I think I must be going doo lally.

I have just had my twice yearly water bill. The bill for the last six
months is £195.39 which is a about 10% more than the prior 6 months but
then I have apparently used about 5% more water.

The bill then tells me that my average month water usage has a cost of
£36.19 which is wrong - as I make it £32.57.

The bill then advises me that I really should pay them monthly at a rate
of £69.

Am I alone in thinking that this really should not be permitted? To pay
at more than twice the actual rate of consumption? They do day they
will review it each time they bill me - but why start out at such an
unreasonable and excessive level?
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

krw <krw@whitnet.uk> wrote:
> I think I must be going doo lally.
>
> I have just had my twice yearly water bill. The bill for the last six
> months is £195.39 which is a about 10% more than the prior 6 months but
> then I have apparently used about 5% more water.
>
> The bill then tells me that my average month water usage has a cost of
> £36.19 which is wrong - as I make it £32.57.
>
> The bill then advises me that I really should pay them monthly at a rate
> of £69.
>
> Am I alone in thinking that this really should not be permitted? To pay
> at more than twice the actual rate of consumption? They do day they
> will review it each time they bill me - but why start out at such an
> unreasonable and excessive level?

“Dear Customer, it is in our interest rather than yours that you pay us an
exorbitant amount in advance of you using the water as this means you will
build up some lovely credit (which we will not be paying you any interest
on) with us to cover those rainy days when … err…. you will not need to
water your garden or fill any paddling pools etc. We like our customers to
feel relaxed about bills not mounting up so we have contrived … ahem …
calculated an easy payment monthly direct debit scheme for you ………”

--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan

On Sun, 18 Jun 2023 17:01:09 +0100, krw <krw@whitnet.uk> wrote:

>I think I must be going doo lally.
>
>I have just had my twice yearly water bill. The bill for the last six
>months is £195.39 which is a about 10% more than the prior 6 months but
>then I have apparently used about 5% more water.
>
>The bill then tells me that my average month water usage has a cost of
>£36.19 which is wrong - as I make it £32.57.
>
>The bill then advises me that I really should pay them monthly at a rate
>of £69.
>
>Am I alone in thinking that this really should not be permitted? To pay
>at more than twice the actual rate of consumption? They do day they
>will review it each time they bill me - but why start out at such an
>unreasonable and excessive level?

When they began I thought monthly DD payments a good idea to spread
the cost of variable bills and make it easy to not keep having to send
money manually but for a couple of years now they seem like a Bad
Idea. Bulb's estimate of what we'd spend was always insane and
changing the DD was only possible if increasing it.

On Sun, 18 Jun 2023 17:01:09 +0100, krw <krw@whitnet.uk> a gribouillé dans
la poussière...

>I think I must be going doo lally.
>
>I have just had my twice yearly water bill. The bill for the last six
>months is £195.39 which is a about 10% more than the prior 6 months but
>then I have apparently used about 5% more water.
>
>The bill then tells me that my average month water usage has a cost of
>£36.19 which is wrong - as I make it £32.57.
>
>The bill then advises me that I really should pay them monthly at a rate
>of £69.
>
>Am I alone in thinking that this really should not be permitted? To pay
>at more than twice the actual rate of consumption? They do day they
>will review it each time they bill me - but why start out at such an
>unreasonable and excessive level?

Baffling, although I believe the monthly payments by DD are only taken over
10 months BIMBAM.

I've been baffled by my water bill, paid by DD, since I had a meter fitted.
The first year they asked for £13.50 per month (rather than the £62 I had
been paying). It's just £11 per month now. I think I had some credits that
first year too.

I can only assume the meter readings are not actually used to calculate
usage, just to forecast how much I will use in the coming year.

--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2023 17:01:09 +0100, krw <krw@whitnet.uk> wrote:
>
>> I think I must be going doo lally.
>>
>> I have just had my twice yearly water bill. The bill for the last six
>> months is £195.39 which is a about 10% more than the prior 6 months but
>> then I have apparently used about 5% more water.
>>
>> The bill then tells me that my average month water usage has a cost of
>> £36.19 which is wrong - as I make it £32.57.
>>
>> The bill then advises me that I really should pay them monthly at a rate
>> of £69.
>>
>> Am I alone in thinking that this really should not be permitted? To pay
>> at more than twice the actual rate of consumption? They do day they
>> will review it each time they bill me - but why start out at such an
>> unreasonable and excessive level?
>
> When they began I thought monthly DD payments a good idea to spread
> the cost of variable bills and make it easy to not keep having to send
> money manually but for a couple of years now they seem like a Bad
> Idea. Bulb's estimate of what we'd spend was always insane and
> changing the DD was only possible if increasing it.
>
>

I'm surprised at that, Vicky. We frequently reduced our DD with no
problems.

--
Sally in Shropshire, UK

On 19 Jun 2023 18:06:38 GMT, Sally Thompson
<thompson.stonybrook@gmail.com.invalid> a gribouillé dans la poussière...
>Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com> wrote:

>> When they began I thought monthly DD payments a good idea to spread
>> the cost of variable bills and make it easy to not keep having to send
>> money manually but for a couple of years now they seem like a Bad
>> Idea. Bulb's estimate of what we'd spend was always insane and
>> changing the DD was only possible if increasing it.
>>
>>
>
>I'm surprised at that, Vicky. We frequently reduced our DD with no
>problems.

Me too, though it tended to be changed upwards a little soon after. Why do
these companies dislike round numbers so much?

When I first started using DDs (I was unwell, seldom opened the post, and
needed to ensure the bills got paid), these things seemed to be sensibly
calculated on a year which started in April. Sure enough, I was well in
credit by September and very close to zero credit by the following April.

I understand this isn't going to happen in these days of extreme
fluctuation of fuel prices, but do get annoyed that, when I have used no
gas at all, I still get charged 27p.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

On 20/06/2023 11:18, Penny wrote:
> On 19 Jun 2023 18:06:38 GMT, Sally Thompson
> <thompson.stonybrook@gmail.com.invalid> a gribouillé dans la poussière...
>> Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> When they began I thought monthly DD payments a good idea to spread
>>> the cost of variable bills and make it easy to not keep having to send
>>> money manually but for a couple of years now they seem like a Bad
>>> Idea. Bulb's estimate of what we'd spend was always insane and
>>> changing the DD was only possible if increasing it.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I'm surprised at that, Vicky. We frequently reduced our DD with no
>> problems.
>
> Me too, though it tended to be changed upwards a little soon after. Why do
> these companies dislike round numbers so much?
>
> When I first started using DDs (I was unwell, seldom opened the post, and
> needed to ensure the bills got paid), these things seemed to be sensibly
> calculated on a year which started in April. Sure enough, I was well in
> credit by September and very close to zero credit by the following April.
>
> I understand this isn't going to happen in these days of extreme
> fluctuation of fuel prices, but do get annoyed that, when I have used no
> gas at all, I still get charged 27p.

Do you have a leak?

--
Ric

In message <u6vr8n$315gp$2@dont-email.me> at Wed, 21 Jun 2023 22:49:11,
Joe Kerr <joe_kerr@cheerful.com> writes
>On 20/06/2023 11:18, Penny wrote:
[]
>> I understand this isn't going to happen in these days of extreme
>> fluctuation of fuel prices, but do get annoyed that, when I have used no
>> gas at all, I still get charged 27p.
>
>Do you have a leak?
>
I presume she was referring to the standing charge. Which e.on have told
me is going to change from 29.112p to 29.112p a day (yes, it isn't
changing), so Vicky's 27p is less.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"That was a great speech. Every thinking American will vote for you."
"That's not enough. I need a majority." - Mo Udall

Joe Kerr <joe_kerr@cheerful.com> wrote:
> On 20/06/2023 11:18, Penny wrote:
>> On 19 Jun 2023 18:06:38 GMT, Sally Thompson
>> <thompson.stonybrook@gmail.com.invalid> a gribouillé dans la poussière...
>>> Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> When they began I thought monthly DD payments a good idea to spread
>>>> the cost of variable bills and make it easy to not keep having to send
>>>> money manually but for a couple of years now they seem like a Bad
>>>> Idea. Bulb's estimate of what we'd spend was always insane and
>>>> changing the DD was only possible if increasing it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm surprised at that, Vicky. We frequently reduced our DD with no
>>> problems.
>>
>> Me too, though it tended to be changed upwards a little soon after. Why do
>> these companies dislike round numbers so much?
>>
>> When I first started using DDs (I was unwell, seldom opened the post, and
>> needed to ensure the bills got paid), these things seemed to be sensibly
>> calculated on a year which started in April. Sure enough, I was well in
>> credit by September and very close to zero credit by the following April.
>>
>> I understand this isn't going to happen in these days of extreme
>> fluctuation of fuel prices, but do get annoyed that, when I have used no
>> gas at all, I still get charged 27p.
>
> Do you have a leak?
>

Quite a few a day actually but I blame that on my prostate cancer…. Err…
Oh!

--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan

On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 22:49:11 +0100, Joe Kerr <joe_kerr@cheerful.com> a
gribouillé dans la poussière...
>On 20/06/2023 11:18, Penny wrote:

>> I understand this isn't going to happen in these days of extreme
>> fluctuation of fuel prices, but do get annoyed that, when I have used no
>> gas at all, I still get charged 27p.
>
>Do you have a leak?

Only when I sneeze. The 27p is the daily connection charge.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

Penny <spam@labyrinth.freeuk.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 22:49:11 +0100, Joe Kerr <joe_kerr@cheerful.com> a
> gribouillé dans la poussière...
>> On 20/06/2023 11:18, Penny wrote:
>
>>> I understand this isn't going to happen in these days of extreme
>>> fluctuation of fuel prices, but do get annoyed that, when I have used no
>>> gas at all, I still get charged 27p.
>>
>> Do you have a leak?
>
> Only when I sneeze. The 27p is the daily connection charge.

I had an email just this morning informing me that energy prices are going
down by approx. 17% shortly; they sent details of the projected reductions
in my energy charges - trouble is, this is referring to gas (which we do
not have).

--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan

On 22/06/2023 11:29, Mike McMillan wrote:
> Penny <spam@labyrinth.freeuk.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 22:49:11 +0100, Joe Kerr <joe_kerr@cheerful.com> a
>> gribouillé dans la poussière...
>>> On 20/06/2023 11:18, Penny wrote:
>>
>>>> I understand this isn't going to happen in these days of extreme
>>>> fluctuation of fuel prices, but do get annoyed that, when I have used no
>>>> gas at all, I still get charged 27p.
>>>
>>> Do you have a leak?
>>
>> Only when I sneeze. The 27p is the daily connection charge.
>
> I had an email just this morning informing me that energy prices are going
> down by approx. 17% shortly; they sent details of the projected reductions
> in my energy charges - trouble is, this is referring to gas (which we do
> not have).
>
Eat more roughage. That'll do it.

--
Ric

Joe Kerr <joe_kerr@cheerful.com> wrote:
> On 22/06/2023 11:29, Mike McMillan wrote:
>> Penny <spam@labyrinth.freeuk.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 22:49:11 +0100, Joe Kerr <joe_kerr@cheerful.com> a
>>> gribouillé dans la poussière...
>>>> On 20/06/2023 11:18, Penny wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I understand this isn't going to happen in these days of extreme
>>>>> fluctuation of fuel prices, but do get annoyed that, when I have used no
>>>>> gas at all, I still get charged 27p.
>>>>
>>>> Do you have a leak?
>>>
>>> Only when I sneeze. The 27p is the daily connection charge.
>>
>> I had an email just this morning informing me that energy prices are going
>> down by approx. 17% shortly; they sent details of the projected reductions
>> in my energy charges - trouble is, this is referring to gas (which we do
>> not have).
>>
> Eat more roughage. That'll do it.
>

Perhaps the email was just to give me wind of their intentions then.

--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan