Greenwich homes to have water meters fitted

News Shopper: Greenwich homes to have water meters fitted Greenwich homes to have water meters fitted

Greenwich households will start to get water meters fitted later this year.

Thames Water says the devices help people use around 12 per cent less water, reduce bills and protect future water supplies.

The company will write to all customers affected and preparation work will start from June with meters screwed in towards the end of the year.

Customers will have two years to adjust before being moved onto a metered account unless they wish to switch early.

Thames Water’s head of metering Steve Plumb said: “We all have a vital role to play in reducing demand for water, but first everyone needs to understand what they are using. That’s why we’re fitting smart meters across our region as by knowing more we can all waste less.

“By using smart meters we will be putting our customers in greater control of their bills, using the most advanced technology.

“As part of this project we are offering everyone a free Smarter Home Visit, which has been carefully designed to help customers prepare for the switch onto a metered tariff and to help them find simple, but effective ways to monitor and reduce their water use.

“Metering is the fairest way to pay for water because you pay for what you use, value what you pay for and as a result tend to use water more efficiently.”

Around 27 per cent of Greenwich homes currently have a water meter which will rise to 42 per cent by the end of March next year when they will be rolled out in flats.

For more information visit thameswater.co.uk

Comments (8)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:50pm Wed 28 May 14

the wall says...

Can this be forced on to people??????? Not according to ofwat.
Can this be forced on to people??????? Not according to ofwat. the wall
  • Score: 2

5:10pm Wed 28 May 14

white rabbit9 says...

check this out:

https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=8vxbynyR
TFg

You are not paying for water you are paying shareholders.
check this out: https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=8vxbynyR TFg You are not paying for water you are paying shareholders. white rabbit9
  • Score: 2

8:31am Thu 29 May 14

PaulErith says...

For me, it should be compulsory. It's the only fair way to do it. Pay for what you consume.
For me, it should be compulsory. It's the only fair way to do it. Pay for what you consume. PaulErith
  • Score: 0

9:28am Thu 29 May 14

white rabbit9 says...

PaulErith wrote:
For me, it should be compulsory. It's the only fair way to do it. Pay for what you consume.
Pay for what you consume? But that is not what is happening. People are paying shareholders in the water company. So they are putting there pricesup to meet the way the system works in shares.

Same as gas, the system was set up and paid for, now who actually owns the gas that is on a planet. Who can say that anyone can say that gas is there's? Plus you are only paying for the administration costs of the gas meter that you are renting from the gas company. Again paying shareholders. It's privatization.

Same electricity, the system was set up so we all get some electricity fromt he grid but now thanks to privitization we are paying not for electricity but paying shareholders. The people that slaved to put up the grid got a wage but the people that own it can now charge (pardon the pun) what ever they like to pay the share holders. So again you are not paying for the electricity you are using but adminstration cost's as well.

It's all a CON CON CON. Corporations are taking over and their EGO's are getting so big people are going to die and I am talking millions, you and me as well.
Who financed the nuclear power stations into existence? The rothschilds!
[quote][p][bold]PaulErith[/bold] wrote: For me, it should be compulsory. It's the only fair way to do it. Pay for what you consume.[/p][/quote]Pay for what you consume? But that is not what is happening. People are paying shareholders in the water company. So they are putting there pricesup to meet the way the system works in shares. Same as gas, the system was set up and paid for, now who actually owns the gas that is on a planet. Who can say that anyone can say that gas is there's? Plus you are only paying for the administration costs of the gas meter that you are renting from the gas company. Again paying shareholders. It's privatization. Same electricity, the system was set up so we all get some electricity fromt he grid but now thanks to privitization we are paying not for electricity but paying shareholders. The people that slaved to put up the grid got a wage but the people that own it can now charge (pardon the pun) what ever they like to pay the share holders. So again you are not paying for the electricity you are using but adminstration cost's as well. It's all a CON CON CON. Corporations are taking over and their EGO's are getting so big people are going to die and I am talking millions, you and me as well. Who financed the nuclear power stations into existence? The rothschilds! white rabbit9
  • Score: 3

11:40am Thu 29 May 14

PaulErith says...

white rabbit9 wrote:
PaulErith wrote:
For me, it should be compulsory. It's the only fair way to do it. Pay for what you consume.
Pay for what you consume? But that is not what is happening. People are paying shareholders in the water company. So they are putting there pricesup to meet the way the system works in shares.

Same as gas, the system was set up and paid for, now who actually owns the gas that is on a planet. Who can say that anyone can say that gas is there's? Plus you are only paying for the administration costs of the gas meter that you are renting from the gas company. Again paying shareholders. It's privatization.

Same electricity, the system was set up so we all get some electricity fromt he grid but now thanks to privitization we are paying not for electricity but paying shareholders. The people that slaved to put up the grid got a wage but the people that own it can now charge (pardon the pun) what ever they like to pay the share holders. So again you are not paying for the electricity you are using but adminstration cost's as well.

It's all a CON CON CON. Corporations are taking over and their EGO's are getting so big people are going to die and I am talking millions, you and me as well.
Who financed the nuclear power stations into existence? The rothschilds!
I'm not referring to whether or not utility firms are privatised or nationalised. Either way, I still believe that the principle should be to pay for what you use. Even if run as a nationalised, non-profit making organisation, there is still obviously a cost for the service. i.e. the maintenance and day to day running costs, and the cost of water or gas employees. Therefore, water, gas and electricity will always cost money, and one should pay for what they use. Two key reasons for this. Firstly, I just think that it's fair. My grocery bill is determined by the amount I eat. I don't have to subsidise a family of 8 greedy people. It's the same principle. Secondly, it encourages people to be more economical with these resources.

As for the argument about privatisation versus nationalisation, I think that there are good points for both. Studies have shown that the actual service (in terms of efficiency and reliability) have improved significantly. The old nationalised services were not run very well at all. There may not have been shareholders, but there was lots of government red tape and admin that still pushed up the cost. I'd say that over the past few years, however, the privatised firms have got more and more greedy. For me, the best solution is a hybrid. Private firms should run them with competition so long as there is enforceable regulation from ofwat, etc. It should be possible for everyone to win.
[quote][p][bold]white rabbit9[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PaulErith[/bold] wrote: For me, it should be compulsory. It's the only fair way to do it. Pay for what you consume.[/p][/quote]Pay for what you consume? But that is not what is happening. People are paying shareholders in the water company. So they are putting there pricesup to meet the way the system works in shares. Same as gas, the system was set up and paid for, now who actually owns the gas that is on a planet. Who can say that anyone can say that gas is there's? Plus you are only paying for the administration costs of the gas meter that you are renting from the gas company. Again paying shareholders. It's privatization. Same electricity, the system was set up so we all get some electricity fromt he grid but now thanks to privitization we are paying not for electricity but paying shareholders. The people that slaved to put up the grid got a wage but the people that own it can now charge (pardon the pun) what ever they like to pay the share holders. So again you are not paying for the electricity you are using but adminstration cost's as well. It's all a CON CON CON. Corporations are taking over and their EGO's are getting so big people are going to die and I am talking millions, you and me as well. Who financed the nuclear power stations into existence? The rothschilds![/p][/quote]I'm not referring to whether or not utility firms are privatised or nationalised. Either way, I still believe that the principle should be to pay for what you use. Even if run as a nationalised, non-profit making organisation, there is still obviously a cost for the service. i.e. the maintenance and day to day running costs, and the cost of water or gas employees. Therefore, water, gas and electricity will always cost money, and one should pay for what they use. Two key reasons for this. Firstly, I just think that it's fair. My grocery bill is determined by the amount I eat. I don't have to subsidise a family of 8 greedy people. It's the same principle. Secondly, it encourages people to be more economical with these resources. As for the argument about privatisation versus nationalisation, I think that there are good points for both. Studies have shown that the actual service (in terms of efficiency and reliability) have improved significantly. The old nationalised services were not run very well at all. There may not have been shareholders, but there was lots of government red tape and admin that still pushed up the cost. I'd say that over the past few years, however, the privatised firms have got more and more greedy. For me, the best solution is a hybrid. Private firms should run them with competition so long as there is enforceable regulation from ofwat, etc. It should be possible for everyone to win. PaulErith
  • Score: -1

12:07pm Thu 29 May 14

the wall says...

PaulErith wrote:
For me, it should be compulsory. It's the only fair way to do it. Pay for what you consume.
But you don't you pay for the water you use, you are still paying for the water Thames Water loses down the drain from years of not fixing leaks. How do you know the meter has been calibrated correctly?
Don't believe the hype.
[quote][p][bold]PaulErith[/bold] wrote: For me, it should be compulsory. It's the only fair way to do it. Pay for what you consume.[/p][/quote]But you don't you pay for the water you use, you are still paying for the water Thames Water loses down the drain from years of not fixing leaks. How do you know the meter has been calibrated correctly? Don't believe the hype. the wall
  • Score: 4

12:22pm Thu 29 May 14

the wall says...

Forgot to add that Thames Water has paid no corporation tax, they also made over half a billion pounds profit yet they still put up the price 6.7%.

The large profits and complex tax arrangements of some water companies were morally questionable.
Forgot to add that Thames Water has paid no corporation tax, they also made over half a billion pounds profit yet they still put up the price 6.7%. The large profits and complex tax arrangements of some water companies were morally questionable. the wall
  • Score: 3

12:55pm Thu 29 May 14

PaulErith says...

the wall wrote:
PaulErith wrote:
For me, it should be compulsory. It's the only fair way to do it. Pay for what you consume.
But you don't you pay for the water you use, you are still paying for the water Thames Water loses down the drain from years of not fixing leaks. How do you know the meter has been calibrated correctly?
Don't believe the hype.
Agreed there are hidden costs, but I can say that when me and my girlfriend changed to a water meter, it worked out a lot cheaper than paying the flat rate.
[quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PaulErith[/bold] wrote: For me, it should be compulsory. It's the only fair way to do it. Pay for what you consume.[/p][/quote]But you don't you pay for the water you use, you are still paying for the water Thames Water loses down the drain from years of not fixing leaks. How do you know the meter has been calibrated correctly? Don't believe the hype.[/p][/quote]Agreed there are hidden costs, but I can say that when me and my girlfriend changed to a water meter, it worked out a lot cheaper than paying the flat rate. PaulErith
  • Score: -1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree