cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Worse Value For Money

Community Veteran
Posts: 5,333
Thanks: 607
Registered: 23-09-2010

Worse Value For Money

No not Plusnet as they're pretty good.
I was wondering what people consider is / was the "Worse Value For Money"?
For me it has to be Council Tax and Water Rates.
It was so much better when it was just the rates. Leaving aside how vastly cheaper it was the service was much better and you got so much more for your money.
Now it seems no more than a bare-bones money gathering exercise.
And just how much can you charge for water? As much as you can get away with apparently.
70 REPLIES
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 25,754
Thanks: 1,116
Fixes: 47
Registered: 14-04-2007

Re: Worse Value For Money

I always think that charging for water is like charging for air as it's an essential of life.....but business is business.
Customer and Forum Moderator.
Product of the Tyrell Corporation
TORPC
Grafter
Posts: 5,163
Registered: 08-12-2013

Re: Worse Value For Money

I can understand the need to charge for supplying water to our home / businesses etc,
However
If they charged a reasonable amount per household (in an ideal world) they would have more revenue, to improve, their filtration system, as was pointed out, fairly recently, that we drink / shower bathe in others filtered body waste
Bottle watered companies are also a rip off, yet better than the pipped council pop variety or are they ?Huh
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 25,754
Thanks: 1,116
Fixes: 47
Registered: 14-04-2007

Re: Worse Value For Money

The problem with bottled water seems to be not with the water so much as the bottle that contains it.
Customer and Forum Moderator.
Product of the Tyrell Corporation
TORPC
Grafter
Posts: 5,163
Registered: 08-12-2013

Re: Worse Value For Money

Well recognised
As each has their own separate set of issue(s) that are not 100& healthy towards mankind
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 17,245
Thanks: 902
Fixes: 101
Registered: 11-01-2008

Re: Worse Value For Money

Printer ink without a doubt..
Will Moderate For Thanks
TORPC
Grafter
Posts: 5,163
Registered: 08-12-2013

Re: Worse Value For Money

With the view of recent post(s)
I was waiting to see who would be the 1st to mention the growing ink issue Smiley
Community Veteran
Posts: 18,542
Thanks: 190
Registered: 12-08-2007

Re: Worse Value For Money

Quote from: billnotben

For me it has to be Council Tax and Water Rates.

Council tax is not expensive if you live in the right area. Ours hasn't been increased for the past three years. Rubbish collection, street cleaning, lighting, H&S, environmental services are just a few of the things provided out of CT.
Water isn't expensive either IMO. I'm on a water meter and pay around £150 per annum.
Community Veteran
Posts: 16,814
Thanks: 1,112
Fixes: 13
Registered: 06-11-2007

Re: Worse Value For Money

Here in Portsmouth, we have Two water bills.... one from Portsmouth Water Co.... and the other from Southern Water....  Portsmouth water, charge us for the rain that falls on our roof, then goes into the drains.... Shocked

Southern water charge us for the water they supply to the households for drinking and other uses...
Community Veteran
Posts: 1,894
Thanks: 3
Registered: 20-10-2012

Re: Worse Value For Money

Here in York we used to have our own private company supplying water - called York Waterworks.  Smiley
When the gov of the day decided that water supply would be privatised they allowed the companies to increase domestic charges by 11% to pay for the cost of privatisation.
Our (already private) water company was also allowed to increase charges by 11% to 'pay for' privatisation.!  Shocked
So, our costs increased to pay a private company to privatise itself - what a goddamn waste of money!  Angry
Then, after a few years, the 'new' company was sold to Yorkshire Water!  Roll eyes
Geoff,
York.
Community Veteran
Posts: 5,333
Thanks: 607
Registered: 23-09-2010

Re: Worse Value For Money

Quote from: artmo
Council tax is not expensive if you live in the right area.

But is it good value?
Back in the days our binman used to go into back gardens to pick up your bin. The council had its own road gang. Roads were resurfaced (properly) every few years. Potholes what potholes? Councils concentrated on providing the services they were supposed too. Not making a profit to invest in Iceland banks. Police patrolled the streets at night. Checking doors and locks. Now they sit in cars checking facebook.
There seems to be a turnabout with many services where the public have ended up virtually serving the civil servants.
Community Veteran
Posts: 16,814
Thanks: 1,112
Fixes: 13
Registered: 06-11-2007

Re: Worse Value For Money

Roll eyes
I`ll go along with the above....... how about  "BillnotBen" for Prime minister, next electionsHuh?Huh
nanotm
Pro
Posts: 5,670
Thanks: 108
Fixes: 1
Registered: 11-02-2013

Re: Worse Value For Money

yes things cost a lot less before everything got privatised, now all the stuff the council supposedly organises just wastes money, for example the bin collection, the company is paid by the council, they collate the waste, and either send it to landfill or there own reprocessing centre or they sell it on (at a considerable profit) the stuff that they reprocess (at a plant the council paid to have built and foot the running costs for) is then sold on at profit, the only people working for the company who's wages aren't additionally covered by the council are the management,
effectively the council pays for a private company (who increase there running cost charge year on year) to make a profit, and this is called a partnership....
I'd call it a waste of public funds, before the service was privatised it cost half as much and the council themselves got the profits back into the system and used them to pay for other things like free swimming ....
the police force in my area has shrunk quite considerably over recent years and now there closing half the police stations and selling off the real estate (a totally idiotic idea) yet they cost more year on year to operate on there ever reducing footing....
education services have been largely removed from local authorities remit and yet we see year on year increases in operational costs (they removed the EMA but somehow still managed to increase the funding requirements despite also halving the number of schools there responsible for) .....
all forms of residential care and in home care have been outsourced and the services greatly degraded yet they now cost  10 x more......
just a tiny fragment of things that are costing more for a lesser standard
about the only area that has seen anything positive is cultural services, but only if your a foreign national, they keep refusing grants for traditional English events like the mayday festivals or midsummer festivals (which used to be council subsidised events) yet they totally funded the last j'wadi festival .......

just because your paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
TORPC
Grafter
Posts: 5,163
Registered: 08-12-2013

Re: Worse Value For Money

They really should never have privatised at least 2/3 what they have done to date
MP,s should be on a fixed salary (£10 P/H maximum if lives in London), within reasonable living expenses (anymore than that, then they should seek a 2nd job)
Anyone that earns a substantial take home pay, should automatically, have a moderate % removed for charities / back in the communities etc
It is a pity that, the certain MP did not take up the offer to live on the equivalent of the doles funding
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 17,245
Thanks: 902
Fixes: 101
Registered: 11-01-2008

Re: Worse Value For Money

Quote from: TORPC
Anyone that earns a substantial take home pay, should automatically, have a moderate % removed for charities / back in the communities etc

what's substantial and why? the top 1% of earners contribute 30% of total income tax revenue and the top 25% contribute 75%.. sounds a reasonable contribution to me.
Will Moderate For Thanks