Suface water and highway drainage charges demands for arrears /United Utilities.

[jofagah]

We are in a serious situation, UU sent a letter dated 14th Oct 2010 explaining they were writing to us after doing an audit of our property, it explains that when we moved into our property in 2002 they should have billed us for suface water and highway drainage charges and would we accept their apologies for them not doing so.

It is a long letter which then goes on to say that they should have billed us from 2002 but will only require payment for the last six years dating back to April 2004 a sum of £5,921.20

We were never aware of any such charges and have always paid our water bills on time, there has never been any funds allocated for such an amount especially for a service we were unaware of.

As we recovered from the shock of this, we researched this additional charge and since learned that it is a recent introduction.

Now we understand this and accept this is part of our responsibilities, this is not in question, the problem is that they know we had no knowledge of this by way of their apology and yet expect a struggling business to have a cash surplus of almost £6,000.00 to pay for their mistake !

We would like the opportunity to go to court to check the legality of this demand, if it is proven that we have to pay all of the amount then all we ask is that they add it to the next 6 years therefore allowing the business to continue and people to keep their jobs.

We have just recieved a letter from Concilia..........FINAL PAYMENT DEMAND

if payment in full is not recieved it may result in United Utiities issuing a bankruptcy petition or a winding up order against the company PLEASE DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE SERIOUSNESS OF THIS MATTER

As we are a small family business, we are all at our wits end wondering how to overcome this, some staff are actively seeking work elsewhere in case we lose the business.

Has anyone experienced a similar situation that can help us ?

[dx100uk]

tough they cant do that...

 

i should think they have to abide by the industry guidelines like other suppliers have to -

 

if they have not billed you for such in the last 12mts, then they can only go back 12mts with this type of things.

 

not too well up on this situation, BUT as for UU , there are some interesting threads on then here

[use the adv search to right]

 

i take it they supply your water?

 

my gut reaction is they can go wistle if it were me.

 

as for the threat-o-gram

 

its just that - they have no legal powers

 

water is not a proirity debt.

 

dx

[jofagah]

Thank you DX, I do hope you are right, although risky we are prepared to go to court, not to avoid paying but to question the legality of the demand, we suspect this is typical corporate bullying to cover up their mistake. If it was the usual water rates then we accept full responsibility for ignorance, this is for surface water and highway drainage charges, a bill we never knew existed until now.

[MARTIN3030]

Yes agree with dx.

It used to be longer but was shortened I think in 2008 to 12 months..

This is the same rulings that have been introduced in the Gas and Electric sectors too.

Although I see you are a business user-can you confirm if you are trading as a Ltd co/partnership/etc.

What style are the bills made out to ?

[MARTIN3030]

Also worth having a word with Ofwat

 

http://www.ofwat.gov.uk/nonhousehold/

[jofagah]

I just checked and it is made out to our limited company as opposed to any individual, does this make a difference ?

[jofagah]

Is there any legal reference to describe the 12 month ruling ?

[jofagah]

Does anyone know of any sites on facebook or twitter that I can highlight our situation also any good journalist that may be interested in putting together a news report as I suspect there are many thousands out there with the same problem and no knowledge of how to deal with it

[MARTIN3030]

I did a quite thorough search but have not been able to come up with any similar cases.

That may be good because to me it suggests that maybe there are none.(Or should I say none reported which can easily be found)

Ofwat represent both consumers and business so I am sure they could give an opinion fast.

The problem with posting this on a social networking site is that if theres no cases to ref to-then they will be scratching in the dark.

Its evident that the charges are legitimate from recently.

It may be that this needs to be tackled under common law.

Being a limited company can restrict some protection under consumer regs and statutes.

I think that your best way forward to deff to seek clarification on this from OFWAT.

I also think that the CAG and people here will assist you to get a determination on this.....its what we do 24/7

Edited January 23, 2011 by MARTIN3030

[MARTIN3030]

I also feel that it will be of benefit to change the thread title here-which will hopefully attract more looking for the same help if they try searching on google.

[MARTIN3030]

Done-that looks more appropriate.

[jofagah]

Done-that looks more appropriate.

 

I agree thank you.

This is causing stress within the family and we thoroughly appreciate everyones input, we would like to put together a fact based and strong worded letter to UU to delay any action so we can formulate a plan of action on how best to approach the situation.

The limited company has only recently been set up and was not in existence pre 2010 the business has always been registered as sole trader if this makes any difference

[MARTIN3030]

Yes I think it would make a difference.

Especially if it can be seen that they are taking this stance in consideration NOW because you have changed your company status.

In fact I would say that if it IS the case that being a limited company allows them to chase so far back (which I am pretty certain is NOT the case )

and they have begun these demands now...then its absolutely unfair business practices-and I have no doubt challengeable.

It could even be tantamount to harassment if they are threatening recovery by legal means.

What I found was that this appears to be a relatively new charge-so how they can ask for money for something which did not exist years ago is baffling.

I would be interested to see the whole text of their demands.

perhaps you could post it up removing all identifiers and date.

Of course if you have reservations to do that-then maybe you could send it to the site team via report triangle.

If we can see more of what they are saying,then it will be much easier to guage.

Yes we can help you with a letter-but first need to read more of what they are relying on in their demands.

Edited January 23, 2011 by MARTIN3030
typo

[jofagah]

Date14 october 2010 Our ref *******************

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Customer Account Number **********

 

I am writing following an audit of our billing records for your property.

 

When you moved into your property on 27 November 2002 we should have billed you for surface water and drainage highway charges. Please accept my apologies for this not happening.

 

Surface water drainage covers the removal and treatment of surface water ( rainwater ) from your property. This includes water that drains from roofs and other hard standing surfaces.. Removing this water helps to protect your property from damage and flooding.

 

The highways drainage charge recovers our costs in disposing of rainwater entering our public sewers from roads throughout the region. It does not relate specifically to the roads in your locality.

 

As everyone uses roads, we feel that the provision of highways drainage is of benefit to the community generally. Because of this we require all customers who are connected to the public sewer to contribute to the cost of providing this service.

 

I have created a new account to base these charges on, however this has only been done six years back from the date we have first been made aware of this. Our records show this to be 19 April 2010 therefore your new surface water highways drainage account is effective from 19 April 2004.

 

These charges are based on the rateable value of the property which was given to the property by the Valuation Office in 1990. The rateable value of your property is 1305 whichh I have used to calculate your charges.

 

From 1 April 2008, we began phasing in a site area charge. We did this by using 2/3rd of your rateable value and 1/3rd of your site area for the 2008/2009 period, and then 1/3rd rateable value and 2/3rd site area for 2009/2010. From 1 April 2010 your charges are based fully upon site area.

 

The site area charges are based on the drained area occupied by your property. This is calculated by measuring the non-permeable sufaces from which surface water or groundwater drains directly or indirectly to a public sewer.

 

The area of your site measures between 650m2 to 1,499m2, which means that a charging band of 4 has been allocated for charging purposes.

 

Please find attached a financial breakdown which shows how I have calculated these charges from 19 April 2004. We will send a revised invoice for this within the next ten working days.

 

If you would like anymore help, or information, please contact us on 0845 746 2255 or email: ****** we will be happy to help you.

 

Yours Faithfully

 

R G

 

Customer Advisor

 

Outstanding Balance £5,921.20

[jofagah]

This has since been followed up by a FINAL DEMAND letter from Concilia

[MARTIN3030]

Ok thanks.

It appears they are using the Limitation Act in consideration of their demands.

This is frankly quite amazing.

I am going to see what can find today.

If they only discovered the mistake in April 2010,also why has it took them months to inform you ?

When did you first hear from them ?

 

The crux of all this is twofold I think.

Firstly,as to whether there is provision in the law and regulations which would allow them to recover arrears that were not notified for 6 years.

And if that is the case,what defence or case law is available in defence of it.

Like you say,its going to be very beneficial to find others who have been billed for the same.

I suspect that the large companies might be minded to just pay it.

I still think that this question should be able to be answered sooner rather than later by those regulating.

[MrOverheads]

Date14 october 2010 Our ref *******************

 

These charges are based on the rateable value of the property which was given to the property by the Valuation Office in 1990. The rateable value of your property is 1305 which I have used to calculate your charges.

 

Is the rateable value they've used correct? Check your Rates bill and also the VOA website.

 

From 1 April 2008, we began phasing in a site area charge. We did this by using 2/3rd of your rateable value and 1/3rd of your site area for the 2008/2009 period, and then 1/3rd rateable value and 2/3rd site area for 2009/2010.

 

Does the detailed calculation on the second page match with what they are saying here? i.e they are only charging site area charge from Apr 08

 

The site area charges are based on the drained area occupied by your property. This is calculated by measuring the non-permeable sufaces from which surface water or groundwater drains directly or indirectly to a public sewer.

Is your whole premise NON-permeable? i.e. tarmac, roof's etc is there any grass/soil areas where the water could drain into the water table and not into their drains/sewers?

 

The area of your site measures between 650m2 to 1,499m2, which means that a charging band of 4 has been allocated for charging purposes.

 

Is this the area of your site, measure your boundaries and calculate the area. If it's coming in around 650m2 then get a professional surveyor to confirm that it is under and then you'll fall into the next charge band down hence cheaper. If it's bordering on going into the next charge band up then ti might be worth trying to get a loan from the bank to pay it as challenging it in court may lead to them spotting that the area is larger.

[MARTIN3030]

If it's bordering on going into the next charge band up then ti might be worth trying to get a loan from the bank to pay it as challenging it in court may lead to them spotting that the area is larger.

 

 

What is foremost at issue here,is not so much as to whether they have calculated the arrears due correctly based on size etc,but whether they are entiled to ask for the arrears to be paid from 2004.

[jofagah]

There is no dispute on our part with regards to these charges, only that the way in which they have been implemented. and to the legality of their demands

 

To charge six years arrears, apologise for their mistake and then threaten to wind up the family business unless we pay immediately, in these delicate times for small business It just does not make sense

[jofagah]

As I have said before we are prepared for them to take us to court, worst case scenario is if they are fully entitled then we will offer their letter of apology admitting their mistake and request that we be given the same time frame to rectify their mistake

[jofagah]

I would be surprised if the bank would lend money to pay arrears ?

[MARTIN3030]

Could they have been reasonably expected to know between 2004 and 2010 that you were liable for the charges but not being billed for them ?

Would they not have had a duty of care towards you to perform accurate billing ?

 

Have you had any communications with them to actually question their rights to collect ?

 

 

I think maybe it would be a good idea to be asking them to provide you with this in writing,and seeking clarification on exactly what statute and industry regulations they are seeking to rely on in their collection attempts.

Since they also are making reference to the possibility of legal proceedings,they have a responsibility to furnish you with this information.

[jofagah]

Some of the points mentioned have raised concerns, one of which is the status change, it became LTD in October when we aquired another business. It was not until October that we recieved our first letter ! is this a coincidence ?

[MARTIN3030]

It is highly questionable.

[Surfer01]

UU are unbelievable. Unfortunately as it is water I can't really add anything except that I hope it is resolved in your favour.