Author |
Message |
Hilltopgeneral Joined 24-03-2004
| 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 caused. 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 pressure. 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 recognised this. I trust this explains our position. Yours sincerely Halina Herowych Customer Relations Enc. The Thames Water quality promise leaflet" |
Sherwood Joined 30-03-2005
| 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! |
Hilltopgeneral Joined 24-03-2004
| 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? |
Theotherbrian Joined 28-03-2005
| 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!! |
Nevermodern Joined 09-02-2007
| 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. |
Sherwood Joined 30-03-2005
| Posted on Saturday, 02 June, 2007 - 02:54 pm: | |
Exactly! 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. |
Haylands Joined 29-09-2006
| 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. |
Ghis Joined 02-01-2007
| Posted on Monday, 04 June, 2007 - 04:33 pm: | |
Get in touch with these guys: http://www.ccwater.org.uk/ |