Hampshire water bills to rise over next five years (From Daily Echo)
When news happens, text SDE and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
Plans include compulsory meters in every home by 2015
7:35am Wednesday 8th April 2009 in News
Hampshire water bills to soar over next five years
THE average Hampshire household could have an extra £44 plus inflation added to its water bill by 2015.
Southern Water says that it needs to hike fees by 12.5 per cent, before inflation, to pay for a £2.2 billion investment programme to keep the taps running for its four million customers.
It means that the average water bill for families receiving both water and wastewater services would rise from £353 to £397 over the next five years – the second highest increase in the country.
The proposals, outlined in the company’s new business plan, controversially include compulsory water metering for every home by 2015.
If approved by the industry regulator OFWAT in November, the price rise will be enforced from April 2010.
Comments(16)
Me pedantic?
says...
8:11am Wed 8 Apr 09
Gaa.
"...oh the suspense"
Ohhhh, the shame!!
Totton Ric
says...
8:14am Wed 8 Apr 09
Yet again we try to dig ourselves out of recession & get thrown back with more price hike’s, last week the government stuck another 2p a ltr on fuel,2 days before that the petrol companies also done the same (cant understand as crude oil is $48 a barrel),I suppose we have to pay for the fluoride treatment plants some how even if 99.9% of us didn’t want this.Whos next with the price hikes ??? ,Tax on air that we breath, **** tax for each time we **** ????
Totton Ric
says...
8:17am Wed 8 Apr 09
Vonnie
says...
8:51am Wed 8 Apr 09
Hmm. Result. Drop in overall consumption - good for the environment but not for Water Board profits and investor's dividends. Result. Water Boards hike prices per litre to the customer even higher simply to maintain the status quo.
Philip Ross
says...
9:34am Wed 8 Apr 09
fatboy
says...
9:36am Wed 8 Apr 09
All privatised by Maggie Thatcher to help the rich shareholders get richer at the expense of the poorer consumer.
All this with a toothless regulator!
I cannot forgive the conservitive for this, that said Labour are a bunch of sharks out for themselves and have crippled this country with the little regulated immigration and the lib dems are just pointless.
the BNP are starting to look credible, how bads that?
Bright Spark
says...
11:02am Wed 8 Apr 09
Well I don't get home from work until 1930 so they'll be cutting it a bit fine.
goard
says...
11:05am Wed 8 Apr 09
goard
now in the north
says...
11:29am Wed 8 Apr 09
The public were did not recieve the money, it went to the government. They did not recieve compensation either.
They based their bills on a rateable value that no longer exists, which means a single old woman pays £800 per year while the family of 6 down the road pays 260. Of course, she is about to opt for the meter. For others, it will be compulsory.
...
just like fluoridation!
Huffybear
says...
1:37pm Wed 8 Apr 09
greystonesben
says...
1:58pm Wed 8 Apr 09
goard
says...
2:55pm Wed 8 Apr 09
goard
Bill-B
says...
4:09pm Wed 8 Apr 09
Surely, Southern Water's stock holders should be paying for this investment programme.
Nod
says...
5:11pm Wed 8 Apr 09
Me pedantic? wrote:
"Plans include compulsory meters in every...". Oh the susoense!
OK; do the maths here:
after year 1: 5.6% rise - yep, agree that's not good.
After year 2: 3.2%, 1.8% and, finally, 1.3%.
The story "hike fees by 12.5 per cent" is a little too sensationalist here; given that the average rise over this term is 3%. That, I am sure would be inline with many many businesses's pricing needs.
That was five minutes I could have spent doing something less boring instead.
Okay, do the reading here.
"Southern Water says that it needs to hike fees by 12.5 per cent, before inflation"
so as the total average water bill after 5 years would be 12.5% more AND THEN each years inflation added on top. This is something that definitely should be challenged.
Big Boy
says...
6:27am Thu 9 Apr 09
Me pedantic? says...
8:10am Wed 8 Apr 09
OK; do the maths here:
after year 1: 5.6% rise - yep, agree that's not good.
After year 2: 3.2%, 1.8% and, finally, 1.3%.
The story "hike fees by 12.5 per cent" is a little too sensationalist here; given that the average rise over this term is 3%. That, I am sure would be inline with many many businesses's pricing needs.
That was five minutes I could have spent doing something less boring instead.