CyberBridge
This column is written by Marcel Leal, London Daily's Editor, and for some time was written under the nickname 'Michael Bond'.
Back
|
The CyberBridge
By Michael Bond
|
Thames Water and an outraged customer
This story is so important that I'll let Neil Moloney tell it. First he got a letter from Thames Water ..."Your property was identified as not being charged for water services. It has now been set up on our computer billing
system from 1 April 1997 as we are unaware exactly when the property was first occupied. A bill will follow shortly and will include backdated charges." It goes ahead with ..."we are unable to charge you by the consumption recorded as it is inaccessible to our Inspector's (sic). The meters were fitted when the property was originally converted and do not comply with our bylaw regulations."
Neil replied with a letter where he asked for documents and some explanation of why, and by whom, the
meters are considered inaccessible; why Thames Water has allowed this situation to arise; what alternatives to
its proposed course of action were considered; and a justification for the selection of the 1st of April 1997 as the start date for this account.
Neil tell us: "Thames Water then sent a bill dated the 27 of November 2000 (same date as initial letter), which we received a week later. This bill states that we owe Thames Water £328.72 for 730 days' supply. We moved into this flat, in Metro Central, Elephant & Castle, in December last year, so 730 days' supply is a bit rich! The owner only bought the place from the renovators (St. George) ONE WEEK before we moved in!!!!!!! And now Thames Water want to charge for 730 days' supply. Unbelievable! We were amongst the first to live full-time in the buliding."
Outraged as he was, Neil sent a reply remembering TW "If the level of service cannot be quantified because of the inefficiency and apparent incompetence of Thames Water, then the responsibility for the losses incurred by Thames Water should lie squarely on the shoulders of Thames Water, not the customer, who took, in good faith, the services supplied."
He went on with some interesting questions ..."If Thames Water was contracted to supply water to the building, why didn't ensure that the meters in the building complied with the bylaw regulations at the time of initial supply? For how long has Thames Water supplied water to this building in the knowledge that there were effectively no meters? If Thames Water knowingly supplied water to the building in the knowledge that the meters were not compliant, is that not an implicit admission that Thames Water was not willing to take responsibility for the amount of water supplied?"
For Neil "Thames Water is trying to pass their incompetence, laziness and inefficiency off on their customers, on whom they rely to stay in business!" He points out that he lived in Zambia and Zimbabwe for two years, and in neither of these countries would "such a farce be allowed." We, at London Daily, hope to hear a good explanation from Thames Water on this matter.
|
|
