Exposed Thames water Liars & Fraudsters

Please note, the answers given to the ‘virtual interview’ questions in this exposé/article, are (by and large) in the ‘Public Domain’. See the TRUTH’s editorial page (the link to which can be found on the main contents page) for more.

Exposed!

Liars and Fraudsters!

As hard as that may be to believe, the evidence speaks for itself!

First and foremost, the TRUTH wishes to thank Thames Water’s ‘Customer X’ as they are referred to in this exposé, for providing the TRUTH with all of the evidence, which comprises all of the communications/letters sent by Thames Water, along with copies of Customer X’s payments.

After studying the evidence, I have to say, not only do the figures, those of Thames Water, not add up, but it is quite clear from it (the evidence) that Thames Water has lied while seeking to defraud Customer X, by demanding more money than they are legally entitled to.

As usual, there now follows a virtual interview with Thames Water. One in which, despite what they may otherwise say, is the truth, and is based on the evidence contained in Thames Water's letters to Customer X.

Thames Water. Following the letter that Customer X received from their local council, they being a council tenant, one of thousands in the areas that you supply water to, you sent Customer X this letter:

Thames Water, Kelly Macfarlane: ‘That is correct.’

You also included 2 forms.

Thames Water, Kelly Macfarlane: ‘Let us know more about you and our WaterSure Plus scheme.’

Precisely, and which Customer X completed and sent to you?

Thames Water: ‘We received the completed form from Customer X; however, because of the Government’s Covid-19 lockdown restrictions, it took some while to process it, during which time, Customer X paid the full amount for the first two months.’

Hold it there, as I want to go through everything in a chronological order, the dates that things occurred.

Letter number 2, which, again, has no date on it, is the bill for the year, payable by 12 monthly instalments. Due to the odd 6p the first payment at the start of April 2020 was £29.96, followed by 11 equal monthly payments of £29.90:

Letter 3, dated 23 April 2020, included Customer X’s ‘PayPoint card’, which, I have to say, in view of the fact that the first payment was due at the start of April, arrived late!

As will be noted from the following payment slip dated 18/05/20, you, Thames Water, received a payment of £59.86 from Customer X?

Thames Water: ‘I can confirm that Thames Water did receive a payment of £59.86 from Customer X, thereby leaving a payment of £299.00 for the remainder of the year, the next 10 months.’

So, in effect, then?

Thames Water: ‘£29.90 per month.’

As noted by your letter dated 4 June 2020, you sent Customer X what looks like a payment bill with a confusing amount on it?

Thames Water: ‘Oh dear, yes, totally confusing, as you mention, as it indicates a credit of 27.40.'

Confirmed by the doubly confusing scan of the accompanying page 2 of 5, in which you, Thames Water, attempt to explain Customer X’s charges from 01 April 2020 to 04 May 2020 (33 days).

In doing so, you, Thames Water, noticeably overcharged Customer X?

Thames Water: ‘Yes, you are quite correct. We, Thames Water, overcharged Customer X.’

Please explain how.

Thames Water: ‘The original yearly bill was £358.86. Divided by the amount of days in the year (366), the daily amount X 33 days is £32.36. An overcharge of £0.10p.

That as it may be, while the compounding amount will be seen at the end of this exposé, since Thames Water received the application form for the discounted rate, it should have started from the commencement of the year, April 01 2020.

Next, and with the ‘WaterSure Plus’ form finally processed, this is where things go wrong on your, Thames Water’s, part.

For some strange and totally confusing excuse, one devoid of reason, logic and integrity, you, Thames Water, did what?

Thames Water: ‘Um, yes, well, we, Thames Water, closed down Customer X’s old account and sent a letter with a new and reduced tariff of £135.80 for the remaining 10 months.’

So, that means, according to the amount of £59.86 paid on 18/05/20 plus the £135.80 mentioned on your, Thames Water’s letter dated 5 June 2020, the total for the year is?

Thames Water: ‘£195.66.’

The next letter to arrive, one dated 08 June 2020, is where the lies and fraud are most noticeable:

First and foremost, is the reduction of 50% on Customer X’s original bill. Next is the fact that the reduction was not applied from the start, April, but ‘from: 04/05/2020. Note the claim in the letter of: 'Your standard rate bills will be reduced by 50%'.

Since the original full yearly amount was £358.86, then a 50% reduction works out at half of that amount = £179.43, which is £16.23 less than that of the revised bill totalling ‘£195.66.’ The new amount plus the amount paid already (See above).

By my, anyone’s reckoning that is 2 acts of fraud. The first being the incorrect start date of the WaterHelp tarrif, while the second is the overcharge of £16.23.

Now comes the interesting and questionable part. On 14/09/2020 (14th September 2020) Customer X, as confirmed by this payment slip, paid you, Thames Water, the sum of?

Thames Water: ‘£79.54.’

If you add the two payment slips together, how much do they total?

Thames Water: ‘£139.40.’

Due to your, Thames Water’s, confusing and, dare I say it, *corrupt mishandling of Customer X’s claim form and the revised bill of £135.80, Customer X took it to mean that was their bill for the entire year, from which they had already paid £59.86.

*From a common sense standpoint, why you, Thames Water, found it necessary to close Customer X’s old account, beggars belief, let alone any ounce of reason. What you, Thames Water, should have done, was to keep open the original account and then sent Customer X a new yearly amount, that of the 50% reduction mentioned, showing a credit minus of the first payment of £59.86, only you, Thames Water, failed, miserably, to do any or all of that?

Thames Water: ‘Yes, we, Thames Water, neglectfully failed to do any or all of that.’

The word for that is incompetency! Equally noted by most VAR’s (Video Assistant Referees) and the FA (Football Association), who tolerate their incompetency.

Fast forward to your, Thames Water’s, letter dated 15 January 2021, which requests a payment of £15.52 for a missed payment.

I have to say, I find this most odd, the letter and demand, and this is why. Going back to the revised bill of £135.80 dated 5 June 2020, and since Customer X didn’t pay the sum of £79.54 until 14th September 2020, how many letters did you, Thames Water, send out, requesting payment for missed payments for June, July and August?

Thames Water: ‘None. Not one letter was sent out requesting a payment for those three months.’

By the TRUTH’s reckoning and that of anyone with simple mathematical skills, despite the fact that the revised amount of £135.80 should be less, owing to the fact that Thames Water, acting incompetently, lyingly and fraudulently, failed to apply the reduction to the whole year, the second payment of £79.54 covered 5 months until the end of October, with an additional sum of £11.64 paid for November, a shortfall of £1.94. If you add the shortfall of £1.94 to the monthly amount of £13.58, then, yes, the amount of £15.52 agrees with the demand in letter 7.

The problem, however, as mentioned is this: Thames Water failed to apply the WaterHelp reduction of 50% for the whole year. Meaning that, the revised bill should be less than specified. Indeed, taking your, Thames Water’s, indication into account, the bill for the entire year should be?

Thames Water: ‘50% of the original bill.’

And that is?

Thames Water: ‘50% of £358.86, which is £179.43, of which Customer X has paid a total of £139.40, leaving an outstanding payment of £40.03.’

Bearing in mind that, due to the confusion, lie and fraud on your, Thames Water’s part, Customer X missed a December payment and still needs to pay January, February and March, that evens out at how much per month?

Thames Water: ’£40.03 divided by 4 months [December to and including March], averages out at £10.01 with 1p credit.

In that case, your, Thames Water’s, demand for a missed payment of £15.52 is?

Thames Water: ‘A lie, and fraudulent with it.’

You can say that again, especially since, due to your, Thames Water’s, incompetency and total mishandling, you, Thames Water, fraudulently expect a total of £56.26 for those 4 months?

Thames Water: ‘Yes, we, Thames Water, fraudulently expect a payment of £56.26 for those 4 months. A sum that is £16.23 more than Thames Water is legally entitled to and, as will be noted, is 71p more than the demand amount of £15-52 as stated in our, Thames Water’s, letter of 15 January 2021.’

By now, 16th February 2021, you, Thames Water, should have received a final payment of £40.03. Payment confirmed by this payment slip:

Meaning that, if you, Thames Water, had the integrity to apply the 50% reduction from the start, 01 April 2020 to 31 March 2021, then it is true to say that Customer X owes you, Thames Water, how much?

Thames Water: ‘Nothing!’

Of course, the reason why, having perused all of the evidence, the TRUTH decided to get involved, is simple. The change that council tenants found themselves in would have included many more hundreds if not thousands of new Thames Water customers, scores of who, just like Customer X, and having applied for and received the WaterHelp reduction, will have been incorrectly and fraudulently charged the full amount for the first month or 33 days, while that, in Customer X's case, included an overcharge of 10p.

£16.23 may only seem like a small amount of fraud on Thames Water’s part, until you multiply it by 100 new Thames Water customers who are in receipt of a benefit, State pension in Customer X’s case, and entitled to have a reduction, not necessarily 50%, applied to their initial bill. All of a sudden, £16.23 becomes £1,623.00.