MPs call for action on water bill dodgers
London Editor
MPs are demanding a Government crackdown on households that refuse to pay their bills – payment dodges that costs South West Water millions of pounds a year.
The Environment Select Committee said it was "unacceptable" that so-called bad debt adds £15 annually to each household's water charge, which is already the highest in the country in the Westcountry.
The influential committee of MPs says legislation already exists that would make it easier for water companies to recover non-payment and put "money in the pocket" of those who do pay their bills.
Business Cards From Only £10.95 Delivered www.myprint-247.co.uk
View detailsOur heavyweight cards have FREE UV silk coating, FREE next day delivery & VAT included. Choose from 1000's of pre-designed templates or upload your own artwork. Orders dispatched within 24hrs.
Terms: Visit our site for more products: Business Cards, Compliment Slips, Letterheads, Leaflets, Postcards, Posters & much more. All items are free next day delivery. www.myprint-247.co.uk
Contact: 01858 468192
Valid until: Sunday, June 30 2013
The committee's chairman, Anne McIntosh MP, said: "It is simply unacceptable that hard-pressed yet honest householders are subsidising those who are able but unwilling to pay their water bills. Defra must implement existing legal provisions rapidly to tackle this problem."
This year, South West Water's average bill rose by £26 to £543. That is £167 more than the national average.
Unlike electricity and gas providers, no water company can disconnect supply to people's homes, on public health grounds. The Government has ruled out giving water companies this power.
The MPs, who yesterday published their report on the long-awaited Water White Paper, conceded there are households that genuinely struggle to pay their bill – the so-called "can't pays".
But there is a "significant proportion" of bad debt accrued by those who simply "won't pay", principally in the rental sector, where 80% of water debt can be found.
Introduced in 2010, the Flood and Water Management Act would allow companies to bill landlords whose tenants refuse to pay, the MPs said.
"We urge the department to implement the relevant provisions of the Flood and Water Management Act without further delay," the report said.
But the coalition Government favours an "alternative" approach to persuade landlords to pay voluntarily.
In response to the report, Water Minister Richard Benyon said: "It is just not right that responsible people have to pick up the bills of those who are not paying.
"However, mindful of the burden that regulation may impose, I want to explore whether we can take action through a voluntary approach.
"We are now considering the consultation responses before making a final decision, but we must find a way to fill the information gap which is at the heart of this problem."
The Government has promised a £50-a-year discount to all South West Water customers from next year as compensation for botched privatisation in the 1980s.
The water industry wrote off £328 million of household debt in 2010-11. The cost amounts to nearly 4 per cent of the average water bill.
South West Water's bad debt figure was £7.3 million in 2009-10. It did not supply a more up-to-date figure.
A spokesman for the company said: "We have nearly 780,000 bill-paying customers and the vast majority pay their bills on time. However we are very clear that non-payers do place a burden on the law-abiding people who pay their bills, and our approach is to identify early those who need help and advice, and get them on to a plan to help them pay, to avoid people getting too far into debt in the first place."
She added: "Prosecution is a last resort for us, but in fairness to all our customers we can and do prosecute those who try to avoid paying their bills, and recover much of what is owed.
"Water companies across the UK would like more support in finding tenants who leave without paying final bills – they account for almost half of water debt – by making it obligatory for landlords to pass on information."
The select committee also insisted the Government must set clear targets for increasing the number of homes with water meters as part of efforts to better manage England's water supplies.
Comments
by nick113
Monday, July 09 2012, 11:08AM
“@all the previous comments. It's a shame that none of you try to address the question of the "won't pays". Non-payment of water bills is much higher than for gas or electricity because these people know they won't get cut off. Water bills are typically one or two pounds per day for a house, which is less than the cost of a pint or 10 cigarettes. In some countries the sanction is to fit a valve with very restricted flow, so that non-payers still receive a trickle of water, sufficient to drink and wash, but causing inconvenience.”
by jadedoldie
Saturday, July 07 2012, 6:00AM
“Have just received my water bill for the last quarter, and am shocked to see that due to increased charges agreed in 2009 [according to the pretty, shiny leaflet included] that my bill has increased by £20.00, despite using only one unit more! 4 x 20 = £80, so thanks for the promised £50.00 rebate, really appreciate that, if we ever see it!”
by TheodoreV
Friday, July 06 2012, 2:30PM
“"Privatisation" is a con. It gets people to buy an asset they already own to provide capital for the Government. This then disappears into the abyss of public spending to support foreign wars and collapsing banks. Meanwhile the replacing company must create returns for the new shareholders. It can only do this in two ways: put up prices or reduce costs by employing less people for less money, frequently both. Of course top executives/managers are exempt from the latter requirement, and ever more generous pay packages are awarded on some spurious justification or another. (Wouldn't you pay yourself more if you were able?) Then to top it all, the company is allowed to be a monopoly, thus removing the one controlling device - a free market. No you couldn't make it up could you? Now as to those who refuse to pay, the water company has obviously decided it can't be bothered to pursue and it's just so much easier to sur-charge those who can and do. Surely the answer lies in charging Landlords who would incorporate it in the rent. As a house is statutorily "unfit" without a water supply, it has the same legal status as a roof and who would expect to pay for that as an extra when renting?”
by JMonners
Friday, July 06 2012, 1:26PM
“Maybe they should look at the monopoly that SWW enjoys and the extortionate profits they make instead of lambasting struggling families?”
by josdave
Friday, July 06 2012, 12:43PM
“I'd have a bit more faith in these so-called representatives if they did something to end the scandal of the lowest waged paying the highest water bills in the country. Something as essential to life as water should not be a subject for profiteering.”