
system. However I would guess that a household of say one male and
three females would probably notice very little difference in the size
of the bills. Any occupancy less than that should probably give a
saving and any more would probably cost more with metering. One upside
is that with metering you pay for what you use so you can still use
hosepipes - ban of no ban!! Good Luck Curious

On 1 Mar 2006 07:26:49 -0800, "curious" wrote:

Up until now water companies didn't want you to be on a meter so I knew
(in 1986) that it would be a good idea. I have saved money ever since
- not a fortune since you will find that most of your bill is still for
the standing charge i.e. to maintain the water mains and the sewerage
system. However I would guess that a household of say one male and
three females would probably notice very little difference in the size
of the bills. Any occupancy less than that should probably give a
saving and any more would probably cost more with metering. One upside
is that with metering you pay for what you use so you can still use
hosepipes - ban of no ban!! Good Luck Curious

AFAIK, the current hosepipe bans apply also to people who are metered.

Strange how New Labour were strongly against metering before they came

to power. Now that they need more money they are for it!

In addition they are pressurising Councils to build more houses in the
South East, but not providing money to build the infrastructure to
support such developments.

Two faced w*nkers, the lot of them.

sponix

"Pete C" wrote in message
...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4759960.stm

Good or bad?

cheers,
Pete.

Good.

Mary

Pete C wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4759960.stm

Good or bad?

cheers,
Pete.

"Announcing the move, Environment Minister Elliot Morley said: "Water
is a precious resource which we can no longer simply take for granted."
"

********. We've built more and more houses and invested zilch in the
collection and distribution of an abundantly available resource.

We (2 adults, 3 kids) saved 50% by voluntarily switching to a meter
when they were being fitted free in our area.

MBQ

On 1 Mar 2006 07:48:19 -0800, wrote:


********. We've built more and more houses and invested zilch in the
collection and distribution of an abundantly available resource.

Exactly.

The public seem to think that water is a limited resource like oil and
it's about to run out. It isn't.

The UK has more than enough water, it's just in the wrong places. It
doesn't help that the Government seem hell bent on building even more
houses in the wrong areas.

Why can't the Government build the houses in more sensible areas? Do
we really need more houses anyway? A recent report says that the UK
birth rate has plummeted sharply in recent years.

The water industry should invest a little more in improved
infrastructure and give smaller dividends to the shareholders.
However, that'll never happen due to greed.

sponix

On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 14:22:16 +0000, Pete C wrote:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4759960.stm

Good or bad?

I wonder how they'd deal with a property like ours - the water supply to
our house is shared, it comes in via 15mm copper through a party wall.
If the neighbour turns their internal stop-cock off, our supply is also
cut off.

They'd presumably either have to give us our own water supply from the
street, or subtract our meter reading from the neighbour's.

There must be properties in Kent set up like this too, I'd have thought.
Thames Water told me it wasn't an entirely uncommon setup in Victorian
terraces. It must also be fairly common in flats.
--
Chris Cowley

"Sponix" wrote in message
...
snip

Strange how New Labour were strongly against metering before they
came

to power. Now that they need more money they are for it!

In addition they are pressurising Councils to build more houses in
the
South East, but not providing money to build the infrastructure to
support such developments.

Two faced w*nkers, the lot of them.


Yes but not for the reasons you think! They should re nationalise the
water industry[1], and then embark on a programme of building a
'national grid' of water distribution pipes, there is no water
shortage in the UK - the problem is that the water is in the wrong
places, something that the private sector has failed to dealt with
the over the last 20 years...

I would also advocate that there should not be any compensation
either, the money saved can be put towards the problems that the
private sector has failed to deal with over the last 20 years,
preferring to line their own pockets in bonuses and dividends etc.

[1] water is essential for life, it is also essential for health, it
should not be and should never have been allowed to be a profit
making business.

/rant over...

"Chris Cowley" wrote in message
...
snip

I wonder how they'd deal with a property like ours - the water
supply to
our house is shared, it comes in via 15mm copper through a party
wall.
If the neighbour turns their internal stop-cock off, our supply is
also
cut off.


A water meter does not need to be outside a property.

:::Jerry:::: wrote:
"Chris Cowley" wrote in message
...
snip
I wonder how they'd deal with a property like ours - the water
supply to
our house is shared, it comes in via 15mm copper through a party
wall.
If the neighbour turns their internal stop-cock off, our supply is
also
cut off.


A water meter does not need to be outside a property.

Yes, but if all his water comes through his neighbours supply then his
neighbour would end up being billed for all his water usage.

On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 16:39:55 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Chris Cowley" wrote in message
.. .
snip

I wonder how they'd deal with a property like ours - the water
supply to
our house is shared, it comes in via 15mm copper through a party
wall.
If the neighbour turns their internal stop-cock off, our supply is
also
cut off.

A water meter does not need to be outside a property.

Yes, but I don't think there is anywhere they could put a water meter in
our neighbour's property that would prevent our water usage appearing on
their meter, IYSWIM. The (lead) mains pipe goes from the street into the
neighbour's house, where has branches to their kitchen and bathroom, and
the pipework then continues on through the wall into our property.

I think perhaps the neighbouring property would have to be partially
re-plumbed if we were both to have meters, unless the water company is
prepared to subtract our usage from the neighbour's (which sounds like a
recipe for billing errors to me!)
--
Chris Cowley

On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 16:32:29 -0000 :::Jerry:::: wrote :
Yes but not for the reasons you think! They should re nationalise
the water industry[1], and then embark on a programme of building a
'national grid' of water distribution pipes,

Anyone would think that nationalisation was a golden age. It was
precisely when industries like this were nationalised that investment
fell by the wayside. What needs to be done is not a national grid,
but fixing all the leaks in the existing infrastructure and bringing
in compulsory metering.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.12 released 8 Dec 2005]

On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 14:22:16 +0000, Pete C
wrote:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4759960.stm

Good or bad?

Good in that It will stop non metered customers subsidising metered
ones as they have done since metering was introduced.


--

"curious" wrote in message
ups.com...
Up until now water companies didn't want you to be on a meter so I knew
(in 1986) that it would be a good idea. I have saved money ever since
- not a fortune since you will find that most of your bill is still for
the standing charge i.e. to maintain the water mains and the sewerage
system. However I would guess that a household of say one male and
three females would probably notice very little difference in the size
of the bills. Any occupancy less than that should probably give a
saving and any more would probably cost more with metering. One upside
is that with metering you pay for what you use so you can still use
hosepipes - ban of no ban!! Good Luck Curious

A hosepipe ban is a hosepipe ban, meter or no meter.

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 16:32:29 -0000 :::Jerry:::: wrote :
Yes but not for the reasons you think! They should re nationalise
the water industry[1], and then embark on a programme of building
a
'national grid' of water distribution pipes,

Anyone would think that nationalisation was a golden age. It was
precisely when industries like this were nationalised that
investment
fell by the wayside.

Err, wasn't the National electricity grid built during (effectively)
a nationalised period, wasn't the British Gas distribution system
built during a nationalised period, wasn't the railways (1950's)
modernisation during nationalisation? You are being far to
simplistic, it was not the fact that the industries were nationalised
but the lack of political will to make difficult (electoral
unpopular) decisions that was the problem.

What needs to be done is not a national grid,
but fixing all the leaks in the existing infrastructure and
bringing
in compulsory metering.


Perhaps, but the private companies can't even do that, when they do
'modernise' they do not do so out of profits but increase the charges
to customers - I know of no other industry that is allowed to do that
or gets away with doing it - but what does one expect when one is
dealing with a monopolistic industry that we all need if we want to
stay alive?....

In article ,
Sponix wrote:
AFAIK, the current hosepipe bans apply also to people who are metered.

Strange how New Labour were strongly against metering before they came

to power. Now that they need more money they are for it!

Perhaps you'd tell how the income from a private company goes to 'New
Labour'? Of course their profits are taxed, but that goes to the
government regardless of colour.

--
*Why is "abbreviated" such a long word?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 16:32:29 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:

Yes but not for the reasons you think! They should re nationalise the
water industry[1], and then embark on a programme of building a
'national grid' of water distribution pipes, there is no water
shortage in the UK - the problem is that the water is in the wrong
places

No it's in the right places, so bugger off we are keeping our water to
ourselves, and to the hordes thinking of moving north forget it
because you are not welcome.

Bloody Southerners, about time the North declared independence.


--

In article ,
Sponix wrote:
Why can't the Government build the houses in more sensible areas? Do
we really need more houses anyway?

The 'government' doesn't build houses. And there's little point in
building houses in areas where people don't want to live - for whatever
reason. Houses are already available in those areas for peanuts anyway.

--
*Two many clicks spoil the browse *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 16:32:29 -0000 :::Jerry:::: wrote :
Yes but not for the reasons you think! They should re nationalise
the water industry[1], and then embark on a programme of building a
'national grid' of water distribution pipes,

Anyone would think that nationalisation was a golden age. It was
precisely when industries like this were nationalised that investment
fell by the wayside.

I worked in a nationalised industry - the electricity supply industry. We
planned for up to 60 years ahead when making investments (planning periods
were 20, 40 and 60 years, depending upon what we were building), allowed
generous reserves of capacity against unforseen future growth and still
sometimes had to cut tariffs to keep within the 2% profit that we were
capped at.

What needs to be done is not a national grid,

It would be a very sensible idea to have one. Personally, despite the
problems it would cause with evaporation losses, I would like to see one
built as a combined water distribution and canal network. A properly
designed and modern canal system could take some transport, particularly
bulk goods, off our roads. However, that sort of thing requires an holistic
approach to government, which I doubt we would ever see.

but fixing all the leaks in the existing infrastructure

Virtually impossible, even if you replaced all the old pipes, which would
probably cost more than a national grid.

and bringing
in compulsory metering.

I'm really not sure what that will do, apart from distribute the costs
around differently. If people use less water as a result of being metered
(which I haven't, as metered water has cost me less than I paid in water
rates before), the companies will either have to increase prices to maintain
the same income or invest even less in the system.

Colin Bignell

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
reenews.net...



[1] water is essential for life, it is also essential for health,

So is food.

it
should not be and should never have been allowed to be a profit
making business.

So don't shop at supemarkets. We don't.

Mary

On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 17:33:48 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 16:32:29 -0000 :::Jerry:::: wrote :
Yes but not for the reasons you think! They should re nationalise
the water industry[1], and then embark on a programme of building
a
'national grid' of water distribution pipes,

Anyone would think that nationalisation was a golden age. It was
precisely when industries like this were nationalised that
investment
fell by the wayside.

Err, wasn't the National electricity grid built during (effectively)
a nationalised period, wasn't the British Gas distribution system
built during a nationalised period, wasn't the railways (1950's)
modernisation during nationalisation? You are being far to
simplistic, it was not the fact that the industries were nationalised
but the lack of political will to make difficult (electoral
unpopular) decisions that was the problem.


Which is an inevitable consequence of nationalisation.


What needs to be done is not a national grid,
but fixing all the leaks in the existing infrastructure and
bringing
in compulsory metering.


Perhaps, but the private companies can't even do that, when they do
'modernise' they do not do so out of profits but increase the charges
to customers - I know of no other industry that is allowed to do that
or gets away with doing it - but what does one expect when one is
dealing with a monopolistic industry that we all need if we want to
stay alive?....


That's overstating it a little. In order to stay alive you do need
water to drink, but you don't have to buy it from the supplier that
delivers it to the taps.

Everything else is a matter of convenience; although granted it would
be more than a little inconvenient to have to go to a public toilet in
the middle of the night.

--

..andy

On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 17:50:48 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:

|
|":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
freenews.net...
|
|
|
| [1] water is essential for life, it is also essential for health,
|
|So is food.
|
| it
| should not be and should never have been allowed to be a profit
| making business.
|
|So don't shop at supemarkets. We don't.

Mary has already admitted to visiting Waitrose.

How the other half lives ;-)
--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk
Freedom of Speech, Expression, Religion, and Democracy are
the keys to Civilization, together with legal acceptance of
Fundamental Human rights.

"Matt" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 16:32:29 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:

Yes but not for the reasons you think! They should re nationalise the
water industry[1], and then embark on a programme of building a
'national grid' of water distribution pipes, there is no water
shortage in the UK - the problem is that the water is in the wrong
places

No it's in the right places, so bugger off we are keeping our water to
ourselves, and to the hordes thinking of moving north forget it
because you are not welcome.

Bloody Southerners, about time the North declared independence.

Home Rule for Yorkshire!


--

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 17:33:48 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 16:32:29 -0000 :::Jerry:::: wrote :
Yes but not for the reasons you think! They should re nationalise
the water industry[1], and then embark on a programme of building
a
'national grid' of water distribution pipes,

Anyone would think that nationalisation was a golden age. It was
precisely when industries like this were nationalised that
investment
fell by the wayside.

Err, wasn't the National electricity grid built during (effectively)
a nationalised period, wasn't the British Gas distribution system
built during a nationalised period, wasn't the railways (1950's)
modernisation during nationalisation? You are being far to
simplistic, it was not the fact that the industries were nationalised
but the lack of political will to make difficult (electoral
unpopular) decisions that was the problem.


Which is an inevitable consequence of nationalisation.


What needs to be done is not a national grid,
but fixing all the leaks in the existing infrastructure and
bringing
in compulsory metering.


Perhaps, but the private companies can't even do that, when they do
'modernise' they do not do so out of profits but increase the charges
to customers - I know of no other industry that is allowed to do that
or gets away with doing it - but what does one expect when one is
dealing with a monopolistic industry that we all need if we want to
stay alive?....


That's overstating it a little. In order to stay alive you do need
water to drink, but you don't have to buy it from the supplier that
delivers it to the taps.

Everything else is a matter of convenience; although granted it would
be more than a little inconvenient to have to go to a public toilet in
the middle of the night.

An earth closet is far superior to a water closet anyway.

--

.andy

"curious" wrote in message
ups.com...
Up until now water companies didn't want you to be on a meter so I knew
(in 1986) that it would be a good idea. I have saved money ever since

What do they do when they install a meter? What happens to the water company
stop cock?

--

Michael Chare

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article ,
Sponix wrote:
Why can't the Government build the houses in more sensible areas? Do
we really need more houses anyway?

The 'government' doesn't build houses. And there's little point in
building houses in areas where people don't want to live - for whatever
reason. Houses are already available in those areas for peanuts anyway.

It does permit houses to be built though.
There are a number of things that could be required for new developments
that could cut water use.

On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 18:12:11 -0000, "Michael Chare"
wrote:

"curious" wrote in message
oups.com...
Up until now water companies didn't want you to be on a meter so I knew
(in 1986) that it would be a good idea. I have saved money ever since

What do they do when they install a meter? What happens to the water company
stop cock?

and does it reduce pressure or flow?

On 01/03/2006 14:22 Pete C wrote:

Good or bad?

Good.

Over the twelve years since I installed our meter we have saved £2370
which is over 53% of what the bill would have been if we had paid old
style 'water rates'. For 75% of that time the household consisted of
self, wife and two daughters. The latter 25% has been mainly self and wife.

I should add that throughout the time the washing machine has been used
until it has been exhausted, the dishwasher hasn't had much of a rest
and the garden plants have not been left to become thirsty.

--
F
(Beware of spam trap - remove the negative)

F wrote:
On 01/03/2006 14:22 Pete C wrote:

Good or bad?


Good.

Over the twelve years since I installed our meter we have saved £2370
which is over 53% of what the bill would have been if we had paid old
style 'water rates'. For 75% of that time the household consisted of
self, wife and two daughters. The latter 25% has been mainly self and wife.

I should add that throughout the time the washing machine has been used
until it has been exhausted, the dishwasher hasn't had much of a rest
and the garden plants have not been left to become thirsty.

Were you given some kind of estimate beforehand? We were offered a free
meter some years ago, and the estimated bill (2 adults, 2 children) was
between 20% and 50% more than we were paying unmetered. That was not
including any allowance for garden watering, and we had a washing
machine but not a dishwasher. We declined.

Matt wrote in
:


No it's in the right places, so bugger off we are keeping our water to
ourselves, and to the hordes thinking of moving north forget it
because you are not welcome.

Bloody Southerners, about time the North declared independence.

Trouble is, all the northerners, (and Scotch, and Welsh, and Irish, and
pikeys, and asylum seekers, and organised criminals from all points South
and East) are here in the south of England

mike

The message
from Pete C contains these words:

Good or bad?

About bloody time. My mother lives in Kent and will happily water her
garden with a hose till the cows come home even when the water board are
telling her not to. This might make her plant a bit more sensibly.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

The message
from (Sponix) contains these words:

Why can't the Government build the houses in more sensible areas?

The government doesn't build houses.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

The message
from Ian Stirling contains these words:

It does permit houses to be built though.

Usually over the heads of the local planning officer on appeal.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 19:36:32 UTC, Guy King wrote:

The message
from Pete C contains these words:

Good or bad?

About bloody time. My mother lives in Kent and will happily water her
garden with a hose till the cows come home even when the water board are
telling her not to. This might make her plant a bit more sensibly.

It only applies to a small part of Kent. There are two other, bigger,
water companies and one of them has gone on record as sayin 'not for a
while yet'. The small company that has done this has relatively few
customers.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
Avenue Supplies, http://avenuesupplies.co.uk

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
it was not the fact that the industries were nationalised
but the lack of political will to make difficult (electoral
unpopular) decisions that was the problem.


Which is an inevitable consequence of nationalisation...

...under Tory governments? ;-)

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
reenews.net...

Err, wasn't the National electricity grid built during (effectively)
a nationalised period,

Err, no.

wasn't the British Gas distribution system
built during a nationalised period,

Err, no.

wasn't the railways (1950's)
modernisation during nationalisation?

Err, no.

However it was run down during a nationalised period.

You are being far to
simplistic, it was not the fact that the industries were nationalised
but the lack of political will to make difficult (electoral
unpopular) decisions that was the problem.

What needs to be done is not a national grid,
but fixing all the leaks in the existing infrastructure and
bringing
in compulsory metering.


Perhaps, but the private companies can't even do that, when they do
'modernise' they do not do so out of profits but increase the charges
to customers - I know of no other industry that is allowed to do that
or gets away with doing it -

McDonalds, B&Q, BA and all the other industries.
All of whom have to charge what is required to modernise.

but what does one expect when one is
dealing with a monopolistic industry that we all need if we want to
stay alive?....

I live in an area where the water company has been private for the last
century and doesn't suffer from any water shortages, or supply difficulties
and its one of the cheapest.
Just goes to show that nationalisation doesn't equal competence or value for
money.

On 1 Mar 2006 19:22:32 GMT, mike wrote:

Matt wrote in
:


No it's in the right places, so bugger off we are keeping our water to
ourselves, and to the hordes thinking of moving north forget it
because you are not welcome.

Bloody Southerners, about time the North declared independence.

Trouble is, all the northerners, (and Scotch, and Welsh, and Irish, and
pikeys, and asylum seekers, and organised criminals from all points South
and East) are here in the south of England

Oh it's ok, you can keep them


--

"Owain" wrote in message
...
Kev wrote:
With our gas and electricity going uo 25% it was only a question of
time before the water companies got in on the act. Add to that a
doubling of council tax in the last 10 years will any of us having any
spare spending money in 5 years time.

I haven't got any spare spending money now. I went to the dentist today.

wedon'ttalkaboutteeth

Owain

The message
from "Bob Eager" contains these words:

About bloody time. My mother lives in Kent and will happily water her
garden with a hose till the cows come home even when the water board are
telling her not to. This might make her plant a bit more sensibly.

It only applies to a small part of Kent.

Sadly, not her bit.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.