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

[Crosorbled]

No hosepipe ban for people on benefits .

You seem the most outraged one here.

Every single post directed at you has been measured and factual.

Your posts? Not so much.

@Itchthescratch I don't think I ever said I was against privatisation. What I am against is the mechanisms by which private water companies have sought to reward investors and their failure to invest in water management and infrastructure.

Whilst you are musing over whether or not people on benefits can use their hosepipe, you might want to consider that Thames Water chief executive Chris Weston was paid £1.16mn in 2025, including £99,000 in variable pay, according to the company’s full-year results. The utility also paid insolvency practitioners AlixPartners more than £2mn in compensation for Julian Gething’s role as the company’s chief restructuring officer. I wonder how much they are fretting over whether or not Mrs Jones & her 3 children who gets UC can use her hosepipe whilst Mrs Smith & her 3 children who don't get UC can't.

There is no integrity and people slugging out who can or can't use a hosepipe because they may or may not get a benefit or have a disability or some other small consideration because essentially they are less well off than people who don't get these things is a giant distraction and waste of everyone's time and energy.

I’m no fan of water companies, and welcome any intervention in how they are run.

But… this issue is separate. What happens if there is no rain for weeks, or months? When we all need to cut usage? Would it be - let’s take out fair - morally right for one house to be merrily hosing their cars in this situation because if an exemption?

A little disingenuous. The majority of people with children under 5 are "on benefits" (child benefit).

Yes. It's interesting that people don't mind paying through the nose for essential utilities so they can contribute to the wealth of millionaires, but 'fume' at the very idea they might be 'subsiding' disabled people.
Its such a weird subordinate cap doffing mentality that constantly punches down while leaving their percieved 'betters' beyond reproach.

@MaturingCheeseball in that scenario, I imagine the water supply would be cut off and we would all have to use standpipes, so there wouldn't be any exemptions.

However, after a winter of well above average rainfall, you do have to wonder why this should be an issue at all.

It's not a distraction. It's just a separate issue. Right now, we find ourselves in a situation where hosepipe bans are necessary. This is a fact. You can rail against how we got here, the lost opportunities, the high exec pay etc all you want but it doesn't change the fact that the ban is necessary.

When you have a ban of any kind then exemptions need to handled carefully. Right now, they aren't being managed well and they are being handed out to groups with no extraordinary need just because they're on benefits. This is wrong and unjustifiable. I note that no poster has attempted to justify this but instead simply suggested it's a red herring. You can't dictate what people care about and how they decide what matters to them. As I mentioned earlier, a ban that exempted families not on benefits would cause outrage. I doubt you would be telling people to ignore this injustice and instead to focus solely on the long term, systemic issues with the water companies.

Again, a forensic system to work out exactly who really can't manage a hosepipe ban, would be stupidly expensive and time consuming. And gathering the account of information required for any forensic system would be horribly intrusive, and people would kick off about that, too.

People do mind. 82% of people want water companies nationalised.

People also want the system to be fair and for exemptions and discounts to be allocated on need. Not just random allocations based on benefits or wide categories of people.

That involves keeping the priority register up to date in case of changing circumstances. Doing that and applying a filter would be costly in terms of time and resources. Sometimes a blunt instrument is the best option.

Again, the reason why you are eligible to join the Priority Service Register is captured when you enter the register. You could easily filter out young families on benefits without much work and no intrusion for example. You don't need a forensic system.

It should be kept up to date anyway. I can't believe you think it shouldn't be.

Applying a filter wouldn't be costly. They literally have every entry categorised already.

What is it you are hoping to achieve here? Are you proposing that there should be some kind of hosepipe ban inspectorate? You can argue all you want about the rights and wrongs of to whom the ban should extend to but ultimately what will you achieve?

How do you think the hosepipe ban should be handled? To whom do you think it should extend? Once you have decided, how will you enforce that ban?

In the meantime, I've written to the chief exec of my local water company, to my MP and to the Secretary of State for the Environment asking what they are going to do to prevent this from happening again. I'm only one voice, but I imagine if everyone did that instead of arguing the toss over who can turn their hosepipe on or not, it might have some impact.

OK. I must have missed the threads complaining about the huge profits being made at our expense and calls for nationalisation. Perhaps I've overlooked them in the midst of all the benefit bashing ones.

Would you mind going through my posts to quote back at me exactly where I have been doffing my cap at the water companies?

I have been critical of the water companies and their handling of water supplies.

I know that people on the register aren't routinely contacted to see if they still need to be on it. I haven't expressed a view about that. Let's try to stick to what's actually been said.

It would be costly to administrate a filtered system particularly if that involved annual/regular contact with priority registered customers. And I think we can all agree that water companies aren't keen on spending money where they seem it unnecessary.

I want exemptions to be managed more carefully and for groups without extraordinary need not to be prioritised. I think this a reasonable request and one that could be managed in an efficient way. I want the system to be as fair as possible.

In terms of policing the ban, then that is a wider issue again. Removing people's exemptions won't make a ban harder to police. Anyone can break the ban at anytime.

But why? What are you achieving with your "fair" system that anyone can disregard at any time?

You suggested that the register would have to be updated to filter out specific groups as if it shouldn't be updated already. I am not misconstruing what you were suggesting. The onus is on the individual to update the register.

Why do you think a filtered system would be costly in regards to a hosepipe ban? You just literally filter on for example 'families with children under 5' to identify who isn't exempt. This would then be communicated to the customer via the normal channels. I don't see where you think all this additional cost comes in. The data is already available.

What are we achieving with a hose pipe ban in general? Why does fairness matter in any process?

I think you are being disingenuous. You know exactly why it matters but you think it's relatively petty and a red herring. I disagree.

No, I am absolutely not being disingenuous at all. I want to understand what it is you are hoping to achieve with your fair application of the hosepipe ban and how you hope to impose it. It sounds like it will be quite a lot of work and I would like to know how that will all happen.

I completely disagree with the whole thing in the first place and also dispute that any aspect of it is "fair". So, I am not sure why you now suddenly think that I might be throwing in red herrings?

I don't know how you've concluded it will be a lot of work. I'm not suggesting we go through the register individual by individual and verify they need an exemption. Filtering groups on readily available data and simply communicating to people that are or are not exempt like we already do now is all that would be required.

I think you know though why people think it's unfair that one family with young children is exempt whilst another isn't for a completely arbitrary reason. That's the bit that I think is disingenuous.

I think you’re getting more opposition on the thread but looking at votes the majority agree with you.

The dumbing down of posters and people voting without finding out info is real. Just look at the responses blaming the government, ignorance of why some people need exemptions, stories of in-laws and fighting fit pensioners and two tier nonsense.🙄

Glad you noticed the emojis, eye catching aren't they.🤗

@Itchthescratch no, I genuinely don't know why people are focussing the unfair aspect of this on whether or not the hosepipe ban applies to someone with or without children or with or without a disability or with or without benefits. As I have tried to explain I think it is absurd and ridiculous - period. It is unenforceable and is pointless.

It should be possible in a country where people weren't encourage to begrudge their neighbour a few more drops of water than they have to say -

"We the water companies have fucked up, really badly and we are really sorry but everyone now has to suffer as a result.

We are therefore asking everyone to be very careful of their water consumption. We want you all not to use hosepipes unless it is absolutely necessary and as you are all adults, even though we are incompetent, we think that you should be able to use your best judgement here to know what is necessary and what isn't.

We have absolutely no way of enforcing our request, but once again, even though we are incompetent, we hope that you the bill payers will be obliging and and will help us out here, so that you can all continue to drink water until it rains again."