FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Ofgem, fit for purpose?
Ofgem, fit for purpose?
Jump to: Newest in thread
"So bills are going down, they crow ... but standing charges are going up they whisper
So discuss..."
And every household going to get a fee to cover unpaid debts to the companies from customers (its only £28 but thats not the point)
The companies go bust and the customers have to pick up the cost when someone comes in to take over supply, now we are also picking up the cost when customers don’t pay , all the while the energy companies are making profits and distributing to shareholders. Both those loss types should be coming from retained earnings long before shareholders see money |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So bills are going down, they crow ... but standing charges are going up they whisper
So discuss...
And every household going to get a fee to cover unpaid debts to the companies from customers (its only £28 but thats not the point)
The companies go bust and the customers have to pick up the cost when someone comes in to take over supply, now we are also picking up the cost when customers don’t pay , all the while the energy companies are making profits and distributing to shareholders. Both those loss types should be coming from retained earnings long before shareholders see money "
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The standing charge should be abolished, with network maintenance costs added to the unit rate.
There should not be any costs included for covering company failures, this is down mainly to poor regulation so is the regulator and government's fault.
There should not be any costs added to cover non payment. Why should we pay for other people's bills? Pursue the non payers harshly and deduct it from their benefits. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The standing charge should be abolished, with network maintenance costs added to the unit rate.
There should not be any costs included for covering company failures, this is down mainly to poor regulation so is the regulator and government's fault.
There should not be any costs added to cover non payment. Why should we pay for other people's bills? Pursue the non payers harshly and deduct it from their benefits."
Could you imagine if your bank added a charge for other peoples unpaid loans, or your wifi provider - it just wouldn’t be allowed in any other industry. Bad debts are a risk of doing business |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The standing charge should be abolished, with network maintenance costs added to the unit rate.
There should not be any costs included for covering company failures, this is down mainly to poor regulation so is the regulator and government's fault.
There should not be any costs added to cover non payment. Why should we pay for other people's bills? Pursue the non payers harshly and deduct it from their benefits."
"Could you imagine if your bank added a charge for other peoples unpaid loans, or your wifi provider - it just wouldn’t be allowed in any other industry. Bad debts are a risk of doing business"
Except that that energy companies are under a Universal Service Obligation, which means that they can't refuse a customer, and they can't cut off vulnerable customers. If we're going to have private companies supplying energy, we can't force them to take unprofitable customers, and then refuse to let them make up those costs. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The standing charge should be abolished, with network maintenance costs added to the unit rate.
There should not be any costs included for covering company failures, this is down mainly to poor regulation so is the regulator and government's fault.
There should not be any costs added to cover non payment. Why should we pay for other people's bills? Pursue the non payers harshly and deduct it from their benefits.
Could you imagine if your bank added a charge for other peoples unpaid loans, or your wifi provider - it just wouldn’t be allowed in any other industry. Bad debts are a risk of doing business "
Banks do, if you have a poor credit history the interest rate they offer will be higher. With a very poor credit history the banks won't lend, so people have to go to sub-prime lenders where the interest rate is very high.
For gas and electric I can't understand how debt is such a problem. If people don't pay then they should be put onto prepayment meters very quickly. These can be set to recover debt. Only some moaning minnies making noises last year stopped the practice of installing these meters. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The standing charge should be abolished, with network maintenance costs added to the unit rate.
There should not be any costs included for covering company failures, this is down mainly to poor regulation so is the regulator and government's fault.
There should not be any costs added to cover non payment. Why should we pay for other people's bills? Pursue the non payers harshly and deduct it from their benefits.
Could you imagine if your bank added a charge for other peoples unpaid loans, or your wifi provider - it just wouldn’t be allowed in any other industry. Bad debts are a risk of doing business
Except that that energy companies are under a Universal Service Obligation, which means that they can't refuse a customer, and they can't cut off vulnerable customers. If we're going to have private companies supplying energy, we can't force them to take unprofitable customers, and then refuse to let them make up those costs."
Prepayment meters. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I can't understand how debt is such a problem. If people don't pay then they should be put onto prepayment meters very quickly. These can be set to recover debt. Only some moaning minnies making noises last year stopped the practice of installing these meters."
The energy companies are not allowed to cut off supply to anyone over 75, or pregnant women, or anyone with a child under 5, or anyone with a mental health disability, or anyone with a severe health condition, or anyone with a terminal illness, or anyone that has an illness exacerbated by the cold. Installing a pre-payment meter would be against the law as the customer might not be able to afford to top it up, and would then be disconnected.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I can't understand how debt is such a problem. If people don't pay then they should be put onto prepayment meters very quickly. These can be set to recover debt. Only some moaning minnies making noises last year stopped the practice of installing these meters.
The energy companies are not allowed to cut off supply to anyone over 75, or pregnant women, or anyone with a child under 5, or anyone with a mental health disability, or anyone with a severe health condition, or anyone with a terminal illness, or anyone that has an illness exacerbated by the cold. Installing a pre-payment meter would be against the law as the customer might not be able to afford to top it up, and would then be disconnected.
"
The world has gone mad.
Can't pay, won't pay but still getting the service so everyone else has to pay more. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I can't understand how debt is such a problem. If people don't pay then they should be put onto prepayment meters very quickly. These can be set to recover debt. Only some moaning minnies making noises last year stopped the practice of installing these meters.
The energy companies are not allowed to cut off supply to anyone over 75, or pregnant women, or anyone with a child under 5, or anyone with a mental health disability, or anyone with a severe health condition, or anyone with a terminal illness, or anyone that has an illness exacerbated by the cold. Installing a pre-payment meter would be against the law as the customer might not be able to afford to top it up, and would then be disconnected.
"
And there for the non payment is picked up, buy everyone else. And so the cost gose up and up.
People moan about the cost but still have luxury items like wine, bear cigarette or drugs. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *I TwoCouple 48 weeks ago
PDI 12-26th Nov 24 |
Perhaps part of benefits should be paid in energy vouchers instead of cash which goes on sky TV and booze ?
If the government says they can't cut off vulnerable people then they should something to ensure they can pay |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Perhaps part of benefits should be paid in energy vouchers instead of cash which goes on sky TV and booze ?
If the government says they can't cut off vulnerable people then they should something to ensure they can pay"
People who use less energy than someone else would have a draw full of energy vouchers, with pre payment if you ain't got the money to top it up you ain't getting any energy no debt to anyone. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 48 weeks ago
Brighton |
Maybe we just need to admit that utilities should never have been privatised as they are being subsidised anyway by bill payers so why not just admit it is no different to tax payers. Instead of creaming off “profit” to pay shareholders, just reinvest. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple 48 weeks ago
North West |
"Maybe we just need to admit that utilities should never have been privatised as they are being subsidised anyway by bill payers so why not just admit it is no different to tax payers. Instead of creaming off “profit” to pay shareholders, just reinvest. "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Maybe we just need to admit that utilities should never have been privatised as they are being subsidised anyway by bill payers so why not just admit it is no different to tax payers. Instead of creaming off “profit” to pay shareholders, just reinvest. "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The standing charge should be abolished, with network maintenance costs added to the unit rate.
There should not be any costs included for covering company failures, this is down mainly to poor regulation so is the regulator and government's fault.
There should not be any costs added to cover non payment. Why should we pay for other people's bills? Pursue the non payers harshly and deduct it from their benefits.
Could you imagine if your bank added a charge for other peoples unpaid loans, or your wifi provider - it just wouldn’t be allowed in any other industry. Bad debts are a risk of doing business
Banks do, if you have a poor credit history the interest rate they offer will be higher. With a very poor credit history the banks won't lend, so people have to go to sub-prime lenders where the interest rate is very high.
For gas and electric I can't understand how debt is such a problem. If people don't pay then they should be put onto prepayment meters very quickly. These can be set to recover debt. Only some moaning minnies making noises last year stopped the practice of installing these meters."
Bank don’t. Banks write off bad debt. They create provisions while you are in financial difficulty and then they write off unpaid balances as losses.
Charging a higher interest rate on more risky customers is not the same as taking an unpaid debt and asking the other paying customers to pay fees unrelated to their own use to make the money back |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Could you imagine if your bank added a charge for other peoples unpaid loans, or your wifi provider - it just wouldn’t be allowed in any other industry. Bad debts are a risk of doing business"
"Banks do, if you have a poor credit history the interest rate they offer will be higher. With a very poor credit history the banks won't lend, so people have to go to sub-prime lenders where the interest rate is very high."
"Bank don’t. Banks write off bad debt. They create provisions while you are in financial difficulty and then they write off unpaid balances as losses."
And where do you think they get the money to cover that written-off debt? It comes from the bank's profits, and to make sure that the profit margin doesn't decrease, they pay slightly less interest to all of their customers in good standing. It's not a 'bad debt' charge per customer, but all of the customers end up paying to cover those bad debts. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 47 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"The standing charge should be abolished, with network maintenance costs added to the unit rate.
There should not be any costs included for covering company failures, this is down mainly to poor regulation so is the regulator and government's fault.
There should not be any costs added to cover non payment. Why should we pay for other people's bills? Pursue the non payers harshly and deduct it from their benefits.
Could you imagine if your bank added a charge for other peoples unpaid loans, or your wifi provider - it just wouldn’t be allowed in any other industry. Bad debts are a risk of doing business
Banks do, if you have a poor credit history the interest rate they offer will be higher. With a very poor credit history the banks won't lend, so people have to go to sub-prime lenders where the interest rate is very high.
For gas and electric I can't understand how debt is such a problem. If people don't pay then they should be put onto prepayment meters very quickly. These can be set to recover debt. Only some moaning minnies making noises last year stopped the practice of installing these meters.
Bank don’t. Banks write off bad debt. They create provisions while you are in financial difficulty and then they write off unpaid balances as losses.
Charging a higher interest rate on more risky customers is not the same as taking an unpaid debt and asking the other paying customers to pay fees unrelated to their own use to make the money back "
Any business providing a service should be baking loss into the their figures and that should dictate the end price to the consumer.
The most notable would be insurance, but it goes for everything from clothes to food.
As you mentioned banks, they offer products and charge for those products, bank account charges, overdraft charges, card charges, loans, shares, business accounts and so on, they are business selling products and they cover their losses on everything. Exceptions to this have been the banks own shortcomings, they have plugged that gap now. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *yth11Couple 47 weeks ago
newark |
"So bills are going down, they crow ... but standing charges are going up they whisper
So discuss..."
The grid is changing from a few predictable large power to many small unpredictable ones which requires a lot more cable and services such as batteries to keep the lights on. There is the question of what to do when there is too much renewables as firms still expect to be paid to turn off the wind mills and local community’s still expect their grant money. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Could you imagine if your bank added a charge for other peoples unpaid loans, or your wifi provider - it just wouldn’t be allowed in any other industry. Bad debts are a risk of doing business
Banks do, if you have a poor credit history the interest rate they offer will be higher. With a very poor credit history the banks won't lend, so people have to go to sub-prime lenders where the interest rate is very high.
Bank don’t. Banks write off bad debt. They create provisions while you are in financial difficulty and then they write off unpaid balances as losses.
And where do you think they get the money to cover that written-off debt? It comes from the bank's profits, and to make sure that the profit margin doesn't decrease, they pay slightly less interest to all of their customers in good standing. It's not a 'bad debt' charge per customer, but all of the customers end up paying to cover those bad debts."
This is reaching if you think its the same as what the energy companies are being allowed to do.
Here is another analagy
A restaurant creates a sales price assuming that each day there will be some unsold product that becomes waste and they make a loss from. They plan that into their business pricing.
What they don’t do is charge their customers an additional fee when someone orders a buffet for a private party, then doesn’t collect or pay for that buffet
The energy companies are not even pretending to bake it into pricing either. Its going right there on your bill as fee to cover unpaid bills |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The energy companies are not even pretending to bake it into pricing either. Its going right there on your bill as fee to cover unpaid bills "
I'll say it again, the energy companies are required to accept any customer that applies, and they are not allowed to cut off many of the people that can't afford to pay. How do you think that they should handle this? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The energy companies are not even pretending to bake it into pricing either. Its going right there on your bill as fee to cover unpaid bills
I'll say it again, the energy companies are required to accept any customer that applies, and they are not allowed to cut off many of the people that can't afford to pay. How do you think that they should handle this?"
Prepayment meters. Change the law if necessary. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I can't understand how debt is such a problem. If people don't pay then they should be put onto prepayment meters very quickly. These can be set to recover debt. Only some moaning minnies making noises last year stopped the practice of installing these meters.
The energy companies are not allowed to cut off supply to anyone over 75, or pregnant women, or anyone with a child under 5, or anyone with a mental health disability, or anyone with a severe health condition, or anyone with a terminal illness, or anyone that has an illness exacerbated by the cold. Installing a pre-payment meter would be against the law as the customer might not be able to afford to top it up, and would then be disconnected.
The world has gone mad.
Can't pay, won't pay but still getting the service so everyone else has to pay more."
Absolutely mad. Old people, babies and pregnant women should be made to freeze to death. It's the only sensible approach. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'll say it again, the energy companies are required to accept any customer that applies, and they are not allowed to cut off many of the people that can't afford to pay. How do you think that they should handle this?"
"Prepayment meters. Change the law if necessary."
And again, they're not allowed to install pre-payment meters for the majority of those people that aren't paying.
Are you really suggesting changing the law so that a pensioner that misses a payment can be cut off in the middle of winter? How would you deal with the headlines after a baby dies because its mother couldn't afford to pay for heating, and got cut off? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 47 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Could you imagine if your bank added a charge for other peoples unpaid loans, or your wifi provider - it just wouldn’t be allowed in any other industry. Bad debts are a risk of doing business
Banks do, if you have a poor credit history the interest rate they offer will be higher. With a very poor credit history the banks won't lend, so people have to go to sub-prime lenders where the interest rate is very high.
Bank don’t. Banks write off bad debt. They create provisions while you are in financial difficulty and then they write off unpaid balances as losses.
And where do you think they get the money to cover that written-off debt? It comes from the bank's profits, and to make sure that the profit margin doesn't decrease, they pay slightly less interest to all of their customers in good standing. It's not a 'bad debt' charge per customer, but all of the customers end up paying to cover those bad debts.
This is reaching if you think its the same as what the energy companies are being allowed to do.
Here is another analagy
A restaurant creates a sales price assuming that each day there will be some unsold product that becomes waste and they make a loss from. They plan that into their business pricing.
What they don’t do is charge their customers an additional fee when someone orders a buffet for a private party, then doesn’t collect or pay for that buffet
The energy companies are not even pretending to bake it into pricing either. Its going right there on your bill as fee to cover unpaid bills "
Which is it, a restaurant takes into account items that may go unsold or they don't, as both examples are not sold items the only difference being contracted to produce for the buffet, in which case most establishments take a deposit or full payment.
I would also add that billing by the utilities needs to follow strict guidelines to outline charges, unlike a restaurant that puts its product on sale at a price you can either pay or not, this does not need to include the cost of loss. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 47 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Could you imagine if your bank added a charge for other peoples unpaid loans, or your wifi provider - it just wouldn’t be allowed in any other industry. Bad debts are a risk of doing business
Banks do, if you have a poor credit history the interest rate they offer will be higher. With a very poor credit history the banks won't lend, so people have to go to sub-prime lenders where the interest rate is very high.
Bank don’t. Banks write off bad debt. They create provisions while you are in financial difficulty and then they write off unpaid balances as losses.
And where do you think they get the money to cover that written-off debt? It comes from the bank's profits, and to make sure that the profit margin doesn't decrease, they pay slightly less interest to all of their customers in good standing. It's not a 'bad debt' charge per customer, but all of the customers end up paying to cover those bad debts.
This is reaching if you think its the same as what the energy companies are being allowed to do.
Here is another analagy
A restaurant creates a sales price assuming that each day there will be some unsold product that becomes waste and they make a loss from. They plan that into their business pricing.
What they don’t do is charge their customers an additional fee when someone orders a buffet for a private party, then doesn’t collect or pay for that buffet
The energy companies are not even pretending to bake it into pricing either. Its going right there on your bill as fee to cover unpaid bills
Which is it, a restaurant takes into account items that may go unsold or they don't, as both examples are not sold items the only difference being contracted to produce for the buffet, in which case most establishments take a deposit or full payment.
I would also add that billing by the utilities needs to follow strict guidelines to outline charges, unlike a restaurant that puts its product on sale at a price you can either pay or not, this does not need to include the cost of loss."
Nationalise the Utilities. It’s clearly the only way. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The energy companies are not even pretending to bake it into pricing either. Its going right there on your bill as fee to cover unpaid bills
I'll say it again, the energy companies are required to accept any customer that applies, and they are not allowed to cut off many of the people that can't afford to pay. How do you think that they should handle this?"
When companies like centrica have rising profits and increasing dividends it wont matter how many times you say it, I am not going to agree that the right approach is to push the cost onto customers that do pay.
Regulators could make energy companies could set up funds to cover useage by vulnerable customers, the government could include energy supply as an essential element of benefit calculation like they do housing, the investors could shock horror accept that despite investing in a lucrative industry, that industry might have scenarios where it makes losses and they have to take the hit
There are multiple options that could be explored before pushing it onto other households or assuming it means the vulnerable should just have their energy supply cut off |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Could you imagine if your bank added a charge for other peoples unpaid loans, or your wifi provider - it just wouldn’t be allowed in any other industry. Bad debts are a risk of doing business
Banks do, if you have a poor credit history the interest rate they offer will be higher. With a very poor credit history the banks won't lend, so people have to go to sub-prime lenders where the interest rate is very high.
Bank don’t. Banks write off bad debt. They create provisions while you are in financial difficulty and then they write off unpaid balances as losses.
And where do you think they get the money to cover that written-off debt? It comes from the bank's profits, and to make sure that the profit margin doesn't decrease, they pay slightly less interest to all of their customers in good standing. It's not a 'bad debt' charge per customer, but all of the customers end up paying to cover those bad debts.
This is reaching if you think its the same as what the energy companies are being allowed to do.
Here is another analagy
A restaurant creates a sales price assuming that each day there will be some unsold product that becomes waste and they make a loss from. They plan that into their business pricing.
What they don’t do is charge their customers an additional fee when someone orders a buffet for a private party, then doesn’t collect or pay for that buffet
The energy companies are not even pretending to bake it into pricing either. Its going right there on your bill as fee to cover unpaid bills
Which is it, a restaurant takes into account items that may go unsold or they don't, as both examples are not sold items the only difference being contracted to produce for the buffet, in which case most establishments take a deposit or full payment.
I would also add that billing by the utilities needs to follow strict guidelines to outline charges, unlike a restaurant that puts its product on sale at a price you can either pay or not, this does not need to include the cost of loss.
Nationalise the Utilities. It’s clearly the only way."
With a nationalised energy provider what happens in the event that someone can't afford to pay and can't be cut off. Who foots the bill |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 47 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Could you imagine if your bank added a charge for other peoples unpaid loans, or your wifi provider - it just wouldn’t be allowed in any other industry. Bad debts are a risk of doing business
Banks do, if you have a poor credit history the interest rate they offer will be higher. With a very poor credit history the banks won't lend, so people have to go to sub-prime lenders where the interest rate is very high.
Bank don’t. Banks write off bad debt. They create provisions while you are in financial difficulty and then they write off unpaid balances as losses.
And where do you think they get the money to cover that written-off debt? It comes from the bank's profits, and to make sure that the profit margin doesn't decrease, they pay slightly less interest to all of their customers in good standing. It's not a 'bad debt' charge per customer, but all of the customers end up paying to cover those bad debts.
This is reaching if you think its the same as what the energy companies are being allowed to do.
Here is another analagy
A restaurant creates a sales price assuming that each day there will be some unsold product that becomes waste and they make a loss from. They plan that into their business pricing.
What they don’t do is charge their customers an additional fee when someone orders a buffet for a private party, then doesn’t collect or pay for that buffet
The energy companies are not even pretending to bake it into pricing either. Its going right there on your bill as fee to cover unpaid bills
Which is it, a restaurant takes into account items that may go unsold or they don't, as both examples are not sold items the only difference being contracted to produce for the buffet, in which case most establishments take a deposit or full payment.
I would also add that billing by the utilities needs to follow strict guidelines to outline charges, unlike a restaurant that puts its product on sale at a price you can either pay or not, this does not need to include the cost of loss.
Nationalise the Utilities. It’s clearly the only way.
With a nationalised energy provider what happens in the event that someone can't afford to pay and can't be cut off. Who foots the bill"
Tax payers. As I said higher up, bill payers are already subsidising anyway so there would be little difference other than all profits being reinvested rather than creamed off for shareholders. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 47 weeks ago
|
This charge is positioned as needing to help "to make sure suppliers have sufficient funds to support customers who are struggling".
That a suggests a loan to help liquidity but not mention of repayment.
It also ignores that such companies should plan for these cases and have contingency liquidity. Dividends should be stopped whilst you lean on your customers to keep you solvent. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'll say it again, the energy companies are required to accept any customer that applies, and they are not allowed to cut off many of the people that can't afford to pay. How do you think that they should handle this?
Prepayment meters. Change the law if necessary.
And again, they're not allowed to install pre-payment meters for the majority of those people that aren't paying.
Are you really suggesting changing the law so that a pensioner that misses a payment can be cut off in the middle of winter? How would you deal with the headlines after a baby dies because its mother couldn't afford to pay for heating, and got cut off?"
Yes.
Why has society moved so far that people can do things without consequence.
Can't afford children. Have them anyway, someone else will pay.
Don't save enough for retirement. Doesn't matter. Someone else will pay.
Want something but can't afford it. Shoplift. Doesn't matter, police won't turn up. Just make sure it is less than £200 then nobody is interested. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'll say it again, the energy companies are required to accept any customer that applies, and they are not allowed to cut off many of the people that can't afford to pay. How do you think that they should handle this?
Prepayment meters. Change the law if necessary.
And again, they're not allowed to install pre-payment meters for the majority of those people that aren't paying.
Are you really suggesting changing the law so that a pensioner that misses a payment can be cut off in the middle of winter? How would you deal with the headlines after a baby dies because its mother couldn't afford to pay for heating, and got cut off?
Yes.
Why has society moved so far that people can do things without consequence.
Can't afford children. Have them anyway, someone else will pay.
Don't save enough for retirement. Doesn't matter. Someone else will pay.
Want something but can't afford it. Shoplift. Doesn't matter, police won't turn up. Just make sure it is less than £200 then nobody is interested."
What about people who have children, are affluent, and then circumstances change, incurable illness, job lost etc? Should their children be left with no heating? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'll say it again, the energy companies are required to accept any customer that applies, and they are not allowed to cut off many of the people that can't afford to pay. How do you think that they should handle this?
Prepayment meters. Change the law if necessary.
And again, they're not allowed to install pre-payment meters for the majority of those people that aren't paying.
Are you really suggesting changing the law so that a pensioner that misses a payment can be cut off in the middle of winter? How would you deal with the headlines after a baby dies because its mother couldn't afford to pay for heating, and got cut off?
Yes.
Why has society moved so far that people can do things without consequence.
Can't afford children. Have them anyway, someone else will pay.
Don't save enough for retirement. Doesn't matter. Someone else will pay.
Want something but can't afford it. Shoplift. Doesn't matter, police won't turn up. Just make sure it is less than £200 then nobody is interested.
What about people who have children, are affluent, and then circumstances change, incurable illness, job lost etc? Should their children be left with no heating?"
Todays Guardian. Labour will need to find £12bn annually to lift people out of poverty. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *yth11Couple 47 weeks ago
newark |
The ownership issue is not as simple as just nationalise it as much is owned by governments who many want a closer relationship with.
For example if you nationalise UK EDF the French government is going to want full price plus some and it will cost billions hence labour’s slow build plan which will likely disappoint many as electricity is no longer a closed market meaning you do not have full say over the rules. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *usybee73 OP Man 47 weeks ago
in the sticks |
I don't understand it, imagine if marks and sparks put up there prices because Wilkinson went bust?
I've been in business for almost 20 years and can't work out how it's different rules for different players?
A cynic would ask, why punish your bread and butter customers as in those that pay every month or pre meter? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'll say it again, the energy companies are required to accept any customer that applies, and they are not allowed to cut off many of the people that can't afford to pay. How do you think that they should handle this?
Prepayment meters. Change the law if necessary.
And again, they're not allowed to install pre-payment meters for the majority of those people that aren't paying.
Are you really suggesting changing the law so that a pensioner that misses a payment can be cut off in the middle of winter? How would you deal with the headlines after a baby dies because its mother couldn't afford to pay for heating, and got cut off?
Yes.
Why has society moved so far that people can do things without consequence.
Can't afford children. Have them anyway, someone else will pay.
Don't save enough for retirement. Doesn't matter. Someone else will pay.
Want something but can't afford it. Shoplift. Doesn't matter, police won't turn up. Just make sure it is less than £200 then nobody is interested.
What about people who have children, are affluent, and then circumstances change, incurable illness, job lost etc? Should their children be left with no heating?
Todays Guardian. Labour will need to find £12bn annually to lift people out of poverty. "
13 years of Tory rule has been a great success. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Could you imagine if your bank added a charge for other peoples unpaid loans, or your wifi provider - it just wouldn’t be allowed in any other industry. Bad debts are a risk of doing business
Banks do, if you have a poor credit history the interest rate they offer will be higher. With a very poor credit history the banks won't lend, so people have to go to sub-prime lenders where the interest rate is very high.
Bank don’t. Banks write off bad debt. They create provisions while you are in financial difficulty and then they write off unpaid balances as losses.
And where do you think they get the money to cover that written-off debt? It comes from the bank's profits, and to make sure that the profit margin doesn't decrease, they pay slightly less interest to all of their customers in good standing. It's not a 'bad debt' charge per customer, but all of the customers end up paying to cover those bad debts.
This is reaching if you think its the same as what the energy companies are being allowed to do.
Here is another analagy
A restaurant creates a sales price assuming that each day there will be some unsold product that becomes waste and they make a loss from. They plan that into their business pricing.
What they don’t do is charge their customers an additional fee when someone orders a buffet for a private party, then doesn’t collect or pay for that buffet
The energy companies are not even pretending to bake it into pricing either. Its going right there on your bill as fee to cover unpaid bills
Which is it, a restaurant takes into account items that may go unsold or they don't, as both examples are not sold items the only difference being contracted to produce for the buffet, in which case most establishments take a deposit or full payment.
I would also add that billing by the utilities needs to follow strict guidelines to outline charges, unlike a restaurant that puts its product on sale at a price you can either pay or not, this does not need to include the cost of loss.
Nationalise the Utilities. It’s clearly the only way.
With a nationalised energy provider what happens in the event that someone can't afford to pay and can't be cut off. Who foots the bill
Tax payers. As I said higher up, bill payers are already subsidising anyway so there would be little difference other than all profits being reinvested rather than creamed off for shareholders."
Ok thanks. I thought it somehow helped but seems we will all get to foot the bill regardless of what supplier we use. I do get the profits not going to shareholders argument |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 47 weeks ago
|
"I don't understand it, imagine if marks and sparks put up there prices because Wilkinson went bust?
I've been in business for almost 20 years and can't work out how it's different rules for different players?
A cynic would ask, why punish your bread and butter customers as in those that pay every month or pre meter?"
given 2020, I wonder what the UK would look like without a little help. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Water charges not been mentioned unless I’ve missed it
Highest charges here in the southwest, billions of gallons of unharvested record rainfall and cue the hosepipe ban. And record leaks and illness caused by excrement in our reviews and sea.
While decades of privatised profits paid away to shareholders.in dividends. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Water charges not been mentioned unless I’ve missed it
Highest charges here in the southwest, billions of gallons of unharvested record rainfall and cue the hosepipe ban. And record leaks and illness caused by excrement in our reviews and sea.
While decades of privatised profits paid away to shareholders.in dividends. "
Are you metered where you are? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Todays Guardian. Labour will need to find £12bn annually to lift people out of poverty."
Then the Guardian are idiots.
Poverty is defined as having a household income of less than 60% of the average wage. If Labour start giving money to the poor, the average household income will rise, and the 60% threshold will rise with it. They'll end up paying loads of money to make no impact on the poverty figures at all.
Yes, it will make those peoples lives better, but the Guardian isn't saying that, it's saying that it'll lift people out of poverty, which it won't. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Water charges not been mentioned unless I’ve missed it
Highest charges here in the southwest, billions of gallons of unharvested record rainfall and cue the hosepipe ban. And record leaks and illness caused by excrement in our reviews and sea."
That's just not true. The amount of sewage leaking out of the systems has been steadily going down over the years, and the water companies have invested huge sums of money to properly process waste.
The only reason all the sewage release records belong to the privatised companies is that no one bothered to record sewage releases when they were nationalised. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Water charges not been mentioned unless I’ve missed it
Highest charges here in the southwest, billions of gallons of unharvested record rainfall and cue the hosepipe ban. And record leaks and illness caused by excrement in our reviews and sea.
That's just not true. The amount of sewage leaking out of the systems has been steadily going down over the years, and the water companies have invested huge sums of money to properly process waste.
The only reason all the sewage release records belong to the privatised companies is that no one bothered to record sewage releases when they were nationalised."
Swimming in discharged crap was never heard of, neither were big bonus payments to CEOs or dividends. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 47 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Could you imagine if your bank added a charge for other peoples unpaid loans, or your wifi provider - it just wouldn’t be allowed in any other industry. Bad debts are a risk of doing business
Banks do, if you have a poor credit history the interest rate they offer will be higher. With a very poor credit history the banks won't lend, so people have to go to sub-prime lenders where the interest rate is very high.
Bank don’t. Banks write off bad debt. They create provisions while you are in financial difficulty and then they write off unpaid balances as losses.
And where do you think they get the money to cover that written-off debt? It comes from the bank's profits, and to make sure that the profit margin doesn't decrease, they pay slightly less interest to all of their customers in good standing. It's not a 'bad debt' charge per customer, but all of the customers end up paying to cover those bad debts.
This is reaching if you think its the same as what the energy companies are being allowed to do.
Here is another analagy
A restaurant creates a sales price assuming that each day there will be some unsold product that becomes waste and they make a loss from. They plan that into their business pricing.
What they don’t do is charge their customers an additional fee when someone orders a buffet for a private party, then doesn’t collect or pay for that buffet
The energy companies are not even pretending to bake it into pricing either. Its going right there on your bill as fee to cover unpaid bills
Which is it, a restaurant takes into account items that may go unsold or they don't, as both examples are not sold items the only difference being contracted to produce for the buffet, in which case most establishments take a deposit or full payment.
I would also add that billing by the utilities needs to follow strict guidelines to outline charges, unlike a restaurant that puts its product on sale at a price you can either pay or not, this does not need to include the cost of loss.
Nationalise the Utilities. It’s clearly the only way."
What will be the overall benefit of this, and cost to achieve? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 47 weeks ago
|
"Could you imagine if your bank added a charge for other peoples unpaid loans, or your wifi provider - it just wouldn’t be allowed in any other industry. Bad debts are a risk of doing business
Banks do, if you have a poor credit history the interest rate they offer will be higher. With a very poor credit history the banks won't lend, so people have to go to sub-prime lenders where the interest rate is very high.
Bank don’t. Banks write off bad debt. They create provisions while you are in financial difficulty and then they write off unpaid balances as losses.
And where do you think they get the money to cover that written-off debt? It comes from the bank's profits, and to make sure that the profit margin doesn't decrease, they pay slightly less interest to all of their customers in good standing. It's not a 'bad debt' charge per customer, but all of the customers end up paying to cover those bad debts.
This is reaching if you think its the same as what the energy companies are being allowed to do.
Here is another analagy
A restaurant creates a sales price assuming that each day there will be some unsold product that becomes waste and they make a loss from. They plan that into their business pricing.
What they don’t do is charge their customers an additional fee when someone orders a buffet for a private party, then doesn’t collect or pay for that buffet
The energy companies are not even pretending to bake it into pricing either. Its going right there on your bill as fee to cover unpaid bills
Which is it, a restaurant takes into account items that may go unsold or they don't, as both examples are not sold items the only difference being contracted to produce for the buffet, in which case most establishments take a deposit or full payment.
I would also add that billing by the utilities needs to follow strict guidelines to outline charges, unlike a restaurant that puts its product on sale at a price you can either pay or not, this does not need to include the cost of loss.
Nationalise the Utilities. It’s clearly the only way.
What will be the overall benefit of this, and cost to achieve?"
https://www.gre.ac.uk/articles/public-relations/nationalisation-would-save-uk-billions-greenwich-research-reveals#:~:text=Professor%20Hall%20said%3A%20%22Based%20on,in%20less%20than%20seven%20years. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 47 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Could you imagine if your bank added a charge for other peoples unpaid loans, or your wifi provider - it just wouldn’t be allowed in any other industry. Bad debts are a risk of doing business
Banks do, if you have a poor credit history the interest rate they offer will be higher. With a very poor credit history the banks won't lend, so people have to go to sub-prime lenders where the interest rate is very high.
Bank don’t. Banks write off bad debt. They create provisions while you are in financial difficulty and then they write off unpaid balances as losses.
And where do you think they get the money to cover that written-off debt? It comes from the bank's profits, and to make sure that the profit margin doesn't decrease, they pay slightly less interest to all of their customers in good standing. It's not a 'bad debt' charge per customer, but all of the customers end up paying to cover those bad debts.
This is reaching if you think its the same as what the energy companies are being allowed to do.
Here is another analagy
A restaurant creates a sales price assuming that each day there will be some unsold product that becomes waste and they make a loss from. They plan that into their business pricing.
What they don’t do is charge their customers an additional fee when someone orders a buffet for a private party, then doesn’t collect or pay for that buffet
The energy companies are not even pretending to bake it into pricing either. Its going right there on your bill as fee to cover unpaid bills
Which is it, a restaurant takes into account items that may go unsold or they don't, as both examples are not sold items the only difference being contracted to produce for the buffet, in which case most establishments take a deposit or full payment.
I would also add that billing by the utilities needs to follow strict guidelines to outline charges, unlike a restaurant that puts its product on sale at a price you can either pay or not, this does not need to include the cost of loss.
Nationalise the Utilities. It’s clearly the only way.
What will be the overall benefit of this, and cost to achieve?
https://www.gre.ac.uk/articles/public-relations/nationalisation-would-save-uk-billions-greenwich-research-reveals#:~:text=Professor%20Hall%20said%3A%20%22Based%20on,in%20less%20than%20seven%20years."
High level figures, they do not contain the transition costs or the management / admin.
I think we should have state owned, corporate managed utilities. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Water charges not been mentioned unless I’ve missed it
Highest charges here in the southwest, billions of gallons of unharvested record rainfall and cue the hosepipe ban. And record leaks and illness caused by excrement in our reviews and sea."
"That's just not true. The amount of sewage leaking out of the systems has been steadily going down over the years, and the water companies have invested huge sums of money to properly process waste.
The only reason all the sewage release records belong to the privatised companies is that no one bothered to record sewage releases when they were nationalised."
"Swimming in discharged crap was never heard of ..."
Yes it was. Hence the introduction of the the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951, the Clean Rivers Act 1960, and the Rivers Act 1961.
Back in the 70s, the only people that could make accurate measurements of water quality were the water companies and the government. Today anyone can get kit off eBay and make their own measurements. That's why it seems like there's more pollution around, because people now have the ability to check it.
That, and the introduction of less bio-degradable sanitary products, like wet wipes, which now show up on beaches. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 47 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Could you imagine if your bank added a charge for other peoples unpaid loans, or your wifi provider - it just wouldn’t be allowed in any other industry. Bad debts are a risk of doing business
Banks do, if you have a poor credit history the interest rate they offer will be higher. With a very poor credit history the banks won't lend, so people have to go to sub-prime lenders where the interest rate is very high.
Bank don’t. Banks write off bad debt. They create provisions while you are in financial difficulty and then they write off unpaid balances as losses.
And where do you think they get the money to cover that written-off debt? It comes from the bank's profits, and to make sure that the profit margin doesn't decrease, they pay slightly less interest to all of their customers in good standing. It's not a 'bad debt' charge per customer, but all of the customers end up paying to cover those bad debts.
This is reaching if you think its the same as what the energy companies are being allowed to do.
Here is another analagy
A restaurant creates a sales price assuming that each day there will be some unsold product that becomes waste and they make a loss from. They plan that into their business pricing.
What they don’t do is charge their customers an additional fee when someone orders a buffet for a private party, then doesn’t collect or pay for that buffet
The energy companies are not even pretending to bake it into pricing either. Its going right there on your bill as fee to cover unpaid bills
Which is it, a restaurant takes into account items that may go unsold or they don't, as both examples are not sold items the only difference being contracted to produce for the buffet, in which case most establishments take a deposit or full payment.
I would also add that billing by the utilities needs to follow strict guidelines to outline charges, unlike a restaurant that puts its product on sale at a price you can either pay or not, this does not need to include the cost of loss.
Nationalise the Utilities. It’s clearly the only way.
What will be the overall benefit of this, and cost to achieve?
https://www.gre.ac.uk/articles/public-relations/nationalisation-would-save-uk-billions-greenwich-research-reveals#:~:text=Professor%20Hall%20said%3A%20%22Based%20on,in%20less%20than%20seven%20years.
High level figures, they do not contain the transition costs or the management / admin.
I think we should have state owned, corporate managed utilities."
As long as profits are not going to shareholders and are instead reinvested then if it is proven effective to outsource running/management for a reasonable fee then yes fine. But the contracts need to be water tight (pun intended) and designed to benefit the state not the corporate who load contract small print with a tonne of gas (intended) so they can stitch up the public sector through extortionate change control costs. Clear ramifications and penalties for mismanagement too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 47 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Water charges not been mentioned unless I’ve missed it
Highest charges here in the southwest, billions of gallons of unharvested record rainfall and cue the hosepipe ban. And record leaks and illness caused by excrement in our reviews and sea.
That's just not true. The amount of sewage leaking out of the systems has been steadily going down over the years, and the water companies have invested huge sums of money to properly process waste.
The only reason all the sewage release records belong to the privatised companies is that no one bothered to record sewage releases when they were nationalised.
Swimming in discharged crap was never heard of ...
Yes it was. Hence the introduction of the the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951, the Clean Rivers Act 1960, and the Rivers Act 1961.
Back in the 70s, the only people that could make accurate measurements of water quality were the water companies and the government. Today anyone can get kit off eBay and make their own measurements. That's why it seems like there's more pollution around, because people now have the ability to check it.
That, and the introduction of less bio-degradable sanitary products, like wet wipes, which now show up on beaches."
Even if that were true (and you haven’t touched on how the UK had more heavy industry that led to pollution in the 60/70s) does that mean it is ok to dump the amount of untreated sewage etc we have seen reported last couple of years? I don’t care what happened 50yrs ago in this space. I care about now. Huge amounts of things have changed including awareness of environmental issues. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Water charges not been mentioned unless I’ve missed it
Highest charges here in the southwest, billions of gallons of unharvested record rainfall and cue the hosepipe ban. And record leaks and illness caused by excrement in our reviews and sea."
"That's just not true. The amount of sewage leaking out of the systems has been steadily going down over the years, and the water companies have invested huge sums of money to properly process waste.
The only reason all the sewage release records belong to the privatised companies is that no one bothered to record sewage releases when they were nationalised."
"Swimming in discharged crap was never heard of ..."
"Yes it was. Hence the introduction of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951, the Clean Rivers Act 1960, and the Rivers Act 1961.
Back in the 70s, the only people that could make accurate measurements of water quality were the water companies and the government. Today anyone can get kit off eBay and make their own measurements. That's why it seems like there's more pollution around, because people now have the ability to check it.
That, and the introduction of less bio-degradable sanitary products, like wet wipes, which now show up on beaches."
"Even if that were true (and you haven’t touched on how the UK had more heavy industry that led to pollution in the 60/70s) ..."
I was talking specifically about sewage discharges. It was the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951 that introduced the BOD 20/30 limits for sewage processing, which is still used today.
"... does that mean it is ok to dump the amount of untreated sewage etc we have seen reported last couple of years?"
No.
"I don’t care what happened 50yrs ago in this space. I care about now."
But the people I was replying to do care about the past. They seem to think that it was a wonderland of clear unpolluted water, and that sewage discharges have only started happening after privatisation. They're wrong. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 47 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Water charges not been mentioned unless I’ve missed it
Highest charges here in the southwest, billions of gallons of unharvested record rainfall and cue the hosepipe ban. And record leaks and illness caused by excrement in our reviews and sea.
That's just not true. The amount of sewage leaking out of the systems has been steadily going down over the years, and the water companies have invested huge sums of money to properly process waste.
The only reason all the sewage release records belong to the privatised companies is that no one bothered to record sewage releases when they were nationalised.
Swimming in discharged crap was never heard of ...
Yes it was. Hence the introduction of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951, the Clean Rivers Act 1960, and the Rivers Act 1961.
Back in the 70s, the only people that could make accurate measurements of water quality were the water companies and the government. Today anyone can get kit off eBay and make their own measurements. That's why it seems like there's more pollution around, because people now have the ability to check it.
That, and the introduction of less bio-degradable sanitary products, like wet wipes, which now show up on beaches.
Even if that were true (and you haven’t touched on how the UK had more heavy industry that led to pollution in the 60/70s) ...
I was talking specifically about sewage discharges. It was the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951 that introduced the BOD 20/30 limits for sewage processing, which is still used today.
... does that mean it is ok to dump the amount of untreated sewage etc we have seen reported last couple of years?
No.
I don’t care what happened 50yrs ago in this space. I care about now.
But the people I was replying to do care about the past. They seem to think that it was a wonderland of clear unpolluted water, and that sewage discharges have only started happening after privatisation. They're wrong."
I will have to read back but I didn’t pick up on that. However, as you well know, the way someone posts can come across as providing a justification or create a whataboutism. Your post comes across as “well it’s ok as it happened when they were nationalised” implying it would continue to happen. Even if that was not your intent, it can be taken that way. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I will have to read back but I didn’t pick up on that. However, as you well know, the way someone posts can come across as providing a justification or create a whataboutism. Your post comes across as “well it’s ok as it happened when they were nationalised” implying it would continue to happen. Even if that was not your intent, it can be taken that way."
I can't control how other people will read my posts. Especially people that haven't paid attention to the previous posts, despite them being quoted for context. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 47 weeks ago
Brighton |
"I will have to read back but I didn’t pick up on that. However, as you well know, the way someone posts can come across as providing a justification or create a whataboutism. Your post comes across as “well it’s ok as it happened when they were nationalised” implying it would continue to happen. Even if that was not your intent, it can be taken that way.
I can't control how other people will read my posts. Especially people that haven't paid attention to the previous posts, despite them being quoted for context."
But the quote was only one person saying about not swimming in crap. You made it sound like lots of people hence me saying I need to read back. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I will have to read back but I didn’t pick up on that. However, as you well know, the way someone posts can come across as providing a justification or create a whataboutism. Your post comes across as “well it’s ok as it happened when they were nationalised” implying it would continue to happen. Even if that was not your intent, it can be taken that way."
"I can't control how other people will read my posts. Especially people that haven't paid attention to the previous posts, despite them being quoted for context."
"But the quote was only one person saying about not swimming in crap. You made it sound like lots of people hence me saying I need to read back."
First 50Shades stated that we were seeing record levels of sewage leaks, then Buddy claimed that swimming in sewage was unheard of. That's 2 separate posters, hence my use of the word 'people'. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 47 weeks ago
Brighton |
"I will have to read back but I didn’t pick up on that. However, as you well know, the way someone posts can come across as providing a justification or create a whataboutism. Your post comes across as “well it’s ok as it happened when they were nationalised” implying it would continue to happen. Even if that was not your intent, it can be taken that way.
I can't control how other people will read my posts. Especially people that haven't paid attention to the previous posts, despite them being quoted for context.
But the quote was only one person saying about not swimming in crap. You made it sound like lots of people hence me saying I need to read back.
First 50Shades stated that we were seeing record levels of sewage leaks, then Buddy claimed that swimming in sewage was unheard of. That's 2 separate posters, hence my use of the word 'people'."
Ok fair enough understood.
I think we agree that any amount of sewage in our rivers/sea/beaches is too much. I have no sympathy with these companies. They have extracted huge amounts of profit to pay dividends and used loans to finance investment that they cannot now afford and are passing the cost to customers. Defenders of privatisation say they inherited a shit show (literally it seems) from public sector but if you are going to invest in a business you need to undertake sufficient due diligence. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think we agree that any amount of sewage in our rivers/sea/beaches is too much."
We don't. The law currently allows very small amounts of sewage to be present in water discharged from treatment facilities. I think the level is about right, being undetectable by humans. Besides, our rivers and seas contain huge amounts of fish poo, but no one seems to care about that.
"I have no sympathy with these companies. They have extracted huge amounts of profit to pay dividends and used loans to finance investment that they cannot now afford and are passing the cost to customers. Defenders of privatisation say they inherited a shit show (literally it seems) from public sector but if you are going to invest in a business you need to undertake sufficient due diligence."
There's no point whinging about capitalism. If you want cleaner water, get the laws changed to make them provide it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 47 weeks ago
Brighton |
"I think we agree that any amount of sewage in our rivers/sea/beaches is too much.
We don't. The law currently allows very small amounts of sewage to be present in water discharged from treatment facilities. I think the level is about right, being undetectable by humans. Besides, our rivers and seas contain huge amounts of fish poo, but no one seems to care about that."
Ah ok we’ll go for pedantry and semantics. Right so do we agree that any amount above the legal limit set is too much?
"I have no sympathy with these companies. They have extracted huge amounts of profit to pay dividends and used loans to finance investment that they cannot now afford and are passing the cost to customers. Defenders of privatisation say they inherited a shit show (literally it seems) from public sector but if you are going to invest in a business you need to undertake sufficient due diligence.
There's no point whinging about capitalism. If you want cleaner water, get the laws changed to make them provide it."
Whingeing is how you start the process of getting laws changed. If enough people “whinge” eventually political parties will create policies to address the whingeing. So I will carry on thanks very much! Utilities like water are essential for life and a natural resource that should be owned by the state for the benefit of the people not commoditised and sold for profit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 47 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"I think we agree that any amount of sewage in our rivers/sea/beaches is too much.
We don't. The law currently allows very small amounts of sewage to be present in water discharged from treatment facilities. I think the level is about right, being undetectable by humans. Besides, our rivers and seas contain huge amounts of fish poo, but no one seems to care about that.
Ah ok we’ll go for pedantry and semantics. Right so do we agree that any amount above the legal limit set is too much?
I have no sympathy with these companies. They have extracted huge amounts of profit to pay dividends and used loans to finance investment that they cannot now afford and are passing the cost to customers. Defenders of privatisation say they inherited a shit show (literally it seems) from public sector but if you are going to invest in a business you need to undertake sufficient due diligence.
There's no point whinging about capitalism. If you want cleaner water, get the laws changed to make them provide it.
Whingeing is how you start the process of getting laws changed. If enough people “whinge” eventually political parties will create policies to address the whingeing. So I will carry on thanks very much! Utilities like water are essential for life and a natural resource that should be owned by the state for the benefit of the people not commoditised and sold for profit."
Do you know how much profit water companies make, it has been a repeated statement and with the words huge added too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think we agree that any amount of sewage in our rivers/sea/beaches is too much."
"We don't. The law currently allows very small amounts of sewage to be present in water discharged from treatment facilities. I think the level is about right, being undetectable by humans. Besides, our rivers and seas contain huge amounts of fish poo, but no one seems to care about that."
"Ah ok we’ll go for pedantry and semantics."
I think you mean accuracy and properly defined terms.
"Right so do we agree that any amount above the legal limit set is too much?"
Yes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 47 weeks ago
Brighton |
"I think we agree that any amount of sewage in our rivers/sea/beaches is too much.
We don't. The law currently allows very small amounts of sewage to be present in water discharged from treatment facilities. I think the level is about right, being undetectable by humans. Besides, our rivers and seas contain huge amounts of fish poo, but no one seems to care about that.
Ah ok we’ll go for pedantry and semantics. Right so do we agree that any amount above the legal limit set is too much?
I have no sympathy with these companies. They have extracted huge amounts of profit to pay dividends and used loans to finance investment that they cannot now afford and are passing the cost to customers. Defenders of privatisation say they inherited a shit show (literally it seems) from public sector but if you are going to invest in a business you need to undertake sufficient due diligence.
There's no point whinging about capitalism. If you want cleaner water, get the laws changed to make them provide it.
Whingeing is how you start the process of getting laws changed. If enough people “whinge” eventually political parties will create policies to address the whingeing. So I will carry on thanks very much! Utilities like water are essential for life and a natural resource that should be owned by the state for the benefit of the people not commoditised and sold for profit.
Do you know how much profit water companies make, it has been a repeated statement and with the words huge added too. "
I do (or did) but not off the top of my head. Do you? There have been plenty of threads detailing this before if you want to trail back through. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 47 weeks ago
Brighton |
Hey NotMe I am so kind I did a quick Google search. Loads on there for you.
This stood out (doesn’t directly answer your question admittedly) from Hansard June 2023…
“Water companies had no debt when they were privatised. Since then, they have borrowed £53 billion, and much of that has been used to help pay £72 billion in dividends.” |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 47 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Hey NotMe I am so kind I did a quick Google search. Loads on there for you.
This stood out (doesn’t directly answer your question admittedly) from Hansard June 2023…
“Water companies had no debt when they were privatised. Since then, they have borrowed £53 billion, and much of that has been used to help pay £72 billion in dividends.”"
I'm not sure this is correct...
Only one water company made profit in the 2021 - 20222, don't have the figures for 2023 yet.
And I can only see 4 water companies that are publicly trading, the rest are privately held.
I'm also unsure where you found dividends of 72 billion being paid out either?
Thames water losses amounted to 900 million, seven trent 700 million.
I think the optics are wrong, there would be no debt when they were privatised under the deal, as well as what you think the water companies are making and how them being state owned would change anything.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 47 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Hey NotMe I am so kind I did a quick Google search. Loads on there for you.
This stood out (doesn’t directly answer your question admittedly) from Hansard June 2023…
“Water companies had no debt when they were privatised. Since then, they have borrowed £53 billion, and much of that has been used to help pay £72 billion in dividends.”
I'm not sure this is correct...
Only one water company made profit in the 2021 - 20222, don't have the figures for 2023 yet.
And I can only see 4 water companies that are publicly trading, the rest are privately held.
I'm also unsure where you found dividends of 72 billion being paid out either?
Thames water losses amounted to 900 million, seven trent 700 million.
I think the optics are wrong, there would be no debt when they were privatised under the deal, as well as what you think the water companies are making and how them being state owned would change anything.
"
Suggest you take it up with Hansard and the Parliamentary Library! I assumed that would be a trusted source  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 47 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Hey NotMe I am so kind I did a quick Google search. Loads on there for you.
This stood out (doesn’t directly answer your question admittedly) from Hansard June 2023…
“Water companies had no debt when they were privatised. Since then, they have borrowed £53 billion, and much of that has been used to help pay £72 billion in dividends.”
I'm not sure this is correct...
Only one water company made profit in the 2021 - 20222, don't have the figures for 2023 yet.
And I can only see 4 water companies that are publicly trading, the rest are privately held.
I'm also unsure where you found dividends of 72 billion being paid out either?
Thames water losses amounted to 900 million, seven trent 700 million.
I think the optics are wrong, there would be no debt when they were privatised under the deal, as well as what you think the water companies are making and how them being state owned would change anything.
Suggest you take it up with Hansard and the Parliamentary Library! I assumed that would be a trusted source "
I don't need to, I'm happy with the info I have it adds up.
Putting that to one side for a moment, how would state owned water utility change the debt and quality? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 47 weeks ago
Brighton |
https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2023/jun/30/in-charts-how-privatisation-drained-thames-waters-coffers
Another interesting read.
As I said higher up, the Water Companies used borrowing to finance dividends. Now I always thought dividends could only be paid out of post tax net profit? Seems not. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 47 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/01/england-privatised-water-firms-dividends-shareholders
Guardian quoting water companies having paid £57bn in dividends since 1991."
Across the whole water industry, over 23 years = dividends of £57 billion... That is not a good ROI.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 47 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2023/jun/30/in-charts-how-privatisation-drained-thames-waters-coffers
Another interesting read.
As I said higher up, the Water Companies used borrowing to finance dividends. Now I always thought dividends could only be paid out of post tax net profit? Seems not."
Why are you letting this bother you? People have invested their money and it looks to be a poor investment.
If it became state owned how would the water companies be better? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 47 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Hey NotMe I am so kind I did a quick Google search. Loads on there for you.
This stood out (doesn’t directly answer your question admittedly) from Hansard June 2023…
“Water companies had no debt when they were privatised. Since then, they have borrowed £53 billion, and much of that has been used to help pay £72 billion in dividends.”
I'm not sure this is correct...
Only one water company made profit in the 2021 - 20222, don't have the figures for 2023 yet.
And I can only see 4 water companies that are publicly trading, the rest are privately held.
I'm also unsure where you found dividends of 72 billion being paid out either?
Thames water losses amounted to 900 million, seven trent 700 million.
I think the optics are wrong, there would be no debt when they were privatised under the deal, as well as what you think the water companies are making and how them being state owned would change anything.
Suggest you take it up with Hansard and the Parliamentary Library! I assumed that would be a trusted source
I don't need to, I'm happy with the info I have it adds up."
So you are going to ignore various links and just believe what you have (and change parameters to only look at Thames Water). You play a tricksy game NotMe and I don’t want to play. I have no insider knowledge on Water/Utility companies but will trust decent sources.
"Putting that to one side for a moment, how would state owned water utility change the debt and quality?"
I don’t know but I do know the current system has failed. I suspect (we need an economist) that debt would be covered by issuing of bonds/gilts. I think the cost of nationalisation would need to reflect the debt pile of each company so shareholders will have to take a hit (after years of unearned dividends financed through debt without questions - seems fair).
Quality again not sure but I doubt it could be much worse. Are you about to wheel out a trope about public vs private sector productivity? Apples and pears comparisons and all that? Even if public ownership was less effective (can you prove it wouldn’t be) if they borrowed it would all be used to finance infrastructure improvements instead of paying out divis so you get a commensurate improvement in quality there anyway! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 47 weeks ago
Brighton |
"https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/01/england-privatised-water-firms-dividends-shareholders
Guardian quoting water companies having paid £57bn in dividends since 1991.
Across the whole water industry, over 23 years = dividends of £57 billion... That is not a good ROI.
"
So why privatise? A failed experiment for short term gain to the Treasury allowing Thatcher’s Govt to look like they could run the economy well when that involved selling the family silver at knock down prices! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So why privatise?"
Mostly because the water companies were in a terrible state, and needed huge injections of cash to sort them out. This would cost lots of money and taxes would have to be raised. So instead they came up with the idea of privatisation - raising the necessary cash by selling shares. This gets rid of the problem, and the enormous debts that had already built up, and means that the government can blame someone else when the prices inevitably go up. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 47 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/01/england-privatised-water-firms-dividends-shareholders
Guardian quoting water companies having paid £57bn in dividends since 1991.
Across the whole water industry, over 23 years = dividends of £57 billion... That is not a good ROI.
So why privatise? A failed experiment for short term gain to the Treasury allowing Thatcher’s Govt to look like they could run the economy well when that involved selling the family silver at knock down prices!"
I'm not sure this again is correct, as Mr D said above, the amount of investment that was needed was taken off the shoulders of the country, but this is when you become blinkered on dividends.
Private investors are risking their finances and require a ROI, which we have already stated is not that great. If you want to saddle the tax payer with billions of debt and the billions needed in investment I think you might get high level socialist support for the concept of state owned, that is until taxes are raised across the board.
Not providing compensation to shareholders, by paying them for their holdings is another idea you mentioned, I think that is going down a very dark road. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 47 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"
So you are going to ignore various links and just believe what you have (and change parameters to only look at Thames Water). You play a tricksy game NotMe and I don’t want to play. I have no insider knowledge on Water/Utility companies but will trust decent sources.
"
I missed this part sorry.
I'm not sure why you believe I'm only looking at Thames water, only 1 water company made a profit 21-22 that was South West water.
Thames losses were over £900 million, Seven trent 700 million, Yorkshire Water over £300 million and others ranging between £230 million to 60 million.
South West water managed a profit of £114 million.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
So you are going to ignore various links and just believe what you have (and change parameters to only look at Thames Water). You play a tricksy game NotMe and I don’t want to play. I have no insider knowledge on Water/Utility companies but will trust decent sources.
I missed this part sorry.
I'm not sure why you believe I'm only looking at Thames water, only 1 water company made a profit 21-22 that was South West water.
Thames losses were over £900 million, Seven trent 700 million, Yorkshire Water over £300 million and others ranging between £230 million to 60 million.
South West water managed a profit of £114 million.
"
At 900 million a year loss, over 23 years that's 20.7 billion add 16.1, 6.9 for the 3 shown 43.7 billion that leaves 13.3 billion from the 57 billion for the others loss over 23 years, not far off the 57 billion payed out in dividends. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"At 900 million a year loss, over 23 years that's 20.7 billion add 16.1, 6.9 for the 3 shown 43.7 billion that leaves 13.3 billion from the 57 billion for the others loss over 23 years, not far off the 57 billion payed out in dividends."
I can't follow your maths, but I can see that it's wrong.
Companies can only pay dividends from profits. They can't go into loss or debt to pay dividends. If Thames Water posted a loss last year, they didn't pay any dividend at all. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 47 weeks ago
Brighton |
"At 900 million a year loss, over 23 years that's 20.7 billion add 16.1, 6.9 for the 3 shown 43.7 billion that leaves 13.3 billion from the 57 billion for the others loss over 23 years, not far off the 57 billion payed out in dividends.
I can't follow your maths, but I can see that it's wrong.
Companies can only pay dividends from profits. They can't go into loss or debt to pay dividends. If Thames Water posted a loss last year, they didn't pay any dividend at all."
And yet (and I cannot support this beyond articles already shared and others that google coughs up) £57bn in dividends has apparently been paid at the same time as these companies taking on huge debts to finance infrastructure investment. Perhaps they could have reduced their debt levels by using those post tax net profits they were using to pay dividends? Because they must have made at least £57bn in net post tax profit over the 23 years or how else were they paying dividends? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 47 weeks ago
Brighton |
From the Guardian piece linked above…
“Macquarie and its co-investors made their position clear from the start, hiking dividends in the first year of their operations, 2007, to £656m when profits were a fraction of that at £241m.
Over their 11 years of control, Macquarie and its co-investors paid out £2.8bn to shareholders, which is two-fifths of the total £7bn in dividends that Thames Water has paid between 1990 and 2022. The average yearly dividends paid during the Macquarie period were five times higher than those paid after it sold its final stake in 2017. The consortium that took over ownership of Thames Water in 2017 has not taken a dividend since, but the company has paid internal dividends – including £37m in the year to 31 March 2022.” |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"At 900 million a year loss, over 23 years that's 20.7 billion add 16.1, 6.9 for the 3 shown 43.7 billion that leaves 13.3 billion from the 57 billion for the others loss over 23 years, not far off the 57 billion payed out in dividends."
"I can't follow your maths, but I can see that it's wrong.
Companies can only pay dividends from profits. They can't go into loss or debt to pay dividends. If Thames Water posted a loss last year, they didn't pay any dividend at all."
"And yet (and I cannot support this beyond articles already shared and others that google coughs up) £57bn in dividends has apparently been paid at the same time as these companies taking on huge debts to finance infrastructure investment."
Is perfectly possible for a company to make a profit, and still take on debt. Any dividends paid must have been taken from that profit.
It's the same as you earning a wage, taking on a mortgage, but finding at the end of the year that you still have enough left to gift your daughter £100.
"Perhaps they could have reduced their debt levels by using those post tax net profits they were using to pay dividends?"
They could have done, but then they'd find it much harder to tap the shareholders for additional funds in the future. If a company isn't paying dividends, no one is going to want to invest. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 47 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"At 900 million a year loss, over 23 years that's 20.7 billion add 16.1, 6.9 for the 3 shown 43.7 billion that leaves 13.3 billion from the 57 billion for the others loss over 23 years, not far off the 57 billion payed out in dividends.
I can't follow your maths, but I can see that it's wrong.
Companies can only pay dividends from profits. They can't go into loss or debt to pay dividends. If Thames Water posted a loss last year, they didn't pay any dividend at all.
And yet (and I cannot support this beyond articles already shared and others that google coughs up) £57bn in dividends has apparently been paid at the same time as these companies taking on huge debts to finance infrastructure investment. Perhaps they could have reduced their debt levels by using those post tax net profits they were using to pay dividends? Because they must have made at least £57bn in net post tax profit over the 23 years or how else were they paying dividends?"
It is a business that needs to attract investment for it to invest, and as you say it has invested heavily in the UK infrastructure. You seem to be against the idea of people / businesses investing being able to get a return. Why does it bother you if they take loans and pay dividends?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Could you imagine if your bank added a charge for other peoples unpaid loans, or your wifi provider - it just wouldn’t be allowed in any other industry. Bad debts are a risk of doing business
"
I would assume that is one of the ways in which banks operate while staying solvent.
Probably the Wifi provider too and X number of other businesses, but they will be unlikely to tell you that even though it will show in their accounts, somewhere. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 47 weeks ago
Brighton |
"At 900 million a year loss, over 23 years that's 20.7 billion add 16.1, 6.9 for the 3 shown 43.7 billion that leaves 13.3 billion from the 57 billion for the others loss over 23 years, not far off the 57 billion payed out in dividends.
I can't follow your maths, but I can see that it's wrong.
Companies can only pay dividends from profits. They can't go into loss or debt to pay dividends. If Thames Water posted a loss last year, they didn't pay any dividend at all.
And yet (and I cannot support this beyond articles already shared and others that google coughs up) £57bn in dividends has apparently been paid at the same time as these companies taking on huge debts to finance infrastructure investment. Perhaps they could have reduced their debt levels by using those post tax net profits they were using to pay dividends? Because they must have made at least £57bn in net post tax profit over the 23 years or how else were they paying dividends?
It is a business that needs to attract investment for it to invest, and as you say it has invested heavily in the UK infrastructure. You seem to be against the idea of people / businesses investing being able to get a return. Why does it bother you if they take loans and pay dividends?
"
Only going to do one reply as I know what you and MrD are saying. I do not have a problem with normal companies that provide commodity services acting in the way discussed. My issue is that I strongly believe utilities should be state owned and be part of the national infrastructure, not commoditised to make profit from services that are essential for life. And I believe looking at the state of the Water companies it is pretty clear that privatisation has not worked or benefitted taxpayers.
If you (not YOU) want to start a business delivering products/services people want to buy (as opposed to have to buy) then I am all for encouraging those businesses to succeed. Not so utilities in my opinion. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 47 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"At 900 million a year loss, over 23 years that's 20.7 billion add 16.1, 6.9 for the 3 shown 43.7 billion that leaves 13.3 billion from the 57 billion for the others loss over 23 years, not far off the 57 billion payed out in dividends.
I can't follow your maths, but I can see that it's wrong.
Companies can only pay dividends from profits. They can't go into loss or debt to pay dividends. If Thames Water posted a loss last year, they didn't pay any dividend at all.
And yet (and I cannot support this beyond articles already shared and others that google coughs up) £57bn in dividends has apparently been paid at the same time as these companies taking on huge debts to finance infrastructure investment. Perhaps they could have reduced their debt levels by using those post tax net profits they were using to pay dividends? Because they must have made at least £57bn in net post tax profit over the 23 years or how else were they paying dividends?
It is a business that needs to attract investment for it to invest, and as you say it has invested heavily in the UK infrastructure. You seem to be against the idea of people / businesses investing being able to get a return. Why does it bother you if they take loans and pay dividends?
Only going to do one reply as I know what you and MrD are saying. I do not have a problem with normal companies that provide commodity services acting in the way discussed. My issue is that I strongly believe utilities should be state owned and be part of the national infrastructure, not commoditised to make profit from services that are essential for life. And I believe looking at the state of the Water companies it is pretty clear that privatisation has not worked or benefitted taxpayers.
If you (not YOU) want to start a business delivering products/services people want to buy (as opposed to have to buy) then I am all for encouraging those businesses to succeed. Not so utilities in my opinion."
I understand and have the same type of outlook except I would not want the state to run the business side of things, that would be the usual head on!
However, privatisation has buffeted the tax payer from increases in tax wholesale across the board. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Out of interest, if nationalising water companies is the best thing, why did the Blair / Brown government not do it. They are often held up as 'look how better it was during the last Labour government' so surely they should have done it, or is there a downside to it that's not so obvious. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
“ Water bills in England could be a quarter more expensive by 2030. But customers may not realise that almost 20p of every pound they pay goes to servicing company debts, rising to more than 25p for customers in some parts of the country.
England’s privatised water companies have a huge £60.3bn debt pile, which they say was taken on to fund essential infrastructure. The last 33 years of company accounts tell a different story about where the money from those loans has gone.
Between 1990 and 2023, English water companies have paid out a total of £53bn in dividends, meaning that they have given almost the same amount to shareholders as they currently have in debt.”
Falls from the sky free of charge, billions in dividends instead of infastructure and investment.
Sewage in the rivers and hose pipe bans
Rip off at best
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 47 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"“ Water bills in England could be a quarter more expensive by 2030. But customers may not realise that almost 20p of every pound they pay goes to servicing company debts, rising to more than 25p for customers in some parts of the country.
England’s privatised water companies have a huge £60.3bn debt pile, which they say was taken on to fund essential infrastructure. The last 33 years of company accounts tell a different story about where the money from those loans has gone.
Between 1990 and 2023, English water companies have paid out a total of £53bn in dividends, meaning that they have given almost the same amount to shareholders as they currently have in debt.”
Falls from the sky free of charge, billions in dividends instead of infastructure and investment.
Sewage in the rivers and hose pipe bans
Rip off at best
"
33 years of dividend payouts = debt they have today
Think about it… |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
