Dutto
Landlord.
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree that water company "profits" are somehow reinvested in the infrastructure.
Check out this article in the Sunday Times which can hardly be classed as a "left wing" paper with an axe to grind against big business.
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/business/Companies/article1582665.ece
Also, when considering "non-payment is an ever rising component of this cost" there must be a direct correlation between the increase in non-payment and the rising cost of water services.
Because we objected to the way our contract with the company was changed, and the way in which the changes were introduced, the water company assumed (mistakenly) that we were receiving government benefits and therefore offered us a subsidy if we gave them proof of the benefits we received.
We consider it an odious system whereby a commercial company charges so much for their product that they can offer poor people a refund if they prove that they are poor.
Especially when the product is one of the essential requirements of life!
Check out this article in the Sunday Times which can hardly be classed as a "left wing" paper with an axe to grind against big business.
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/business/Companies/article1582665.ece
Also, when considering "non-payment is an ever rising component of this cost" there must be a direct correlation between the increase in non-payment and the rising cost of water services.
Because we objected to the way our contract with the company was changed, and the way in which the changes were introduced, the water company assumed (mistakenly) that we were receiving government benefits and therefore offered us a subsidy if we gave them proof of the benefits we received.
We consider it an odious system whereby a commercial company charges so much for their product that they can offer poor people a refund if they prove that they are poor.
Especially when the product is one of the essential requirements of life!