|Posted on Friday, 01 June, 2007 - 07:34 am: |
Check this out for sheer effrontery, in response to an application for a refund for the 4 days without water:
"Thank you for your e-mail of 17 May 2007.
I am sorry to hear you were without water, and apologise for the
inconvenience this undoubtedly
Your website request for a payment under the terms of our Customer
Guarantee Scheme for loss of
water supply has been noted.
As you may now be aware, we experienced a number of bursts on a large
strategic main, in Dulwich
Park Road, which provides water to the area. While we attempted to isolate
the main to carry out
repairs, a number of properties were affected by a series of interruptions
over a number of days.
Some properties were without water, while others experienced reduced water
I hope you will appreciate we were unable to predict this happening but we
did our best to restore the
supplies as quickly as possible. Bottled water was sent to the area.
Under the terms of our Customer Guarantee Scheme, we have up to 48 hours to
repair a strategic
main. However, no payments are applicable in this instance, as at no time
during the four days did any
interruption last for more than 48hrs at a time, although I appreciate some
customers may not have
I trust this explains our position.
Enc. The Thames Water quality promise leaflet"
|Posted on Friday, 01 June, 2007 - 09:20 am: |
That sounds like a good contract. We pay for water. They don't deliver. But we still have to pay!
|Posted on Friday, 01 June, 2007 - 10:22 am: |
I like the way they get out of it by basically saying "we know you didn't have water - but that's not the point, we did get the main fixed within 48 hours. And anyway, although nothing came on when you turned the tap on for about 4 days, you did technically "have water" at some point, as you would have realised if you had tried turning the tap on between 0321 and 0326 on Wednesday".
Does this mean that the rest of the time, when I do get water, I don't have to pay as long as there are unfixed leaks in the street outside, I wonder?
|Posted on Saturday, 02 June, 2007 - 09:11 am: |
Directors' bonus payments and shareholders' dividends must take precedence over awkward customers who have the bare-faces effrontery to expect the service for which they pay. Just remember, the private sector is soooo efficient and provides outstanding value for money. Lets's not have any of that outdated idea of public service thank-you very much!!
|Posted on Saturday, 02 June, 2007 - 09:16 am: |
The main problem is not that they're public or private, it's that you can't get rid of them if they're rubbish! I said goodbye to British Gas a long time ago because they were so shoddy. If you could do the same with Thames Water, they'd soon change their tune.
|Posted on Saturday, 02 June, 2007 - 02:54 pm: |
Mrs Thatcher prvatised some companies using the theory that competition between them would bring prices down. I could never work out the justification for privatising water as there is no competition.
|Posted on Monday, 04 June, 2007 - 02:00 pm: |
There's plenty of competition. You just have to search it out. Try bathing in ass' milk, showering in Evian or brushing your teeth with San Pellegrino.
|Posted on Monday, 04 June, 2007 - 04:33 pm: |
Get in touch with these guys: