'Rain tax' parliament lobby plan

[Beorn]

Cub Scouts, members of the Church of England and the Rugby Football Union are due to take part in a mass lobby of Parliament over a proposed "rain tax".

Some English water companies are planning to impose huge bills on churches and other community groups.
The three lobbying groups have formed a "Stop the Rain Tax" campaign.
Water companies say they are following the advice of Ofwat, which says charging for drainage is an "environmentally responsible" approach.
Scouts claim that new tariffs have seen some of its groups paying up to 1400% more for their water bills compared with before.
The Scout Association, Church of England and RFU are proposing a "social tariff" which they say would see groups paying a fair and affordable amount for their surface water.

Churches and other not-for-profit groups like the Scouts Association fear their bills for water drainage will rocket after four water firms in England gave notice they intend to change their charging policy.
While in the past community and other not-for-profit groups were largely exempt from drainage bills because of their charitable status, they now face being charged the same as other commercial enterprises.
Ex-England rugby international Brian Moore is also lending his support to the campaign, and will join Cub Scouts in their demonstration outside Westminster.

Mr Moore said: "If Ofwat continues to regulate in a way that threatens the existence of these valuable volunteer concerns, our MPs must intervene.
"It is scandalous that Ofwat condones a system of charging that treats these groups in the same way as petrol stations, supermarkets and other large and hugely profitable businesses."

Sharing costs

Following advice from the water regulator Ofwat, four companies - Yorkshire, United Utilities, Severn and Northumbria - changed their charging policy, sparking protests from various groups.
Churches face higher bills because the drainage charges are based on the total surface area of their roofs, which governs how much rainwater has to be drained away into sewers.

Ofwat says the cost of providing surface water drainage in England and Wales is about £700m every year, and everyone needs to pay their share.
But the policy has led to some not-for-profit groups paying considerably more than commercial buildings - like shops and factories.
An earlier campaign against drainage charges has already seen one of the water companies - United Utilities - suspend its charging policy for 2009.
Another firm, Severn Trent, has said it intends to charge churches and charities from next year, but will bring in the charges over time.

Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8150909.stm)

[Treffie]

Water companies say they are following the advice of Ofwat, which says charging for drainage is an "environmentally responsible" approach

This is a ridiculous proposal but what else should we expect from a Quango? I suspect we'll be charged for fresh air next.:(

[Dalriada]

Yet another reason to nationalise the water industry in England and Wales, as it (thankfully) is in Scotland. Private companies should never be able to hold ordinary people to ransom over commodities which they need to go about their daily lives (and, indeed, survive).

[Lahtari]

Yet another reason to nationalise the water industry in England and Wales, as it (thankfully) is in Scotland. Private companies should never be able to hold ordinary people to ransom over commodities which they need to go about their daily lives (and, indeed, survive).

I'm usually almost Anarcho-Capitalist in my views about economy, but in this case I think it's capitalism gone wrong. I mean, where's the competition? If a water company asks for let's say £50,000 a year for rainwater drainage, and people refuse to pay, what will they do? Block the pipes leading to the drainage system - that is running under public roads - so that their properties will be flooded? Should there be separate, competing drainage systems running across a city? :crazy:

A thing like this is clearly a community project. The citizens should pay for it in taxes to the city, which in turn should find the cheapest private firm to do it collectively.