Watering the garden (or more)

[Judith]

Say my neighbour is on a water meter - and I am not.

I guess there is no reason at all why I should not run a hose through to her
garden put a tap on the end - and let her water her garden all night with
sprinklers?

Even more : Is there any legal reason why she could not use that outside tap
for the supply of cold water to her domestic appliances?

PS Thames Water’s network loses 35,000,000 litres per day.

[Norman Wells]

On 13/08/2017 11:20, Judith wrote:
> Say my neighbour is on a water meter - and I am not.
>
> I guess there is no reason at all why I should not run a hose through to her
> garden put a tap on the end - and let her water her garden all night with
> sprinklers?
>
> Even more : Is there any legal reason why she could not use that outside tap
> for the supply of cold water to her domestic appliances?

It's almost certainly breach of contract and may be criminal fraud.

The water is supplied to your premises for you to use on those premises.

Some companies, including Thames Water, are in the process of fitting
compulsory water meters, presumably to dissuade those tempted into such
unlawful activities.

> PS Thames Water’s network loses 35,000,000 litres per day.

Is that better than it was?

[Roland Perry]

In message <kj90pcdoiarl1j454...@4ax.com>, at 11:20:33 on
Sun, 13 Aug 2017, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> remarked:

>Thames Water’s network loses 35,000,000 litres per day.

But it goes back into the water table or the drains, so not lost
forever, more en-route to being re-used.
--
Roland Perry

[Vir Campestris]

If Judith's neighbour leaves the sprinkler on all night most of that
will head the same way, and not up through the plants.

Andy

[Michael Chare]

On 13/08/2017 11:20, Judith wrote:

> Say my neighbour is on a water meter - and I am not.
>
> I guess there is no reason at all why I should not run a hose through to her
> garden put a tap on the end - and let her water her garden all night with
> sprinklers?
>

Your conscience perhaps?


--
Michael Chare

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Judith]

Well that's OK then - nothing to worry about there then.

I see that Thames Water have just been given the maximum £8.5m fine for missing
their leak target. Perhaps OFTWAT don't realise it just doesn't matter
because the water just goes back in to the water table and can be reused
(eventually)

[Judith]

On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 23:20:04 +0100, Michael Chare
<mUNDERS...@chareDO.Torg.uk> wrote:

>On 13/08/2017 11:20, Judith wrote:
>> Say my neighbour is on a water meter - and I am not.
>>
>> I guess there is no reason at all why I should not run a hose through to her
>> garden put a tap on the end - and let her water her garden all night with
>> sprinklers?
>>
>
>Your conscience perhaps?

eeeeer ........ no .................. I was looking for the legal reason.

[Tosspot]

Who are OFTWAT?

[Peter Johnson]

On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 16:15:52 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>But it goes back into the water table or the drains, so not lost
>forever, more en-route to being re-used.

Water used by steam locomotives goes to atmosphere and attracts a
lower charge as a result.

[Roland Perry]

In message <3ep1pcl3u25hflt33...@4ax.com>, at 00:55:02 on
Mon, 14 Aug 2017, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> remarked:

>>>Thames Water’s network loses 35,000,000 litres per day.

>>
>>But it goes back into the water table or the drains, so not lost
>>forever, more en-route to being re-used.
>
>Well that's OK then - nothing to worry about there then.
>
>I see that Thames Water have just been given the maximum £8.5m fine for missing
>their leak target. Perhaps OFTWAT don't realise it just doesn't matter
>because the water just goes back in to the water table and can be reused
>(eventually)

Yep, it's largely pandering to the public who see leaks in the road and
think the water is thus being "wasted". When it's not.
--
Roland Perry

[Paul Cummins]

In article <evb3bc...@mid.individual.net>, h...@unseen.ac.am (Norman

Wells) wrote:

> It's almost certainly breach of contract and may be criminal fraud.

Cite please. I see nothing in my water supply contract suggesting that at
all

> The water is supplied to your premises for you to use on those
> premises.

So I am not allowed to use it in my car as coolant or windscreen washer,
or to make drinks for when I travel? Again, nothing like that in my Water
Supply contract.

> tempted into such
> unlawful activities.

Again cite please.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Free 40 satoshi/min bitcoin mining
https://btcprominer.life/260604

[Judith]

On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 14:43:08 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:

>On 13/08/2017 11:20, Judith wrote:
>> Say my neighbour is on a water meter - and I am not.
>>
>> I guess there is no reason at all why I should not run a hose through to her
>> garden put a tap on the end - and let her water her garden all night with
>> sprinklers?
>>
>> Even more : Is there any legal reason why she could not use that outside tap
>> for the supply of cold water to her domestic appliances?
>
>It's almost certainly breach of contract and may be criminal fraud.

>The water is supplied to your premises for you to use on those premises.

And you know this how? I'm guessing you have seen a contract - what did it say
please which enabled you to give the clear legal position?

So if I put my sprinkler on and half the water goes over the fence and waters
the neighbours lawn and half on my lawn - then I have broken the contract?

Bugger: I think I'll just run an extension under the ground from my watering
system which comes on every night for a couple of hours and waters all of my
vegetable patches and do hers as well.

It's really good value : but I'm not on a meter.

[Roland Perry]

In message <5hj1pc91es753val8...@4ax.com>, at 23:11:03 on
Sun, 13 Aug 2017, Peter Johnson <pe...@parksidewood.nospam> remarked:

>>But it goes back into the water table or the drains, so not lost
>>forever, more en-route to being re-used.
>
>Water used by steam locomotives goes to atmosphere and attracts a
>lower charge as a result.

Water supply is one of those strange things where the raw material
arrives free of charge (as rain or runoff through the water table), yet
people get charged for its use *and* (usually even more) for taking it
away again.
--
Roland Perry

[RobertL]

On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 11:23:15 AM UTC+1, Judith wrote:
> Say my neighbour is on a water meter - and I am not.
>
> I guess there is no reason at all why I should not run a hose through to her
> garden put a tap on the end - and let her water her garden all night with
> sprinklers?

Others are discussing whether you are allowed supply water to your neighbour. I would add that, IIRC, some water supply contracts forbid the use of a sprinkler - i.e. you can use a hose only if it is held in your hand.


Robert

[TTman]

On 14/08/2017 06:14, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <3ep1pcl3u25hflt33...@4ax.com>, at 00:55:02 on
> Mon, 14 Aug 2017, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> remarked:
>

>>>> Thames Water’s network loses 35,000,000 litres per day.

>>>
>>> But it goes back into the water table or the drains, so not lost
>>> forever, more en-route to being re-used.
>>
>> Well that's OK then - nothing to worry about there then.
>>

>> I see that Thames Water have just been given the maximum £8.5m fine for missing

>> their leak target. Perhaps OFTWAT don't realise it just doesn't matter
>> because the water just goes back in to the water table and can be reused
>> (eventually)
>
> Yep, it's largely pandering to the public who see leaks in the road and
> think the water is thus being "wasted". When it's not.
>

Agreed... a few water leaks here and there aren't an issue. It's when
they turn into a major eruption and cause huge damage all round that is
an issue.
To fill my huge Koi pond ( years ago) I persuaded the neighbours each
side to put their hoses in - 3 times the fill speed for 6000 gallons :)
That was pre meter days.
Anyway, what goes on in private between neighbours is nobody's business LOL

[Roland Perry]

In message <17317617-eec0-4552...@googlegroups.com>, at
00:22:23 on Mon, 14 Aug 2017, RobertL <rober...@yahoo.com> remarked:

>> Say my neighbour is on a water meter - and I am not.
>>
>> I guess there is no reason at all why I should not run a hose through to her
>> garden put a tap on the end - and let her water her garden all night with
>> sprinklers?
>
>
>Others are discussing whether you are allowed supply water to your neighbour.
>I would add that, IIRC, some

unmetered?

>water supply contracts forbid the use of a sprinkler - i.e. you can use a hose
>only if it is held in your hand.

And even then, they have "hosepipe bans" from time to time.
--
Roland Perry

[Norman Wells]

On 13/08/2017 19:28, Paul Cummins wrote:
> In article <evb3bc...@mid.individual.net>, h...@unseen.ac.am (Norman
> Wells) wrote:
>
>> It's almost certainly breach of contract and may be criminal fraud.
>
> Cite please. I see nothing in my water supply contract suggesting that at
> all

Since you apparently have one, please tell us its terms so that we can
see for ourselves.

>> The water is supplied to your premises for you to use on those
>> premises.
>
> So I am not allowed to use it in my car as coolant or windscreen washer,
> or to make drinks for when I travel? Again, nothing like that in my Water
> Supply contract.

De minimis. Besides, those uses are private and domestic and on the
premises of the person who is paying for the supply.

>> tempted into such unlawful activities.
>
> Again cite please.

Breach of contract is unlawful. So too is criminal fraud.

[Roland Perry]

In message <omrk6n$ac1$1...@dont-email.me>, at 08:45:22 on Mon, 14 Aug
2017, TTman <pcw1...@ntlworld.com> remarked:

>To fill my huge Koi pond ( years ago) I persuaded the neighbours each
>side to put their hoses in - 3 times the fill speed for 6000 gallons :)
>That was pre meter days.

About 2 months worth of average consumption, so perhaps £40?
--
Roland Perry

[Norman Wells]

On 14/08/2017 00:50, Judith wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 14:43:08 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>> On 13/08/2017 11:20, Judith wrote:

>>> Say my neighbour is on a water meter - and I am not.
>>>
>>> I guess there is no reason at all why I should not run a hose through to her
>>> garden put a tap on the end - and let her water her garden all night with
>>> sprinklers?
>>>
>>> Even more : Is there any legal reason why she could not use that outside tap
>>> for the supply of cold water to her domestic appliances?
>>
>> It's almost certainly breach of contract and may be criminal fraud.
>
>> The water is supplied to your premises for you to use on those premises.
>
> And you know this how? I'm guessing you have seen a contract - what did it say
> please which enabled you to give the clear legal position?

"If you are the owner, or occupier, of a property you can ask a provider
to make a new connection for water that will be used for domestic purposes.

Domestic purposes include water used for:

washing – washing machines, dishwashers;
cooking; and/or
sanitary facilities – toilets, bathrooms, showers."

"If you are the owner or occupier of a property you can ask a provider
to make a new connection for water that will be used for non-domestic
purposes. Non-domestic use includes water for:

Commercial or industrial use;
An outside garden tap; and/or
A swimming pool.
When considering your request for a non-domestic supply the water
company must make sure that it can meet all existing and potential
demand for domestic purposes. To get a new water connection for
non-domestic purposes you will need to agree terms and conditions,
including the charge, with the water company."

http://www.ofwat.gov.uk/households/supply-and-standards/getting-a-connection/

> So if I put my sprinkler on and half the water goes over the fence and waters
> the neighbours lawn and half on my lawn - then I have broken the contract?

Yes.

If you have an outside tap, it says above you need to agree terms and
conditions with your water company.

Have you done so?

> Bugger: I think I'll just run an extension under the ground from my watering
> system which comes on every night for a couple of hours and waters all of my
> vegetable patches and do hers as well.
>
> It's really good value : but I'm not on a meter.

It's also unlawful.

[Roland Perry]

In message <evd3ef...@mid.individual.net>, at 08:57:04 on Mon, 14
Aug 2017, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

>Commercial or industrial use;
>An outside garden tap; and/or

...

> To get a new water connection for
>non-domestic purposes you will need to agree terms and conditions,
>including the charge, with the water company."
>
>http://www.ofwat.gov.uk/households/supply-and-standards/getting-a-connection/
>
>> So if I put my sprinkler on and half the water goes over the fence and waters
>> the neighbours lawn and half on my lawn - then I have broken the contract?
>
>Yes.
>
>If you have an outside tap, it says above you need to agree terms and
>conditions with your water company.

It says the person who installed that [new] tap, not the user.
--
Roland Perry

[Allan]

On 13/08/2017 11:20, Judith wrote:

I've never understood why it is still possible to have unlimited water
consumption (unmetered) when most other domestic supplies (e.g.
electricity, gas, broadband data, phone) are mostly metered or capped or
fair use policies. Water is increasingly scarce and the demand is
continually increasing. Some encouragement to be careful with water
would not go amiss, and cost is a fairly powerful encouragement.
There'll always be someone claiming that someone will be disadvantaged
by compulsory meters, but we'll all be disadvantaged if water runs out...

[Robin]

On 14/08/2017 10:13, Allan wrote:
><snip>

>
> I've never understood why it is still possible to have unlimited water
> consumption (unmetered) when most other domestic supplies (e.g.
> electricity, gas, broadband data, phone) are mostly metered or capped or
> fair use policies. Water is increasingly scarce and the demand is
> continually increasing. Some encouragement to be careful with water
> would not go amiss, and cost is a fairly powerful encouragement.
> There'll always be someone claiming that someone will be disadvantaged
> by compulsory meters, but we'll all be disadvantaged if water runs out...
>

A large number of people in Parliament consider access to clean water
and sanitation to be a basic human right. Hence the way that water
companies are not permitted to cut off or restrict a domestic supply,
even if owed thousands of pounds and water is being wasted. Naturally
this is well known to many occupiers. Hence each customer who does pay
subsidises those who don't by about £20 a year. That's on top of the
subsidies in the form of special tariffs/caps on bills for some of those
on benefits. .


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

[Norman Wells]

And you think any agreed terms and conditions don't pass on to any new
owner of the property?

[Norman Wells]

On 14/08/2017 10:13, Allan wrote:

> On 13/08/2017 11:20, Judith wrote:
>> Say my neighbour is on a water meter - and I am not.
>>
>> I guess there is no reason at all why I should not run a hose through to her
>> garden put a tap on the end - and let her water her garden all night with
>> sprinklers?
>>
>> Even more : Is there any legal reason why she could not use that outside tap
>> for the supply of cold water to her domestic appliances?
>>

>> PS Thames Water’s network loses 35,000,000 litres per day.

>
> I've never understood why it is still possible to have unlimited water
> consumption (unmetered) when most other domestic supplies (e.g.
> electricity, gas, broadband data, phone) are mostly metered or capped or
> fair use policies. Water is increasingly scarce and the demand is
> continually increasing. Some encouragement to be careful with water
> would not go amiss, and cost is a fairly powerful encouragement.
> There'll always be someone claiming that someone will be disadvantaged
> by compulsory meters, but we'll all be disadvantaged if water runs out...

It does tend to fall from the sky, though, sometimes in prodigious
quantities, and all for free. I've not noticed that with gas or
electricity.

Given that there's an average rainfall in this country of 33 inches a
year, there's no shortage of the stuff here and there shouldn't be,
ever. If there are short-term problems you can put it down to
mismanagement rather than people's irresponsibility.

If the water companies say we need meters to encourage us to use less of
what they ought to be supplying in abundance, I think that's a damning
indictment of their own efficiency. Added to which, of course, is the
astronomical cost of making, installing, maintaining and periodically
replacing the things. If you had to get a plumber in to install a meter
privately, how much do you think that would cost you? Whatever that is,
it will all go on your bill in some concealed way.

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 10:36:57 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>On 14/08/2017 10:13, Allan wrote:
>> On 13/08/2017 11:20, Judith wrote:
>>> Say my neighbour is on a water meter - and I am not.
>>>
>>> I guess there is no reason at all why I should not run a hose through to her
>>> garden put a tap on the end - and let her water her garden all night with
>>> sprinklers?
>>>
>>> Even more : Is there any legal reason why she could not use that outside tap
>>> for the supply of cold water to her domestic appliances?
>>>
>>> PS Thames Water’s network loses 35,000,000 litres per day.
>>
>> I've never understood why it is still possible to have unlimited water
>> consumption (unmetered) when most other domestic supplies (e.g.
>> electricity, gas, broadband data, phone) are mostly metered or capped or
>> fair use policies. Water is increasingly scarce and the demand is
>> continually increasing. Some encouragement to be careful with water
>> would not go amiss, and cost is a fairly powerful encouragement.
>> There'll always be someone claiming that someone will be disadvantaged
>> by compulsory meters, but we'll all be disadvantaged if water runs out...
>
>It does tend to fall from the sky, though, sometimes in prodigious
>quantities, and all for free. I've not noticed that with gas or
>electricity.
>
>Given that there's an average rainfall in this country of 33 inches a
>year, there's no shortage of the stuff here and there shouldn't be,
>ever. If there are short-term problems you can put it down to
>mismanagement rather than people's irresponsibility.

The water itself is free, but treating it and supplying it incurs a
cost. And the supply of larger quantities requires larger capacity
infrastructure, which costs more to install and maintain. So it's not
unreasonable to charge consumers on a metered basis.

After all, if anyone thinks they are paying too much for their metered
water, they can always collect it for themselves when it falls from
the sky over their house.

Mark

[Harry Bloomfield]

Norman Wells submitted this idea :

> If the water companies say we need meters to encourage us to use less of
> what they ought to be supplying in abundance, I think that's a damning
> indictment of their own efficiency. Added to which, of course, is the
> astronomical cost of making, installing, maintaining and periodically
> replacing the things. If you had to get a plumber in to install a meter
> privately, how much do you think that would cost you? Whatever that is,
> it will all go on your bill in some concealed way.

Originally it was so cheap to supply, it wasn't worth metering. Often
one tap per dwelling, no fixed baths or showers, no washing machines or
dishwashers. Since then consumption has increased massively, to the
point where water often has to be transported hundreds of miles around
the UK to the high usage areas. Wales feeds great quantities of water
to England and the treatment and infrastructure are what cost, not the
water itself.

[Roland Perry]

In message <evd9bv...@mid.individual.net>, at 10:38:08 on Mon, 14

In the sense that to new owner does not seek to gain permission for a
"new" tap which already exists, then yes.

Sounds like yet another thing to add to the enquiries before sale.
--
Roland Perry

[ingram....@gmail.com]

On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 12:06:04 PM UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
...

> Given that there's an average rainfall in this country of 33 inches a
> year, there's no shortage of the stuff here and there shouldn't be,
> ever. If there are short-term problems you can put it down to
> mismanagement rather than people's irresponsibility.

...

Still got to collect, purify and distribute it. I'm lucky to have a bit of a garden and over the years an average annual rainfall of 673 mm. By my sums I'd get about 80 cubic metres a year if I collected everything that fell on the whole site, against my quite frugal usage of about 68 m^3 a year.

nib

[ingram....@gmail.com]

On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 9:14:50 AM UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
...- 3 times the fill speed for 6000 gallons :)

> >That was pre meter days.
>
> About 2 months worth of average consumption, so perhaps £40?
> --
> Roland Perry

At the rate I pay (Anglian Water): 6000 UKgall ~ 27 m^3 ~ 80 quid!

nib

[Norman Wells]

On 14/08/2017 12:46, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 10:36:57 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>> On 14/08/2017 10:13, Allan wrote:
>>> On 13/08/2017 11:20, Judith wrote:
>>>> Say my neighbour is on a water meter - and I am not.
>>>>
>>>> I guess there is no reason at all why I should not run a hose through to her
>>>> garden put a tap on the end - and let her water her garden all night with
>>>> sprinklers?
>>>>
>>>> Even more : Is there any legal reason why she could not use that outside tap
>>>> for the supply of cold water to her domestic appliances?
>>>>

>>>> PS Thames Water’s network loses 35,000,000 litres per day.

>>>
>>> I've never understood why it is still possible to have unlimited water
>>> consumption (unmetered) when most other domestic supplies (e.g.
>>> electricity, gas, broadband data, phone) are mostly metered or capped or
>>> fair use policies. Water is increasingly scarce and the demand is
>>> continually increasing. Some encouragement to be careful with water
>>> would not go amiss, and cost is a fairly powerful encouragement.
>>> There'll always be someone claiming that someone will be disadvantaged
>>> by compulsory meters, but we'll all be disadvantaged if water runs out...
>>
>> It does tend to fall from the sky, though, sometimes in prodigious
>> quantities, and all for free. I've not noticed that with gas or
>> electricity.
>>
>> Given that there's an average rainfall in this country of 33 inches a
>> year, there's no shortage of the stuff here and there shouldn't be,
>> ever. If there are short-term problems you can put it down to
>> mismanagement rather than people's irresponsibility.
>
> The water itself is free, but treating it and supplying it incurs a
> cost. And the supply of larger quantities requires larger capacity
> infrastructure, which costs more to install and maintain. So it's not
> unreasonable to charge consumers on a metered basis.
>
> After all, if anyone thinks they are paying too much for their metered
> water, they can always collect it for themselves when it falls from
> the sky over their house.

But to have a metered supply, you have to have a meter, and that costs
real money to make, install and maintain. You then have to have someone
to read it and do all the accounts, sending out variable bills depending
on usage. That costs too, and it all goes on your bill one way or another.

It was all very simple when it was unmetered, based on rateable value,
and very cheap to administer.

They say there's an advantage in water saving by those who have a meter
of 10-15%, but also that people save that much when metering is
discussed before a meter is installed. Personally, I doubt if such
savings will be maintained over time. People tend to revert to type.
It's very few who turn off every light in the house when they're not
using them even though electricity is metered. I suspect it's very few
who will think consciously about saving water after a year or two either.

The raw economics are that a water company needs a certain income to
feed its infrastructure and (now) its shareholders. It can only get
that from its customers. On average, they will have to pay the average
they do at present regardless of how it's worked out. But they'll have
to meet the cost of installing all the meters too.

It strikes me this hasn't been very well thought out.

[Tim Woodall]

On 2017-08-14, Allan <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 13/08/2017 11:20, Judith wrote:
>> Say my neighbour is on a water meter - and I am not.
>>
>> I guess there is no reason at all why I should not run a hose through to her
>> garden put a tap on the end - and let her water her garden all night with
>> sprinklers?
>>
>> Even more : Is there any legal reason why she could not use that outside tap
>> for the supply of cold water to her domestic appliances?
>>
>> PS Thames Water’s network loses 35,000,000 litres per day.
>>
>
> I've never understood why it is still possible to have unlimited water
> consumption (unmetered)

One of the issues is that (approximately) each person needs the same
amount of water per year. This is regardless of the size of their
property or their wealth.

Metering, in order to restrict demand has the unfortunate side effect
that the wealthy can use more and it's the poor who will cut back,
especially if prices increase in order to reduce demand.

Coupled with the issue that fresh clean water is a necessity and it's
very hard to cut off supplies to those who can't pay, unmetered supply
is a reasonable solution the the issues.

Of course, there are two obvious disadvantages to unmetered supply:
firstly, there's no incentive for people not to waste water, no
incentive to get that dripping tap fixed. Secondly, people don't know
how much water they are using.

One solution might be to have tiered tarrifs so, as you use more water,
you pay more per additional m3. But there's still a problem with how to
allocate the "cheaper" water - a family of four with small babies would,
presumably, get more allowance than a single person.

Another problem with metering is that people might feel entitled to use
as much as they are willing to pay for - but the infrastructure is only
good for a certain volume of water delivered per day. The rich using
more than they need to (because they can afford it) might trigger the
need for major infrastructure upgrades that everyone ends up paying for
in increased water prices, even the poor who were already restricting
usage to keep costs down.

I'm not saying that unmetered water is a good solution, but it could
possibly be the least bad solution. But meters are coming in, slowly, so
over time we'll get to see if the benefits of metering outweigh the
disadvantages.

Perhaps it would be possible for meters to restrict the flow rate once a
certain volume of water had been used. So instead of getting 12l/min you
only get 8l/min if you are an excessive user. I'm not sure how low it
can go before equipment would start malfunctionning.

Tim.

[newshound]

Yes but *someone* has to pay for both the infrastructures.

[newshound]

Common sense says that a one-off action like this is not unreasonable.
Just as common sense says that Judith's original proposal is clearly
outside the intent of the supply agreement, whether or not the wording
could be argued over.

[newshound]

On 8/14/2017 12:56 AM, Judith wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 23:20:04 +0100, Michael Chare
> <mUNDERS...@chareDO.Torg.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 13/08/2017 11:20, Judith wrote:
>>> Say my neighbour is on a water meter - and I am not.
>>>
>>> I guess there is no reason at all why I should not run a hose through to her
>>> garden put a tap on the end - and let her water her garden all night with
>>> sprinklers?
>>>
>>

>> Your conscience perhaps?
>
>
> eeeeer ........ no .................. I was looking for the legal reason.
>

As someone who pays their share for the infrastructure and resource, I
certainly find the proposal highly objectionable.

[Norman Wells]

On 14/08/2017 15:16, Tim Woodall wrote:

> I'm not saying that unmetered water is a good solution, but it could
> possibly be the least bad solution. But meters are coming in, slowly, so
> over time we'll get to see if the benefits of metering outweigh the
> disadvantages.

By which time it will be too late of course. The money will have been
spent. If there are no substantial advantages, which I think will turn
out to be the case, the money will have been completely wasted and the
experiment will have been a monumental and expensive failure.

> Perhaps it would be possible for meters to restrict the flow rate once a
> certain volume of water had been used. So instead of getting 12l/min you
> only get 8l/min if you are an excessive user. I'm not sure how low it
> can go before equipment would start malfunctionning.

Everything you propose is a complication. More and more complexity.
More and more possibility of misunderstandings and mistakes.

Why do you want to do it?

[newshound]

Indeed. The other good argument for metering is that it encourages
parsimony.

[Judith]

On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 08:47:54 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:

>On 13/08/2017 19:28, Paul Cummins wrote:
>> In article <evb3bc...@mid.individual.net>, h...@unseen.ac.am (Norman
>> Wells) wrote:
>>
>>> It's almost certainly breach of contract and may be criminal fraud.
>>
>> Cite please. I see nothing in my water supply contract suggesting that at
>> all
>
>Since you apparently have one, please tell us its terms so that we can
>see for ourselves.

You are the one claiming it is in breach of contract: it would be more
appropriate if *you* posted the relevant paragraph out of *your* contract.

Unless you can't find such a paragraph of course.

[Judith]

Excellent I note the use of the words "include".

So could you point out the bit where it actually says you *can't* give the
water away free of charge for domestic use if you already have a supply?

>http://www.ofwat.gov.uk/households/supply-and-standards/getting-a-connection/
>
>> So if I put my sprinkler on and half the water goes over the fence and waters
>> the neighbours lawn and half on my lawn - then I have broken the contract?
>
>Yes.
>
>If you have an outside tap, it says above you need to agree terms and
>conditions with your water company.

No it doesn't say that for existing connections. The bit you quote is for a
"new connection" to the mains.

>Have you done so?
>
>> Bugger: I think I'll just run an extension under the ground from my watering
>> system which comes on every night for a couple of hours and waters all of my
>> vegetable patches and do hers as well.
>>
>> It's really good value : but I'm not on a meter.
>
>It's also unlawful.

And you have yet to prove that: so we will assume it is OK.

[Judith]

I think it may just depend on the terms and conditions which were in place say
at least 28 years ago (before the bitch Thatcher privatised the water
industry) when the house was built.

[Judith]

On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 07:06:18 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <5hj1pc91es753val8...@4ax.com>, at 23:11:03 on
>Sun, 13 Aug 2017, Peter Johnson <pe...@parksidewood.nospam> remarked:
>
>>>But it goes back into the water table or the drains, so not lost
>>>forever, more en-route to being re-used.
>>
>>Water used by steam locomotives goes to atmosphere and attracts a
>>lower charge as a result.
>
>Water supply is one of those strange things where the raw material
>arrives free of charge (as rain or runoff through the water table), yet
>people get charged for its use *and* (usually even more) for taking it
>away again.

Indeed - and I understand that some commercial interests make quite a profit
from such things.

(Something like 60% of the population are not happy with that)

[Judith]

On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 06:14:27 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <3ep1pcl3u25hflt33...@4ax.com>, at 00:55:02 on
>Mon, 14 Aug 2017, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> remarked:
>
>>>>Thames Water’s network loses 35,000,000 litres per day.

>>>
>>>But it goes back into the water table or the drains, so not lost
>>>forever, more en-route to being re-used.
>>

>>Well that's OK then - nothing to worry about there then.
>>
>>I see that Thames Water have just been given the maximum £8.5m fine for missing
>>their leak target. Perhaps OFTWAT don't realise it just doesn't matter
>>because the water just goes back in to the water table and can be reused
>>(eventually)
>
>Yep, it's largely pandering to the public who see leaks in the road and
>think the water is thus being "wasted". When it's not.


So does that mean in your opinion that it doesn't matter how much is lost
through leaks: and Thames Water should not have been fined as they were?

[Judith]

and your estimate of when that will be (assuming that Thames and others get all
the leaks fixed) would be what?

[Judith]

Well as long as the users pay for the installation costs of water meters - and
the installation costs don't have to come out of the water companies profits -
it doesn't really matter.

[Judith]

On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 12:20:45 +0100, Harry Bloomfield
<harry...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

>Norman Wells submitted this idea :
>> If the water companies say we need meters to encourage us to use less of
>> what they ought to be supplying in abundance, I think that's a damning
>> indictment of their own efficiency. Added to which, of course, is the
>> astronomical cost of making, installing, maintaining and periodically
>> replacing the things. If you had to get a plumber in to install a meter
>> privately, how much do you think that would cost you? Whatever that is,
>> it will all go on your bill in some concealed way.
>
>Originally it was so cheap to supply, it wasn't worth metering. Often
>one tap per dwelling, no fixed baths or showers, no washing machines or
>dishwashers. Since then consumption has increased massively, to the
>point where water often has to be transported hundreds of miles around
>the UK to the high usage areas.

I hope you are not suggesting that the water companies are not spending
sufficient money on the infrastructure in the UK.

[Norman Wells]

As far as I'm aware I do not have a written contract. But that does not
mean a contract does not exist. In fact it's clear that one must exist
because all the elements are in place. By agreement, I pay a certain
amount each year to the water company, and it supplies me with water. I
can be sued if I don't pay, and I'm entitled to compensation if the
water company does not supply.

The terms of the contract would fall ultimately to be decided by a court
of law. A factor that it would consider is that charges are levied in
respect of specified premises. It's what the bills say. Another is
that, since there are recognised differences between 'domestic' and
'non-domestic' uses, the supply is, in my case, for domestic use only.

I think there is no doubt that any court would hold that my contract is
for domestic use of the water supply on my premises only. Consequently,
any use of my water supply for the benefit of other premises would be a
breach of contract.

[Roland Perry]

In message <k2f3pcpdes0nsi2m2...@4ax.com>, at 16:35:38 on

Mon, 14 Aug 2017, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> remarked:

>>>>But it goes back into the water table or the drains, so not lost
>>>>forever, more en-route to being re-used.
>>>
>>>Well that's OK then - nothing to worry about there then.
>>>
>>>I see that Thames Water have just been given the maximum £8.5m fine for missing
>>>their leak target. Perhaps OFTWAT don't realise it just doesn't matter
>>>because the water just goes back in to the water table and can be reused
>>>(eventually)
>>
>>Yep, it's largely pandering to the public who see leaks in the road and
>>think the water is thus being "wasted". When it's not.
>
>So does that mean in your opinion that it doesn't matter how much is lost
>through leaks: and Thames Water should not have been fined as they were?

It matters a bit, but the fines are pandering.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <slrnop3c6c....@dirac.home.woodall.me.uk>, at
14:16:44 on Mon, 14 Aug 2017, Tim Woodall <new...@woodall.me.uk>
remarked:

>One solution might be to have tiered tarrifs so, as you use more water,
>you pay more per additional m3. But there's still a problem with how to
>allocate the "cheaper" water - a family of four with small babies would,
>presumably, get more allowance than a single person.

But they are already paid whatever family allowance is called this week,
in order to cope with such larger bills arising from greater water
usage.
--
Roland Perry

[Judith]

Crikey Norman : I find myself agreeing with you yet again.

Well said.

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 14:18:29 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>On 14/08/2017 12:46, Mark Goodge wrote:

>> The water itself is free, but treating it and supplying it incurs a
>> cost. And the supply of larger quantities requires larger capacity
>> infrastructure, which costs more to install and maintain. So it's not
>> unreasonable to charge consumers on a metered basis.
>>
>> After all, if anyone thinks they are paying too much for their metered
>> water, they can always collect it for themselves when it falls from
>> the sky over their house.
>
>But to have a metered supply, you have to have a meter, and that costs
>real money to make, install and maintain. You then have to have someone
>to read it and do all the accounts, sending out variable bills depending
>on usage. That costs too, and it all goes on your bill one way or another.

Have you seen a water meter? They're hardly high-tech. And they get
read typically every six months, by the same third-party meter readers
who also check your gas and electricity meters. It's not a huge
marginal increase in cost.

Mark

[Norman Wells]

On 14/08/2017 15:57, Judith wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 08:57:04 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>> On 14/08/2017 00:50, Judith wrote:
>>> On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 14:43:08 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>>> On 13/08/2017 11:20, Judith wrote:
>>
>>>>> Say my neighbour is on a water meter - and I am not.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess there is no reason at all why I should not run a hose through to her
>>>>> garden put a tap on the end - and let her water her garden all night with
>>>>> sprinklers?
>>>>>
>>>>> Even more : Is there any legal reason why she could not use that outside tap
>>>>> for the supply of cold water to her domestic appliances?
>>>>
>>>> It's almost certainly breach of contract and may be criminal fraud.
>>>
>>>> The water is supplied to your premises for you to use on those premises.
>>>
>>> And you know this how? I'm guessing you have seen a contract - what did it say
>>> please which enabled you to give the clear legal position?
>>
>> "If you are the owner, or occupier, of a property you can ask a provider
>> to make a new connection for water that will be used for domestic purposes.
>>
>> Domestic purposes include water used for:
>>

>> washing – washing machines, dishwashers;
>> cooking; and/or
>> sanitary facilities – toilets, bathrooms, showers."

>>
>> "If you are the owner or occupier of a property you can ask a provider
>> to make a new connection for water that will be used for non-domestic
>> purposes. Non-domestic use includes water for:
>>
>> Commercial or industrial use;
>> An outside garden tap; and/or
>> A swimming pool.
>> When considering your request for a non-domestic supply the water
>> company must make sure that it can meet all existing and potential
>> demand for domestic purposes. To get a new water connection for
>> non-domestic purposes you will need to agree terms and conditions,
>> including the charge, with the water company."
>
> Excellent I note the use of the words "include".
>
> So could you point out the bit where it actually says you *can't* give the
> water away free of charge for domestic use if you already have a supply?

It will be either an express condition of your contract or an implied one.

>> http://www.ofwat.gov.uk/households/supply-and-standards/getting-a-connection/
>>
>>> So if I put my sprinkler on and half the water goes over the fence and waters
>>> the neighbours lawn and half on my lawn - then I have broken the contract?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> If you have an outside tap, it says above you need to agree terms and
>> conditions with your water company.
>
> No it doesn't say that for existing connections. The bit you quote is for a
> "new connection" to the mains.

My quote above distinguishes between what is domestic use, for which
most of us pay, and 'commercial or industrial use' for which most of us
don't. If you have an outdoor tap, that's commercial or industrial use,
and you have to agree terms with your water company. The charges for
that will obviously be higher, and liability for them will be
transferred to any new owner of the property.

>> Have you done so?
>>
>>> Bugger: I think I'll just run an extension under the ground from my watering
>>> system which comes on every night for a couple of hours and waters all of my
>>> vegetable patches and do hers as well.
>>>
>>> It's really good value : but I'm not on a meter.
>>
>> It's also unlawful.
>
> And you have yet to prove that: so we will assume it is OK.

I just give you the facts.

[Roland Perry]

In message <aji3pctas3lts66e5...@4ax.com>, at 17:08:21 on
Mon, 14 Aug 2017, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:

>Have you seen a water meter? They're hardly high-tech. And they get
>read typically every six months, by the same third-party meter readers
>who also check your gas and electricity meters. It's not a huge
>marginal increase in cost.

Round here it's a different set of meter readers, and they are
experimenting with reading them remotely in batches from a van parked
somewhere on the street. How that works when they are down a hole three
feet underground, I have no idea.

They also claim to use the same reading technology to identify
properties with leaks, in between six monthly billing readings.
--
Roland Perry

[Norman Wells]

Compared with no cost at all, though, it's an enormous percentage.

[Paul Cummins]

In article <evd2t9...@mid.individual.net>, h...@unseen.ac.am (Norman
Wells) wrote:

> > Again cite please.
>
> Breach of contract is unlawful. So too is criminal fraud.

Please show us how it is criminal fraud, exactly.

You claim it is an offence, please cite the law in question.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Free 40 satoshi/min bitcoin mining
https://btcprominer.life/260604

[Judith]

On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 07:01:51 +0200, Tosspot <Frank...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 14/08/17 01:55, Judith wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 16:15:52 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <kj90pcdoiarl1j454...@4ax.com>, at 11:20:33 on
>>> Sun, 13 Aug 2017, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>
>>>> Thames Water’s network loses 35,000,000 litres per day.

>>>
>>> But it goes back into the water table or the drains, so not lost
>>> forever, more en-route to being re-used.
>>
>>
>> Well that's OK then - nothing to worry about there then.
>>
>> I see that Thames Water have just been given the maximum £8.5m fine for missing
>> their leak target. Perhaps OFTWAT don't realise it just doesn't matter
>> because the water just goes back in to the water table and can be reused
>> (eventually)
>

>Who are OFTWAT?


The twats who oversee the water industry.

[Michael Chare]

On 14/08/2017 00:56, Judith wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 23:20:04 +0100, Michael Chare

> <mUNDERS...@chareDO.Torg.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 13/08/2017 11:20, Judith wrote:
>>> Say my neighbour is on a water meter - and I am not.
>>>
>>> I guess there is no reason at all why I should not run a hose through to her
>>> garden put a tap on the end - and let her water her garden all night with
>>> sprinklers?
>>>
>>

>> Your conscience perhaps?
>
>
> eeeeer ........ no .................. I was looking for the legal reason.
>

For me having a water meter was much cheaper, so much so that the water
company DD got cancelled by the bank because it had not been used for a
year.

--
Michael Chare

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Norman Wells]

On 14/08/2017 17:26, Paul Cummins wrote:
> In article <evd2t9...@mid.individual.net>, h...@unseen.ac.am (Norman
> Wells) wrote:
>
>>> Again cite please.
>>
>> Breach of contract is unlawful. So too is criminal fraud.
>
> Please show us how it is criminal fraud, exactly.
>
> You claim it is an offence, please cite the law in question.

Fraud Act generally, Section 4 specifically.

[Harry Bloomfield]

Judith formulated the question :

> I hope you are not suggesting that the water companies are not spending
> sufficient money on the infrastructure in the UK.

No, not at all - just explaining that some of the costs are massive.

[Harry Bloomfield]

It happens that Norman Wells formulated :

> By which time it will be too late of course. The money will have been spent.
> If there are no substantial advantages, which I think will turn out to be
> the case, the money will have been completely wasted and the experiment will
> have been a monumental and expensive failure.

Uptake is entirely voluntery where I live and it generally seems to be
those who are likely to save, like us, who volunteer to have a meter
installed and pay by consumption. We had our meter installed some 9
months ago, so naturally I have been keeping a close eye on our
consumption. Our bill seems set to be a little over 50% of last years
bill. This is for the two of us in the house.

[Norman Wells]

Suppose everyone had a meter and everyone's bills halved based on their
actual consumption. What do you think will happen to prices as the
water company maintains its income levels to pay its staff, improve its
infrastructure and dividend its shareholders?

Do I really need to say?

[Brian Reay]

On 14/08/2017 21:18, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

We had a meter installed about 20 years back, not long after moving
here. The water bills plummented and have remained low. I pay less now
numerically (ie not adjusted for inflation etc) as before the meter was
installed. Even when there were 5 living here, it was always cheaper. We
don't take any special steps to be thrifty with water.

I've not done the sums but the saving over 20 years must be
'significant'- especially as the meter was free, at the time if you
had/used a hose they would fit one for free.

--

Suspect someone is claiming a benefit under false pretences? Incapacity
Benefit or Personal Independence Payment when they don't need it? They
are depriving those in real need!

https://www.gov.uk/report-benefit-fraud

[Roland Perry]

In message <omu9tm$25a$1...@dont-email.me>, at 09:08:24 on Tue, 15 Aug
2017, Brian Reay <no...@m.com> remarked:

>>We had our meter installed some 9 months ago, so naturally I have
>>been keeping a close eye on our consumption. Our bill seems set to be
>>a little over 50% of last years bill. This is for the two of us in
>>the house.
>
>We had a meter installed about 20 years back, not long after moving
>here. The water bills plummented and have remained low. I pay less now
>numerically (ie not adjusted for inflation etc) as before the meter was
>installed. Even when there were 5 living here, it was always cheaper.
>We don't take any special steps to be thrifty with water.

I think the tipping point for water meters saving money for the average
household is whether or not they have several small children who know
how to turn taps on, but not off.
--
Roland Perry

[Judith]

So just to be clear : it matters just a small amount how much water is lost
through leaks.

And also to be clear: should Thames Water have *not* been fined?

[Judith]

On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 16:59:30 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:

<snip>

> If you have an outdoor tap, that's commercial or industrial use,
>and you have to agree terms with your water company.

I am sorry to say Norman - but that is pure bollocks.

So every house in the UK which has an outdoor tap has a commercial/industrial
contract with their water supply authority.

Are you sure?

[Judith]

Yep - and they have no other outgoing costs - so the family allowance will
easily cover the water bills.

(Unless the kids need feeding and clothes that is)

[Sara Merriman]

In article <jdl5pclriq7k24t32...@4ax.com>, Judith

We have inserts with the bills that say we must inform them if an
outside tap is installed, and that they will insist on a water meter in
that case. What they would change the contract to I don't know, but
they definitely don't ignore it.

[Norman Wells]

It's always problematic fining a monopoly company. Where does the money
to pay the fine come from if not the customers of the company? And
where does the fine go to if not to some national body?

If Thames Water misbehaves, its customers bear the cost, and the money
they pay essentially disappears. They are the ones being fined for
their company's misbehaviour.

[Norman Wells]

This is what Ofwat say, and they should know:

"If you are the owner or occupier of a property you can ask a provider
to make a new connection for water that will be used for non-domestic
purposes. Non-domestic use includes water for:

Commercial or industrial use;
An outside garden tap; and/or
A swimming pool."

To get a new water connection for
non-domestic purposes you will need to agree terms and conditions,
including the charge, with the water company."

http://www.ofwat.gov.uk/households/supply-and-standards/getting-a-connection/

> Are you sure?

What's in doubt?

[Mark Goodge]

On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 11:20:33 +0100, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>

wrote:

>
>Say my neighbour is on a water meter - and I am not.
>
>I guess there is no reason at all why I should not run a hose through to her
>garden put a tap on the end - and let her water her garden all night with
>sprinklers?
>

>Even more : Is there any legal reason why she could not use that outside tap
>for the supply of cold water to her domestic appliances?

You would be in breach of section 66I of the Water Industry Act 1991,
which forbids the supply of water to premises other than by a licensed
supplier.

Mark

[Mark Goodge]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 13:52:24 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>

wrote:

>On 15/08/2017 12:08, Judith wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 16:59:30 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> If you have an outdoor tap, that's commercial or industrial use,
>>> and you have to agree terms with your water company.
>>
>> I am sorry to say Norman - but that is pure bollocks.
>>
>> So every house in the UK which has an outdoor tap has a commercial/industrial
>> contract with their water supply authority.
>
>This is what Ofwat say, and they should know:
>
>"If you are the owner or occupier of a property you can ask a provider
>to make a new connection for water that will be used for non-domestic
>purposes. Non-domestic use includes water for:
>
>Commercial or industrial use;
>An outside garden tap; and/or
>A swimming pool."

Those are three different things, all of which cme under the general
heading of "non-domestic". It isn't saying that an outside tap is
commercial, or that all non-domestic use is commercial, it's simply
saying that an outside tap is different to the indoor supply.

Also, it isn't saying that simply putting an outside tap on an
existing domestic supply counts as non-domestic. This is specifically
about *new* connections to the mains water supply. If you want a new
connection to the mains for an outside tap (eg, on an allotment), then
that's non-domestic. But adding an outside tap to an existing domestic
supply does not make that supply non-domestic. Nor does it require any
agreement or contract with the water supplier.

>To get a new water connection for
>non-domestic purposes you will need to agree terms and conditions,
>including the charge, with the water company."
>
>http://www.ofwat.gov.uk/households/supply-and-standards/getting-a-connection/
>
>> Are you sure?
>
>What's in doubt?

Your interpretation of the document.

This web page is about new connections to premises that currently have
no water supply. It isn't about existing supplies to premises that
already have mains water. The water companies have a statutory
obligation to provide a connection for domestic purposes, but not to
do so for any other purposes. So it is necessary to define "domestic"
in order to define the limits of their statutory obligation. That
doesn't mean that a statutory domestic supply cannot also be used for
non-domestic purposes, such as watering the garden or washing the car.

Where you are correct, and where Judith is incorrect, is that neither
you nor she are permitted to supply your neighbours with water from
your own mains supply. That's because water suppliers must be
licensed, and neither of you are. So you can only be a consumer of
water on your own premises, you cannot in turn supply it - even at no
charge - to other premises. Those premises must have their own supply
from a licensed supplier. However, this has nothing to do with any
putative difference between a domestic and a non-domestic supply. It's
simply a consequence of the regulatory regime which pertains to the
supply of mains water.

In practice, of course, the regulatory authorities are unlikely to be
concerned with short term and ancillary cross-premises supply, such as
when your neighbour's supply is out of action due to a fault and you
allow them to run a hose from your tap so that they can at least cook
and wash. Or your neighbour allows you to use their outside tap to
wash your car, because you don't have an outside tap at the front of
your house and they do. But, nonetheless, this is, strictly speaking,
an offence, and if the reason for the cross-premises supply was
explicitly to evade metering by one party rather than simple
convenience and mutual good neighbourliness, then the authorities
might well be inclined to take action against the supplier if they
become aware of it.

Mark

[Roland Perry]

In message <4ul5pc547j1m25pu2...@4ax.com>, at 12:16:31 on
Tue, 15 Aug 2017, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> remarked:

>>>One solution might be to have tiered tarrifs so, as you use more water,
>>>you pay more per additional m3. But there's still a problem with how to
>>>allocate the "cheaper" water - a family of four with small babies would,
>>>presumably, get more allowance than a single person.
>>
>>But they are already paid whatever family allowance is called this week,
>>in order to cope with such larger bills arising from greater water
>>usage.
>
>Yep - and they have no other outgoing costs - so the family allowance will
>easily cover the water bills.
>
>(Unless the kids need feeding and clothes that is)

Keywords here are "double dipping". I'm not against social subsidies,
but we need a more joined up system, for transparency.
--
Roland Perry

[Norman Wells]

Wrong Section. That one makes it illegal for any unauthorised person to
tap into the mains to supply a property.

Section 73(2) is the relevant one:

"Any person who uses any water supplied to any premises by a water
undertaker for a purpose other than one for which it is supplied to
those premises shall, unless the other purpose is the extinguishment of
a fire, be guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a
fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale."

[Norman Wells]

On 15/08/2017 17:57, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 13:52:24 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>> On 15/08/2017 12:08, Judith wrote:
>>> On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 16:59:30 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> If you have an outdoor tap, that's commercial or industrial use,
>>>> and you have to agree terms with your water company.
>>>
>>> I am sorry to say Norman - but that is pure bollocks.
>>>
>>> So every house in the UK which has an outdoor tap has a commercial/industrial
>>> contract with their water supply authority.
>>
>> This is what Ofwat say, and they should know:
>>
>> "If you are the owner or occupier of a property you can ask a provider
>> to make a new connection for water that will be used for non-domestic
>> purposes. Non-domestic use includes water for:
>>
>> Commercial or industrial use;
>> An outside garden tap; and/or
>> A swimming pool."
>
> Those are three different things, all of which cme under the general
> heading of "non-domestic". It isn't saying that an outside tap is
> commercial, or that all non-domestic use is commercial, it's simply
> saying that an outside tap is different to the indoor supply.

Same difference. If you're paying for domestic use only, as most do,
you are not paying for non-domestic use, which an outside garden tap is.

You are committing a criminal offence under Section 73(2) of the Water
Industry Act 1991.

> Also, it isn't saying that simply putting an outside tap on an
> existing domestic supply counts as non-domestic. This is specifically
> about *new* connections to the mains water supply.

No. The Ofwat document draws the line between what is domestic and what
is non-domestic. That doesn't vary according to whether it's a new
connection or not.

> If you want a new
> connection to the mains for an outside tap (eg, on an allotment), then
> that's non-domestic. But adding an outside tap to an existing domestic
> supply does not make that supply non-domestic. Nor does it require any
> agreement or contract with the water supplier.

It does because your water is supplied for domestic use and an outside
garden tap is stated to be non-domestic. If you're only paying for
domestic use, you're misusing your supply if you use a garden tap.

"73(4)

Any person who uses any water supplied to any premises by a water
undertaker for a purpose other than one for which it is supplied to
those premises shall, unless the other purpose is the extinguishment of
a fire, be guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a
fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale."

>> To get a new water connection for
>> non-domestic purposes you will need to agree terms and conditions,
>> including the charge, with the water company."
>>
>> http://www.ofwat.gov.uk/households/supply-and-standards/getting-a-connection/
>>
>>> Are you sure?
>>
>> What's in doubt?
>
> Your interpretation of the document.
>
> This web page is about new connections to premises that currently have
> no water supply. It isn't about existing supplies to premises that
> already have mains water. The water companies have a statutory
> obligation to provide a connection for domestic purposes, but not to
> do so for any other purposes. So it is necessary to define "domestic"
> in order to define the limits of their statutory obligation. That
> doesn't mean that a statutory domestic supply cannot also be used for
> non-domestic purposes, such as watering the garden or washing the car.

It does. It's a breach of the Section I quoted above.

>
> Where you are correct, and where Judith is incorrect, is that neither
> you nor she are permitted to supply your neighbours with water from
> your own mains supply. That's because water suppliers must be
> licensed, and neither of you are. So you can only be a consumer of
> water on your own premises, you cannot in turn supply it - even at no
> charge - to other premises. Those premises must have their own supply
> from a licensed supplier. However, this has nothing to do with any
> putative difference between a domestic and a non-domestic supply. It's
> simply a consequence of the regulatory regime which pertains to the
> supply of mains water.

You are not a mains water supplier. You are a mains water consumer.
Your water company is the supplier.

> In practice, of course, the regulatory authorities are unlikely to be
> concerned with short term and ancillary cross-premises supply, such as
> when your neighbour's supply is out of action due to a fault and you
> allow them to run a hose from your tap so that they can at least cook
> and wash. Or your neighbour allows you to use their outside tap to
> wash your car, because you don't have an outside tap at the front of
> your house and they do. But, nonetheless, this is, strictly speaking,
> an offence,

Yes, but not the one you thought.

[Mark Goodge]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 19:00:40 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>On 15/08/2017 18:01, Mark Goodge wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 11:20:33 +0100, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Say my neighbour is on a water meter - and I am not.
>>>
>>> I guess there is no reason at all why I should not run a hose through to her
>>> garden put a tap on the end - and let her water her garden all night with
>>> sprinklers?
>>>
>>> Even more : Is there any legal reason why she could not use that outside tap
>>> for the supply of cold water to her domestic appliances?
>>
>> You would be in breach of section 66I of the Water Industry Act 1991,
>> which forbids the supply of water to premises other than by a licensed
>> supplier.
>
>Wrong Section. That one makes it illegal for any unauthorised person to
>tap into the mains to supply a property.

No, it doesn't. It makes it illegal to supply water unless you are a
licensed supplier. That is right there in the very first part of the
section. There's nothing about tapping the mains at all.

Mark

[Mark Goodge]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 19:20:57 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>

wrote:

>On 15/08/2017 17:57, Mark Goodge wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 13:52:24 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 15/08/2017 12:08, Judith wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 16:59:30 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> If you have an outdoor tap, that's commercial or industrial use,
>>>>> and you have to agree terms with your water company.
>>>>
>>>> I am sorry to say Norman - but that is pure bollocks.
>>>>
>>>> So every house in the UK which has an outdoor tap has a commercial/industrial
>>>> contract with their water supply authority.
>>>
>>> This is what Ofwat say, and they should know:
>>>
>>> "If you are the owner or occupier of a property you can ask a provider
>>> to make a new connection for water that will be used for non-domestic
>>> purposes. Non-domestic use includes water for:
>>>
>>> Commercial or industrial use;
>>> An outside garden tap; and/or
>>> A swimming pool."
>>

>> Those are three different things, all of which come under the general

>> heading of "non-domestic". It isn't saying that an outside tap is
>> commercial, or that all non-domestic use is commercial, it's simply
>> saying that an outside tap is different to the indoor supply.
>
>Same difference.

It's not the same difference. They are explicitly three different
things. And unless you accept that you were wrong to assert that an
outdoor tap is commercial, no other argument you make has any
validity.

Mark

[Norman Wells]

It makes it illegal to use a water undertaker’s supply system for the
purpose of supplying water to any premises of a customer. That means
essentially tapping into the mains.

The Section you want is 73(2).

[Norman Wells]

The outdoor tap is non-domestic. If you're only paying for domestic
use, as most do, you're committing a criminal offence if you use an
outdoor tap.

[Paul Cummins]

In article <eve73q...@mid.individual.net>, h...@unseen.ac.am (Norman

Wells) wrote:

> > You claim it is an offence, please cite the law in question.
>
> Fraud Act generally, Section 4 specifically.

Doesn't mention anything about water supplies

[Mark Goodge]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 22:08:15 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>

wrote:

>On 15/08/2017 20:47, Mark Goodge wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 19:20:57 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 15/08/2017 17:57, Mark Goodge wrote:

>>>> Those are three different things, all of which come under the general
>>>> heading of "non-domestic". It isn't saying that an outside tap is
>>>> commercial, or that all non-domestic use is commercial, it's simply
>>>> saying that an outside tap is different to the indoor supply.
>>>
>>> Same difference.
>>
>> It's not the same difference. They are explicitly three different
>> things. And unless you accept that you were wrong to assert that an
>> outdoor tap is commercial, no other argument you make has any
>> validity.
>
>The outdoor tap is non-domestic.

You said that an outdoor tap is commercial. That is demonstrably
incorrect.

Mark

[Norman Wells]

It makes no difference. It's something you haven't paid for, and its
use is contrary to Section 73(2) of the Water Industry Act 1991.

[Norman Wells]

On 16/08/2017 12:10, Paul Cummins wrote:
> In article <eve73q...@mid.individual.net>, h...@unseen.ac.am (Norman
> Wells) wrote:
>
>>> You claim it is an offence, please cite the law in question.
>>
>> Fraud Act generally, Section 4 specifically.
>
> Doesn't mention anything about water supplies

Why should it?

[Judith]

Thanks for clarity

[Judith]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 22:08:15 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:

<snip>

>The outdoor tap is non-domestic. If you're only paying for domestic
>use, as most do, you're committing a criminal offence if you use an
>outdoor tap.

Could you estimate the number of households in the UK are actually breaking
the law?

It's probably the same number as there are outside taps - if that helps


(If your interpretation is correct of course)

[Norman Wells]

I've given you the reasoning that leads inevitably to the conclusion I
reached.

Rather than just disparage it, why don't you say why my reasoning is false?

[Judith]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 13:55:36 +0100, Sara Merriman
<sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <jdl5pclriq7k24t32...@4ax.com>, Judith
><jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 16:59:30 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > If you have an outdoor tap, that's commercial or industrial use,
>> >and you have to agree terms with your water company.
>>
>> I am sorry to say Norman - but that is pure bollocks.
>>
>> So every house in the UK which has an outdoor tap has a commercial/industrial
>> contract with their water supply authority.
>>
>> Are you sure?
>>
>We have inserts with the bills that say we must inform them if an
>outside tap is installed

Does it say already installed : or if you wish to install one?

[Judith]

I think the bit you have quoted may just refer to new connections

[Harry Bloomfield]

Norman Wells presented the following explanation :
> Suppose everyone had a meter and everyone's bills halved based on their
> actual consumption. What do you think will happen to prices as the water
> company maintains its income levels to pay its staff, improve its
> infrastructure and dividend its shareholders?
>
> Do I really need to say?

That simply would not happen. We are a smaller than many household,
being careful of the amount we use.

Others will likely use much more and have to pay for it. Prior to
having a meter installed, I was subsidising their consumption.

[Harry Bloomfield]

Norman Wells explained :

> Suppose everyone had a meter and everyone's bills halved based on their
> actual consumption. What do you think will happen to prices as the water
> company maintains its income levels to pay its staff, improve its
> infrastructure and dividend its shareholders?
>
> Do I really need to say?

On thinking about this a little more..

Our combined electric and gas bill averages £65 per month. I invested
money so as to minimise our use of each. Would it be fair if I paid the
same amount as everyone else in the village?

Our unmetered water bill used to be £44 per month, during which time we
were subsidising high users for many years. Now, like the E & G, we pay
for for the amount we use, which is perfectly fair and exactly as it
should be.

I'm also careful over my car use, should we all pay a similar monthly
bill for petrol, irrespective of how much petrol we use?

[Sara Merriman]

In article <lo19pc5g7sesbmfup...@4ax.com>, Judith

<jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 13:55:36 +0100, Sara Merriman
> <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article <jdl5pclriq7k24t32...@4ax.com>, Judith
> ><jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 16:59:30 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> > If you have an outdoor tap, that's commercial or industrial use,
> >> >and you have to agree terms with your water company.
> >>
> >> I am sorry to say Norman - but that is pure bollocks.
> >>
> >> So every house in the UK which has an outdoor tap has a
> >> commercial/industrial
> >> contract with their water supply authority.
> >>
> >> Are you sure?
> >>
> >We have inserts with the bills that say we must inform them if an
> >outside tap is installed
>
> Does it say already installed : or if you wish to install one?
>

Thrown it away now, pretty sure it was if you install a new one. Maybe
they assume they'll know about any that are already installed.

[Paul Cummins]

In article <evj2ch...@mid.individual.net>, h...@unseen.ac.am (Norman

Wells) wrote:

> >>> You claim it is an offence, please cite the law in question.
> >>
> >> Fraud Act generally, Section 4 specifically.
> >
> > Doesn't mention anything about water supplies
>
> Why should it?

Because I have asked you for the legislation which makes sharing a water
supply fraudulent, as you claim there is such legislaion.

The Fraud Act 2006 deoesn't do that.

[Norman Wells]

The bit I quoted distinguishes between what is considered domestic use
and non-domestic use. A garden tap falls into the latter whether it's
newly connected or not, and it's clear that an extra charge is probably
due for its use.

If you pay your water company only for domestic use, as most do, you are
breaching your contract if you use the water for any non-domestic purposes.

It is also a criminal offence under Section 73(2) of the Water Industry
Act 1991 that says:

"(2) Any person who uses any water supplied to any premises by a water

undertaker for a purpose other than one for which it is supplied to
those premises shall, unless the other purpose is the extinguishment of
a fire, be guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a
fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale."

and there is a clear liability under the following sub-section, which says:

"(3) Where a person has committed an offence under subsection (2) above,
the water undertaker in question shall be entitled to recover from that
person such amount as may be reasonable in respect of any water wasted,
misused or improperly consumed in consequence of the commission of the
offence."

[Norman Wells]

On 17/08/2017 06:55, Paul Cummins wrote:
> In article <evj2ch...@mid.individual.net>, h...@unseen.ac.am (Norman
> Wells) wrote:
>
>>>>> You claim it is an offence, please cite the law in question.
>>>>
>>>> Fraud Act generally, Section 4 specifically.
>>>
>>> Doesn't mention anything about water supplies
>>
>> Why should it?
>
> Because I have asked you for the legislation which makes sharing a water
> supply fraudulent, as you claim there is such legislaion.
>
> The Fraud Act 2006 deoesn't do that.
>

Section 4(1) of the Fraud Act 2006 says:

"(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a) occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not
to act against, the financial interests of another person,
(b) dishonestly abuses that position, and
(c) intends, by means of the abuse of that position—
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss."

In my view a householder is expected not to act against the financial
interests of his water supply company by, for example, leaving all his
taps running all day. Or by using an outdoor tap which he has not paid
for. Or by supplying water to a neighbour for watering his garden.
It's dishonest if he knows he shouldn't be doing it, and he clearly
intends his neighbour to benefit by getting the water for free that he
would otherwise have to pay for.

So, in my view the Fraud Act applies. As does Section 73 of the Water
Industry Act 1991. As does breach of contract.

There are many ways of skinning this particular cat.

[Norman Wells]

On 17/08/2017 06:20, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
> Norman Wells explained :
>> Suppose everyone had a meter and everyone's bills halved based on their
>> actual consumption. What do you think will happen to prices as the water
>> company maintains its income levels to pay its staff, improve its
>> infrastructure and dividend its shareholders?
>>
>> Do I really need to say?
>
> On thinking about this a little more..
>
> Our combined electric and gas bill averages £65 per month. I invested
> money so as to minimise our use of each. Would it be fair if I paid the
> same amount as everyone else in the village?

Is it fair that I subsidise every rail journey that is made in the UK
through my taxes when I don't use the horrible things?

It's not a question of what is fair. Water meters may be promoted on
that basis, but the fact remains that the average consumer when everyone
has a meter will have to pay the average that they paid before. Plus a
bit more because of the cost of manufacture, installation, repair,
replacement and reading the meters themselves.

So, the average consumer will in fact be paying more. Is that fair?

[Norman Wells]

On 17/08/2017 09:54, Jeff wrote:
>
>> The bit I quoted distinguishes between what is considered domestic use
>> and non-domestic use. A garden tap falls into the latter whether it's
>> newly connected or not, and it's clear that an extra charge is
>> probably due for its use.
>

> That is certainly not the case with my water company. The only
> stipulation they have is if you water gardens using anything other than
> a hand held hose, or have a swimming pool/pond that is automatically
> re-filled you are required to have a water meter. (water meters are not
> compulsory in this area).

Having to have a water meter for sprinklers etc is not the same as
having to pay an extra charge for having a garden tap. They are not
alternatives.

[Harry Bloomfield]

After serious thinking Norman Wells wrote :

> So, the average consumer will in fact be paying more. Is that fair?

So what sort of system of being charged would you agree is fair, no
metering and everyone pays the same, based on RV? That was very
expensive for what little we used.

That was very fair for those liked to consume lots of resources, but
there was no encouragement to not consume.

[Norman Wells]

On 17/08/2017 13:55, Jeff wrote:

> You totally missed the point!
>
> There is no extra charge for a garden tap or even any requirement to
> inform the water Co., they only stipulate that you must have a water
> meter for the above conditions.

When everyone has a meter, you will pay for the water you use whether
indoors or out. That will solve all such problems at a stroke. That's
why water companies want everyone to have a meter, regardless of the
fact that the average consumer will see his bills rise because of the
costs of metering and reading.

[Roland Perry]

In message <evle4j...@mid.individual.net>, at 12:48:36 on Thu, 17
Aug 2017, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

>Is it fair that I subsidise every rail journey that is made in the UK
>through my taxes when I don't use the horrible things?

I dunno. But as you aren't subsidising "every rail journey" because the
majority of those taking place in the SE are covering all the costs
(including infrastructure) the question is moot.
--
Roland Perry

[Norman Wells]

I don't think anyone deliberately wasted water either.

Maybe there will be a small saving of water by metering, but it won't
be huge. Initially it seems it's about 10-15%, but even that is not
directly dependent on metering, coming in as soon as water efficiency
and the possible introduction of meters is mooted. And it's not
permanent either. People revert to type and, after a while, their old
habits, like flushing the loo each time, reassert themselves with little
or no saving of water overall. It's the same with electricity where
there are very few households that turn off every light that isn't being
used, even though electricity is metered.

Against that, you have a massively expensive programme of installing a
meter in every property and the ongoing cost of regularly reading them,
that will undoubtedly push up the average household bill for the same
water consumption. It's just complicating a previously very simple
system that should have been left alone.

[Roland Perry]

In message <evldmt...@mid.individual.net>, at 12:41:18 on Thu, 17

Aug 2017, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

>Having to have a water meter for sprinklers etc is not the same as
>having to pay an extra charge for having a garden tap. They are not
>alternatives.

Especially if the place you connect the hose for the sprinkler is an
outside tap.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <evlpc7...@mid.individual.net>, at 16:00:24 on Thu, 17

Aug 2017, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

[water metering is]

>just complicating a previously very simple system that should have been
>left alone.

Are we to conclude that in this specific matter you are in fact happy to
subsidise the profligate?
--
Roland Perry

[Norman Wells]

I believe, generally, that people are not profligate as far as water is
concerned. There's no great satisfaction to be gained from using more
water than you actually need.