AIBU to question no hosepipe ban exemption for people on benefits?

[Crosorbled]

No hosepipe ban for people on benefits .

What has this got to do with people on benefits?

Once you start fixating on hosepipe bans it's the road to wasting your day peering through the net curtains glaring at Mrs Perkins as she waters the begonias, before turning into a horrible combination of Hyacinth Bucket and the Dursleys. Don't go down this road 🛣️

For which we pay bills! The Independent Water Commission had this fairly clear recommendation:

"Economic regulation for the water industry is needed to protect consumers from the misuse of monopoly powers, such as high costs and poor service."

Currently, water companies are incentivised to underspend on asset renewal. This is because, by underspending against capital maintenance in their totex allowance (which is counted as ‘efficiency savings’), they can spend this unused funding to distribute it as dividends!!!!

It describes a situation where a cohort of customers are designated as priority and then receive preferential treatment rather well.

I get the tactics here. It's about telling enough lies so that nobody cares what the truth is, as long as what's said suits their agenda. The hypocrisy is staggering. Nobody is doing enough to save water in the UK because we take it for granted. How many posting here would also be posting on one of the regular "smelly people" threads, insisting that you're going to stink if you don't have a shower twice daily?

Yes, the 69% who are as stupid and lazy as you. Except, in your case, I think you are also malicious. I notice you have not replied to any of the many, many people telling you what the situation actually is. Still, I expect the thought of that 69% will keep you going through your sad and humdrum little Wednesday.

Disabled and vulnerable people

More fool you to have fallen for this 'two tier' rhetoric

There's a lot of bitterness and resentment on this site towards people with certain disadvantages who might receive modest adjustments to slightly mitigate that disadvantage. In other words people get pissed off if, say, you've got a condition meaning you have to use more water than average and your water company gives you a reduced tariff to make things more fair. I wonder if this is genuine or being whipped up by people with an agenda?

I was hoping to get the water cheaper as my son is obsessed with running taps and he does have DLA but we don't have a water meter. We do get a bit off due to being on UC but be nice to get more off. We have two children.

No, more fool you for failing to understand that the Priority Service Register is in no way an accurate method to identify those that require an exemption from the hosepipe ban. It was never attended to inform exemptions and is a crude and blunt tool that includes numerous members of my own family that have absolutely no need for such an exemption. Did you know you can be added to the register if you're over 65 or are pregnant and have children under 5 (and on benefits of course)?

My fighting fit parents in their sixties would be mortified to be on such a register and are in no way vulnerable. I see absolutely no reason why a family with kids under 5 should be exempt when they're on benefits but not exempt when they're not. Loads of disabilities don't impact someone's ability to carry a watering can. Two of my family members are disabled and just as capable of carrying a water can as anyone else.

The mechanism to award exemptions is crap.

@ClarkeandNewman the papers and media outlets that post disingenuous headlines will know what attracts the most clicks and I'm guessing benefit bashing is right up there.

Rather than discuss the actual mismanagement of our bountiful water supply most people on this thread have wanted to pursue the benefits vs non-benefits water restrictions. We'd rather not let a neighbour have a drop more water than us, but seem largely content for water companies to prefer servicing their investors than us, the bill payers. Mad world we live in!

Have read the list of all exemptions?

I haven't seen any support for the water companies on this thread. If you want to start a thread about water companies then start one. This thread is specifically about the exemptions afforded to people on benefits that aren't extended to everyone else. The anger with the water companies doesn't mean that nobody can discuss how these exemptions have been distributed.

Can you explain why a family with young children will need an exemption if they are on benefits but won't need one if they're not?

I have and that's why I call this two tier outrage bollocks.

Why does a family with young children require an exemption if they're on benefits but doesn't need one if they're not on benefits? How is that not a'two tier' system that is offering privilege to those on benefits for no logical reason?

@Itchthescratch no I can't. I will not be drawn into pitting people with a tiny bit less against people with a tiny bit more. That's what the media want us to do and I dislike it intensely.

The thread makes me sad to read people begrudging each other water and fighting over whether or not someone with young children deserves a bit more water depending on whether they are on benefits or not.

Any mechanism that was more forensic would cost an absolute fortune. Would you be happy for your bill to rise, simply to avoid someone you deem unworthy, getting to use a hosepipe?

There’s not a difference in need in those two groups no.

You say "a priority" others say "distinct needs". But hey, I'm all for people questioning the behaviour of private utility companies (even if some numpties still manage to blame 'the left'). Bring it on, and let's get cracking with nationalising them.

It's not about pitting people against each other but about maintaing the integrity of the process and the social contract. Ultimately most people don't like hose pipe bans and resent them for all kinds of reasons. It is also true that if we all ignored hosepipe bans or were all exempt then this would put severe pressure on the system and we would risk serious water shortages that would impact the most vulnerable. So in short, at the moment with the infrastructure we have got, we need a hosepipe ban and we need most people to comply. This will add extra tasks into everyone's days, means that everyone's garden looks a bit sad and will restrict fun activities. The message has to be though that we should all work as a collective to prevent something worse from happening.

The whole system is completely undermined if you arbitrarily exempt some groups for no reason other than they are on benefits. View the situation the other way round. What if families with young kids were only exempt from a hosepipe ban as long as they weren't on benefits? This would cause outrage and rightly so. It isn't about begrudging children a bit of extra water but about the unfairness and inequality that's build into the system.

The specific reason people are on the Priority Services Register is logged. If you remove groups that don't have an obvious greater need to use a hose by basic filtering then this would massively help.

@Itchthescratch "the whole system is undermined if you arbitrarily exempt some groups". Surely be to goodness, you do not believe that? The whole system is undermined from years of underinvestment, not whether or not small groups of people who have slightly less money than their neighbours use a hose for their kids paddling pool.

You talk about "the integrity of the process" - but you must see that there is no integrity here. Consumers and bill payers are being punished for the failures of the water companies.

It’s the water companies that use the term priority service customers.

Have you read what the water companies say about this situation?

For the millionth time, of course we need to do something about the water companies. We need to invest hundreds of billions of pounds in our infrastructure. Privatisation hasn't helped but it's not the sole cause of our issues either. If the utilities were still nationalised then we would still have lots of problems unless we had pumped in a hundreds of billions of pounds of additional public funding from god knows where. We are in a huge mess with all of this stuff and it's going to take years to sort out and be hugely expensive. Dividends and mismanagement are just part of a much larger issue.

All of this doesn't justify randomly exempting some people from a ban and not others. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Its because it rhymes with Keir and there's a type of person who latches on to rhymes, throw back to toddler hood.
With any luck it will die out when they hear what the wordsmiths come up with to rhyme with Burnham.