Monday 15 May 2023: In response to two Affinity Water draft videos

Monday 15 May 2023: In response to two Affinity Water draft videos

Video 1

I quite liked the upbeat, inspirational music. Its use helped me to continue to listen to what the man was saying.

I thought the editing of the video was very good: it maintained interest.

I thought that the use of additional images was okay: it maintained interest. However, in contrast to last week's feedback in which I criticised the use of pretty photographs in the document, the use of pretty images here would have been much better than the line drawings reproduced from the document. (I can listen to what a talking head is saying while being shown a short clip of a chalk stream or of a burst pipe being mended.)

I thought that the background scenery was unremarkable, but better than him being in an office or studio.

I thought that the single talking head was a little tedious. I should have preferred there to have been an alternating man and woman talking head. (But not a quasi interview.)

Having watched the video a second time, I found it less interesting, and found myself watching the ducks or geese in the background. It really does need some illustrative material such as chalk streams and people repairing a burst water main.

I think that it would help were the figures spoken verbally by Martin Haslett to be put on the screen (and preferably given some proper context).

I feel uncomfortable and challenged by asking what would make the video more appealing because you are asking what would make it a more effective public relations exercise.

What I found really difficult were parts of what the man was saying. I considered him to be using weasel words. For instance, the five year plan runs from 2025 to 2030, but he then roped in the single figure of a 50% reduction in water wastage through leaks (which would sound okay for 2030) by 2050. It would have been much more honest to say what the 2030 target is for reduction in water wastage through leaks. Also, he made out that the recent cost of living crisis means that this is a financially difficult time for many people, and that Affinity Water can help people by rescheduling their payments - big deal! They will still be required to pay. Were water provision to be in the hands of the municipality, then social tariffs for impoverished people could be levied - and without charging (taxing) less impoverished customers more. He talked about the roll-out of, was it 400,000? smart water meters, without actually acknowledging that a significant proportion of Affinity Water's customers do not currently have a water meter at all. The aspect at which I scoffed most volubly was the part where he said something to the effect of people wanting good quality water in their taps. Yeah? Really? That is what the water supplier is supposed to deliver - it is not meant to be optional. It is the barest minimum expectation. (Which, by the by, Southern Water have failed to achieve, yet again, this time in West Sussex.)

What was missing was any indication that the consultation is an honest attempt to determine future direction, rather than simply a public relations exercise dressed up as a consultation. However, Affinity Water is not a publicly-owned organisation that takes its legitimacy and direction from the people it serves. It is a commercial organisation with an intent to make money as painlessly as possible for all (owners, employees and customers) concerned.

 

Video 2

I found the music in this video overwhelming.

I experienced the video editing as more clunky than Video 1.

I considered the insertion of short video clips to be exactly what I wanted to see in Video 1.

Unlike regarding Martin Haslett, I found the woman talking head to be a serious distraction. Partly it was her waving her hands about. Partly it was about her reading from a script (she did not appear to be very relaxed). She also seemed to be on a mission to convince the viewer that she and her colleagues on the ICG (?) do an excellent job.

The elephant rampaging around the room was that what a majority of customers want is for water provision to be in public ownership. Yes, people want continuity of supply, at least acceptable quality water, and small water bills. However, she did not mention that who owns the water supply matters to many people.

Key message: there are seven independent experts (by whom are they paid?) who do an excellent job at something, so there's no need to worry.

It would seem that the ICG is made up of people intent on keeping Affinity Water in business, rather than challenging its role as a commercial organisation.

I did not take in that the woman's name is Caroline Warner. Is she the chair of the ICG?

The aspect of the video that I found unclear was why it had been made / why I was watching it.

Watching the video the second time through, I found the Caroline Warner to be glib and unconvincing: "people want their water to be eco-friendly" makes it sound like the product she was talking about supplying is washing powder, not about trying to wrest back a natural environment in south-eastern England that has been trashed by some water companies.

I was confused about whether this ICG group relates only to Affinity Water, or to all water companies.

 

Thursday 11 May 2023: Amazon product review: Stewart Patio Tub Planter

Diameter: 50 cm; height: 39 cm; colour: gun metal black

I think that the first one I bought from Amazon (over a year ago) arrived damaged due to the almost total absence of packaging and rough handling. I knew to check it carefully as soon as it arrived, and so was immediately able to arrange a replacement with Amazon which arrived a few days later. It is clear from other comments that a proportion of these planters are damaged on delivery. The other three have been undamaged.

It is important to understand that the planter will arrive without drainage holes. Places for drainage holes are marked on the base of the planter. I am currently considering ordering a further planter to use as a patio pond, for which purpose I believe the planter would be excellent - not least because it does not arrive with drainage holes. Taking note of the experience of other people, I avoided the mistake of trying to punch drainage holes using a hammer and a sharp object, as this risks splitting the plastic (and thereby compromising its structural integrity). Instead, I used a heated soldering iron to make the holes, which was ideal: effective, simple and quick. A red hot poker (not the plant) would do the job just as well.

I am using three planters for strawberry plants, ten per planter, in order to have much improved control over the garden weeds that always swamp our strawberries. The depth of each planter means that it can hold plenty of moisture in the form of damp/wet soil, as a consequence of which the plants do not require watering every day during the summer. I am using the fourth planter for carrots, in order to keep the plants off the garden soil surface where carrot root fly lurk. The depth of the planter means that it is to be hoped that the carrots will grow to their full length.

Once full of soil/compost, the planter is almost impossible to relocate, mostly because of how heavy it will have become, but also because the plastic walls are not especially heavy duty. Therefore, careful thought needs to be given in advance of its siting.

I consider the planters to represent good value for money.

Monday 8 May 2023: About the bank holiday weekend

Monday 8 May 2023: About the bank holiday weekend

My wife and I being retired from paid employment and full-time carers for our quadriplegic and now mostly-paralysed daughter (who is also profoundly deaf and almost completely unable to speak) who is clinically extremely vulnerable to the coronavirus (which everyone else seems to think has disappeared), bank holidays rarely present delightful opportunities, merely disruptions to the schedule that is our daily life. The weather being dry but troubled by sea-fret, we grasped the occasion to visit Samphire Hoe. Although we found the car park was full (not good), apart from a solitary Blue Badge space (which is all we required), almost all the visitors were crowded around the refreshments booth, mostly in an enormous queue. Consequently, we were able to walk briskly along the sea wall promenade without there being anyone around, which is what we require to stay isolated and safe. There was absolutely nothing to see (no sea-birds, and not even Shakespeare Cliffs) because of the sea-fret, and there being no wind, there were no waves on the sea. (I assume that it will have been a productive day for people smugglers putting migrants, refugees and asylum seekers into small boats to cross the Channel.) The sea-fret also muffled all sound. There was absolutely nothing to photograph. My daughter indicated that she considered the experience to be "spooky". On the way home, the car nearly ran out of petrol because the fuel tank is tiny due to the wheelchair access conversion. Getting out of and back into the car in the short space of time it took to refill the fuel tank made me feel extremely travel queasy, which knocked out the rest of my afternoon. I cooked stir-fried vegetables with noodles for our evening meal.     

Monday 17 April 2023: Attitude to Affinity Water

Monday 17 April 2023: Attitude to Affinity Water

On a scale of 0 to 10, how satisfied/dissatisfied am I with Affinity Water?

2 

Why?

First, I feel politically deeply challenged by what ought to be a public utility instead in the hands of commercial interests. Affinity Water is a commercial company owned by an insurance and asset management company, an investment company and a fund management company. It would strain credibility to suggest that the primary focus of these three companies is not money. The privatisation of public water was 'sold' to the public primarily on the basis that the new water utility companies would raise large amounts of money for major infrastructure projects. The major infrastructure projects never happened, and the large sums of money borrowed were distributed to shareholders instead. Now, thirty years later, the water companies have been instructed to do something about the appalling state of the water infrastructure in the UK, and to pay for this the water companies want to increase water charges. This was not how we were told it was going to be.

Two analogies occur to me. The first, simple, is being asked how satisfied or dissatisfied I feel about a person who picked my pocket. The second, more complex, is returning home to find that my house has been sold by someone who had no legal right to sell my house, having stolen my title deeds, and pocketed the value of the house that had been legally mine. The new owners permit me to continue living in the house, but they have taken out a massive loan against the value of the house. I am most dissatisfied with the person who stole the title deeds to my house, but I am also dissatisfied with the person who now owns the house that was stolen. (N.B. This scam really does happen.)

Second, to my knowledge, Affinity Water has no plans to undertake a full and timely renewal of the water mains for which it is responsible. This means that, like the other water companies, Affinity Water will forever be responding to leaks. The water wasted as a result of leaks is enormous.

Third, Affinity Water is not serious about reducing customer wastage of water. The UK is rushing headlong into a future of severe water stress, and customer water use reduction targets are pitiful. I cannot help but imagine that when the business model is to make a profit by selling water to customers, the last thing that you want the customer to do is to use less water. Affinity Water has not put all of its customers (who can be) on water meters. I have a water meter, but I want a smart meter so that I do not have to traipse out to the road every day. The principal mechanism that will allow customers to reduce water use is to see and understand precisely how much water they are using on a daily or even an hourly basis, and to charge them less for using less water.

However, fourth, Affinity Water does reliably supply me with clean water. However, so did the water board before it was privatised.

Fifth, Affinity Water has good drought plans (which I have read). I also like the fact that Affinity Water is now in discussion with other water companies regarding the very long overdue movement of water around the UK. However, this is the sort of thing that would not have been a novel development before the privatisation of water. 

Outside of the Water Community and what we’ve shared with you, have you seen any communications from Affinity recently, e.g. advertising, information with bills etc.? If so, what was it?

E-mails encouraging me to take ever shorter showers (the ideal being, it would seem, not to shower at all), to test the pans of the several (three) toilets in my house to find out if any suffers from invisible water leakage from the cistern, and to buy remarkably expensively (but discounted and therefore representing a bargain) water butts with kits to collect water from roof gutter downpipes. (I require the water from a full water butt every day in order to water my vegetable garden alone, and double that in order to irrigate the fruit trees in my orchard. However, as we are no longer in receipt of summer rainfall, once a water butt has been emptied, and of which I already have several, it can be months before it is refilled.)  

Monday 3 April 2023: Utility companies digging up the road again

Monday 3 April 2023: Utility companies digging up the road again

Imagine that there is a leak running down the side of a reasonably busy main road. It's not flooding the road, but it is streaming constantly along the gutter and will require digging up part of the road to fix. ​

Please could you tell us what you think the steps and processes are for getting this leak fixed and to complete the roadworks? Please think of everything, starting from the leak initially being reported, to the leak ultimately being repaired.​

I have little doubt that this exercise will show how lamentably ignorant I am with regards both to practical issues and to legal and bureaucratic procedures.

Step 1: The leak needs to be visible, to be spotted, and to be taken notice of by someone who may generally be considered nosy and interfering. I am one of those people, and typically report pot-holes in the road, and unlit street-lights, to the local authority.

Step 2: If there is no indication that the leak is being attended to, then said busybody needs to report the leak to the relevant water companies: plural because where I live Affinity Water supplies the fresh water and Southern Water attempts to manage the waste water. I would not be confident about identifying accurately whether a small leak was fresh water or waste water. I would use an online water leak service, although in the past I have telephoned a water company directly.

Step 3: The contacted water company would then need to investigate, first of all establishing whether the leak is fresh or waste, thereby determining which company should take the matter forwards.

Step 4: The 'responsible water company' would then have to establish where the leak is. This may not be easy because where water comes to the ground surface may be distant from where the leak from the water pipe is.

Step 5: Having established where the leak is, the water company would have to determine whether the leak is beneath public or private land. From this information, they could need to be clear whether the leak was, indeed, their responsibility. There may be three scenarios: the leak may be their responsibility, and beneath public land; the leak may be their responsibility but beneath land that is privately owned; the leak may be the responsibility of the private land owner. The underground water pipe network is extensive, and pipes pass under roads, footways, parks and fields, and people's gardens. For example, with building-infill, a house might not have existed when a water main was first laid, or maybe a water main spur had to be laid across someone else's garden.

Both ownership and jurisdiction may be unclear and would need to be established.

Step 6a: If the leak is beneath private land, and the responsibility of the land owner, the water company would need to establish who owned the land. In my own case, the leak was beneath my driveway and therefore my responsibility (£££). Every two years, contractors contracted to UK Power Networks knock on my door to ask who owns the fields either side of my property. Their wish is to access the power lines that cross the two fields, but they are required first to ask permission of the land owner. Fortunately for them, I have got used to answering those questions, otherwise I imagine that the process could take them weeks.

Step 6b: If the leak is beneath public land, such as a public road (there are one or two private roads round here), then I guess that the local authority will have to be notified.

Step 7: At some point, an engineer will need to make some kind of initial assessment about the size of the leak. This assessment might take place when the underground location of the leak is identified. I assume that larger leaks take priority. On the other hand, I have seen instances of what was thought to be a minor leak requiring considerably greater attention and work than first assessed.

Step 8: If the leak is beneath a public road, as many are, then further contact will have to be made with the local authority with a view to closing a lane of the road, setting up traffic control measures, and specifying how long the water main repair is expected to take. At the same time there needs to be both an assessment of how much the repair is going to cost the water company, and when a repair team will be available. There then needs to be choreography with the local authority about the precise dates of the lane/road closure. I think that road closure may be more complex, as it usually requires the posting of public notices in advance of the closure, although I assume that a major water main burst (not the scenario of this exercise) could be attended to as an emergency.

Step 9: Assuming that the water mains will have to be turned off for the duration of the repair, all affected householders and businesses will have to be notified in advance, and if necessary arrangements put in place for an alternative supply of water (say, a bowker, or supplies of bottled water [which was the case in Challock, Kent, last summer]).

Step 10: This could be weeks after the nosy busybody (me) has reported the leak - engineers arrive with equipment to dig up the road/footway. However, this might be far from the end of the story. In North Road, in the city centre of Durham, the Victorian water main burst. Its repair required much time and equipment, as well as a very large hole. However, as soon as the hole had been filled in and the road surface restored, the leak recurred. Why, because the water main was so old and decayed that the sections of old cast iron pipe onto which the new polyethylene pipe had been grafted simply gave way. New holes had to be dug, more repairs effected, and the holes filled in. Until the same thing happened again and again. It was like a slow-motion Buster Keaton movie. Eventually Northumbrian Water accepted that the entirety of the water main under North Road had to be replaced. Although my memory is far from perfect, I think that the entire saga lasted between one and two years, impacting on the shops and businesses, and changing for good how the road was used by traffic and pedestrians. I might add that the huge water main network beneath UK cities, towns and villages is equally old, decaying apace, and I am unaware of any water company having methodical, comprehensive and timely plans to replace the network that they 'inherited' on privatisation, taking into account the expected lifespan of the relevant materials. (I should be happy to be pointed towards documents that show me to be incorrect.) I believe this to be a significant reason why there are so very many burst water mains.

Step 11: The road surface is 'made up', although in the case of Southern Water in my Kent village, remarkably poorly - the roadway (The Square and Duck Street) have looked a mess ever since. If the road has been closed, then the road is re-opened. The engineers pack up, and find out where they are off to next.

Imagine that Affinity Water has just started roadworks in your street…​

1. What would roadworks with minimal interruptions look like for you? How might this look and work in terms of the experience, timings, communication etc.​

Additionally, think about when there is planned engineering works on your road, how much notice/warning would you want, and why? ​

2. What kind of information do you think should be provided when there is roadworks planned?​

What kind of information do you think is absolutely essential? What kind of information could be optional and nice-to-have?

As it happens, Southern Water have just dug another hole in Duck Street (see previous response). A notice was posted a couple of weeks ago indicating that works would be taking place. I do not know whether the works have been planned to coincide with the school holidays, resulting in less traffic disruption. The location of the hole is not exactly convenient, and seeing as it was Southern Water that chose to position the sewage control facility in the middle of the road, instead of beside the road, the company is directly responsible for the inconvenience. There is a high visibility plastic barrier around the hole, and appropriate signage from both directions: 'road works', 'road narrows' and 'pass on the right/left'. This means that a pedestrian would have to be trying quite hard to fall down the hole, and that motorists have adequate warning and guidance. There is no need for temporary traffic lights. When there are road works on the Canterbury Road, it is often the case that temporary traffic lights are set up directly outside my house, and I have to put up with the throb of a diesel generator which I find extremely irritating (being highly sensitive to noise). On the subject of finding things irritating, I do not like hearing engineers shouting instructions to each other, and prefer it when they use walkie-talkies. I also dislike the discarded empty crisp packets and crumpled Greggs bags that are left after the engineers have packed up and gone.

Road closures are always seriously disruptive, and therefore undesirable. It is obviously valuable to have good warning of a planned road closure. I am never absolutely sure if being alerted to an impending closure of the Canterbury Road and then finding out that the road closure never took place, is much of an improvement over the road being closed. This failure to close the road happens periodically, and surprisingly often.

Essential information includes start and end dates for the road works, along with starting and finishing times. This information allows me to plan my journeys. I like to know the purpose of road works but that is because I am nosy, and such information is not essential. On the other hand, good information about what to do should there be a problem when the site is unattended (such as at night) would be valuable. I have had to walk away from seeing problems (such as all the safety barriers having fallen into a trench - did they fall or were they pushed? or failed temporary traffic lights) because there was no information about to whom to report the problem. It is also helpful to indicate when such traffic controls are three-way instead of just two - I have seen impatient motorists on many occasions decide to drive through a red light because they have too quickly arrived at the conclusion that the traffic lights have 'got stuck', which can be incredibly dangerous.

We’d now like to share with you some context about what happens when we currently set up roadworks. When Affinity Water has to stop traffic in order to fix a leak or refresh a mains connection, they have to get permission from the council to do so. This process can take time, sometimes up to three months in order to get approval.

Specifically up to three months, no, I did not know this, but it comes as no surprise because for several years I had a lot of contact with administrative staff, including transport and planning staff, working for a local authority.

I should hope and expect that emergency work can be arranged with somewhat greater alacrity.

Does this information impact on me? No. My complaint is not the speed at which water companies address individual leaks, but the fact that there are so many leaks because there appears to be no programme or schedule of timely water main renewal.

Affinity Water can only send reminder texts or emails to customers who share their email addresses or phone numbers with us​

​How would you feel if you did not receive a reminder text/email prior to works starting on your road? Why would you feel this way?​

How useful would you find a notice board nearby to the roadworks, to feedback relevant information about the roadworks, as well as phone numbers and email addresses? Please tell us why this would/wouldn’t be helpful.

I think that the first question to ask is how would I feel about receiving an SMS text message or e-mail to alert me to local road works? I have never heard of such a thing. I should be very happy that I was being kept informed. I have no difficulty in giving my cellphone number and e-mail address to utility companies, and I know for certain that Affinity Water has my e-mail address (my house is in a not-spot – without a cellphone signal, and so SMS texts messages might arrive days later).

A road works notice board is a good idea, for the utility company to give information about what to do in the event of problems (as I wrote in a previous response).

Monday 13 March 2023: Tap water or bottled?

I dislike the taste and mouthfeel of tap water (London, Chester, Durham, eastern Kent). I assume that my dislike stems from the chemicals used to sterilise the water. Consequently, I rarely drink unflavoured water. Whitsun 1973, I drank water from a hillside stream in West Yorkshire, between Malham and Kettlewell, hoping that there were no sheep carcases upstream. I have also drunk water from the copious public water fountains in Rome (1997). Mmm.

I do not much go in for bottled water. Partly I object to the use of plastic (containing plasticisers), partly to single-use plastic and this throw-away society,  and partly because very little bottled water tastes pleasant (variously ashy or of plasticisers). If I have to drink bottled water, then it has to be sparkling. If the weather is hot and I am out of the house without my tisane flask then I buy sparkling San Pellegrino water. It is ridiculously expensive, but does actually taste nice. Were I, for some inexplicable reason, to have to drink water all the time, and cost were no object, then this is the water that I would choose. When the weather is hot and I am working in the vegetable garden, then I might drink some cheap, sparkling bottled water from Tesco (Tesco own-label) in order to slake my thirst. I know that it is simply tap water put into a bottle, carbonated, marketed and sold. Mostly, however, my wife makes elderflower cordial from our elderflowers, and I dilute this with the cheap, sparkling bottled water. I have looked into buying a Sodastream machine, but the CO2 cannisters are very expensive. The cider I sometimes brew can be delightfully effervescent, and it is effervescence that makes cold drinks especially palatable.

If I have to drink water, then it has to be sparkling, and unless it is San Pellegrino, then I prefer it to be flavoured.

Thursday 9 March 2023: Movie Musings: Les Bicyclettes de Belsize

Thursday 9 March 2023: Movie Musings: Les Bicyclettes de Belsize

This is a short (27 minutes) movie made in 1968, released in 1969. It is very much of its period, and can be compared favourably with the much more serious and substantial movie Blowup (a 1966 movie directed by Michelangelo Antonioni, starring David Hemmings, Vanessa Redgrave and Sarah Miles, which was criticised for not capturing the energy and whimsy of ‘swinging London’).

Les Bicyclettes de Belsize has almost no dialogue, but almost continuous music, including songs. Other movies similarly without dialogue include:

• The Plank, 1967, written and directed by Eric Sykes, and starring Eric Sykes and Tommy Cooper; and
• Futtock’s End, 1970, written by, and starring, Ronnie Barker, which was shot only 11 miles to the north-west of Hampstead Heath.

The cinematography of Les Bicyclettes de Belsize is notable (including camera angles and camera movement), as are the editing, costumes, characterisations and the emotional arc of the movie. The near-absence of dialogue means that the viewer is required to infer from what is shown. The movie is set exclusively in Hampstead, London, and the geography itself (residential areas, commercial areas, Hampstead Heath and Parliament Hill) is a low-key but significant character (note that there are several flights of steps).

Monday 13 February 2023: Water Bill Increase

 

Monday 13 February 2023

Water Bill Increase

Each year, Affinity Water review the amount they charge for water, taking into account various factors such as inflation. They have compiled a webpage that helps customers better understand the changes in price, the reasoning behind the increase, how it will be used, and how Oftwat regulate these changes.​

​We’d like you to read this webpage here [and shown below], and then answer the questions below.​​​

Have your prices changed? 
Our tariff – the amount we charge for the supply of clean water is reviewed each year. 

We know that you may be feeling worried about rising energy bills and an increase in the inflation rate which is pushing up the cost of living.

Inflation is the highest it’s been since 1980 which means things like our energy costs, pipes, fuel, and things we use to treat your water are now much more expensive than they were last year.

From 1 April 2023, the price of your water bill will increase, but we've worked hard to keep this change as small as possible.  We’ll also be providing extra support for up to 30,000 customers who are most in need with a £50 Cost of Living payment credited to their account. We’ll be contacting customers directly who are eligible for this.

We’ve not made this decision lightly, especially in the current climate and with wider cost of living pressures. We don't like to increase our prices, but this year it has become necessary to make some changes to the amount we charge due to inflationary pressures and to ensure we can continue to invest in our network, support those in need with social tariffs and protect the environment.

Our prices are overseen by our regulator, OFWAT, who makes sure our plans and our investments are fair and beneficial for our customers. You can find the full details of our tariffs in our Customer Charges Scheme- 23/24 document, but we've provided some simpler examples based on average bills below. 

[Visit the webpage to see two illustrations, one for metered customers showing a monthly increase of £1.85, the other for unmetered customers showing an increase of £2.25.]

That’s still about 1.4p for every 10 litres of high-quality drinking water you enjoy.

How we can help if you're struggling to pay

If you've had a sudden life change and need some time to get back on your feet, we may be able to arrange a payment break.

You can spread the cost of your bill with a flexible payment plan.

If you’re receiving benefits, such as Universal Credit or Job Seeker’s Allowance, you may be eligible for a reduced bill.

Contact us to find out how we can help:

[Details of how to contact Affinity water]

Please share your thoughts on the changes, including:​

• What your first thoughts are after reading this document, and why​
• How you feel about the price changes the document talks about​

• Do they feel reasonable? Why/ why not?

First thoughts: the material presented in the document seems okay, but the tone is unnecessarily defensive, and the order in which some of the material is presented feels haphazard. The size of the price change(s) is not awful in cash terms, but it does seem to me to be quite high in terms of a percentage increase. However, I do not know what the size of the average water bill is. The fact that the percentage increase is not stated looks as though the document is trying to hide this information. The impression with which I am left is that Affinity Water is attempting to increase its charges under cover of inflation rather than because of increased costs due to inflation. Greater transparency would be better. The sentence that reads: "Our prices are overseen by our regulator, OFWAT, who makes sure our plans and our investments are fair and beneficial for our customers. " says very clearly: "If you don't like this price rise, tough. There's nothing you can do about it because it will be / has already been approved by OFWAT."

How does this increase compare to price increases you are seeing with other bills and utilities?​ Does the price change make you feel any differently about Affinity?​ If so, how?

I understand at least some aspects of the purpose of your question. However, merely asking the question suggests the possibility that Affinity Water may be trying to get away with hiking its prices. It is clever you asking about other utilities, because you know very well that electricity and gas prices have rocketed, and therefore anything that Affinity Water does will appear measured. The honest answer to your question is that I don't know how the price rise compares with other companies. Good Energy seem to be a law unto themselves, and hike their prices when it suits them, as a result of which I have lost all faith in them, and I have already decided that once this present energy price crisis is over, I shall move to a different supplier. Southern Water is the water company to which I pay supposedly to have my waste-water removed and treated(!), and I have been actively considering having a waste water treatment plant / septic tank installed instead of paying Southern Water 'through the nose' for waste water that I use for garden irrigation. However, regarding the supply of fresh water, I am a captive customer. Therefore, at root, why should it matter to Affinity Water whether I trust the company? I have no choice but to pay whatever numbers are written on the bill.

Affinity Water has presented two comfortably-small figures (£1.85 and £2.25, which I think may be the price of a mug of coffee on the high street) but neither stating the percentage increase, nor that I should expect to pay in the region of £22.20 or £27.00 extra per year, that is, forgoing a cup of high street coffee every month indefinitely. I do not have an income that can rise with inflation (actually, I do not have an income at all), so Affinity Water's gain is necessarily my loss (zero-sum game). Can I expect to receive a better service from Affinity Water for the extra money? If Affinity Water wants me actually to believe that the increase in price is factually necessary, and not simply a way to wring more money out of me, then I need to be shown the evidence. Otherwise Affinity Water is just another company jumping on the inflation bandwagon.

Monday 16 January 2023

Monday 16 January 2023

According to a statement on the side of a 2kg bag of Silver Spoon sugar, pink-footed geese favour foraging in the sugar beet crops of East Anglia. Indeed, according to the statement 25% of all pink-footed geese in the world do so. The statement suggests that the geese have a sweet tooth. Hmm!

https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/wildlife-guides/bird-a-z/pink-footed-goose/

According to the RSPB website:

"The pink-footed goose is a medium-sized goose, smaller than a mute swan but bigger than a mallard. It is pinkish grey with a dark head and neck, a pink bill and pink feet and legs.

This species does not breed in the UK, but large numbers of birds spend the winter here, arriving from their breeding grounds in Spitsbergen, Iceland and Greenland. Numbers in England are on the increase, particularly in Norfolk, probably due to better protection at winter roosts.

What they eat: grain, winter cereals, potatoes and grass.

Where they can be seen: near large estuaries, such as on the east Scottish coast, The Wash, the Ribble and the Solway, or on surrounding farmland where birds go in the day to feed."

From the foregoing, it does not sound remotely like the world's pink-footed geese make a bee-line for the sugar-beet fields of Norfolk, but that they eat whatever edible vegetation happens to be around where they over-winter.

So maybe Silver Spoon is attempting to soften its image by suggesting that monocropping sugar beet helps the pink-footed goose. Who would have guessed? 

Since 1972, Silver Spoon has been the retail brand of the British Sugar Corporation. British Sugar processes all sugar beet grown in the United Kingdom, and produces about two-thirds of the United Kingdom's quota of sugar. The company was sold to Associated British Foods in 1991. Associated British Foods plc is a British multinational food processing and retailing company headquartered in London. Associated British Foods is listed on the London Stock Exchange and is a constituent of the FTSE 100 Index. In 2021, its revenue was just shy of £14 billion.

I guess that £14 billion businesses need to find ways for individual customers to relate warmly to its products. 

Monday 12 December 2022: Feelings about now and the immediate future

Monday 12 December 2022: 
Feelings about now and the immediate future 

Over the course of the past year, have you come to feel any differently about the challenges future generations may have to face? If so, in what ways? 

No, I do not feel significantly differently compared with this time last year regarding the challenges to be faced by future generations. I felt very pessimistic then, and I feel somewhat more pessimistic now. It seemed then, and seems clear to me now, that the system of government in the UK, and the systems of government throughout the world, as well as at the international level, are nowhere near sufficient to address the environmental and geopolitical challenges the UK and the world faces. Specifically, the world is dominated by commerce, the values of which are entirely at odds with the massive reduction in consumption required, and by nationalism. For example, the world was warned before the new millennium that burning fossil fuels had to stop. Instead, the fossil fuel companies and countries have lobbied, sown disinformation, threatened and obstructed in order to increase the burning of coal, oil and gas. Twenty years before that it was predicted that there would be mass migrations of people around the world due to environmental degradation and climate change, and the UK response has been to increase hostility to immigration and refugees.

We expect younger generations i.e., Gen Z and those born after 2010, are likely to be more financially stretched, and are likely to have responsibility for supporting a larger older population who may not be financially secure. 

What are your feelings toward this idea? Why?

The notion that one generation is required financially to support another seems to me to be simplistic or unhelpful on several levels. First, parents bring children into the world with the expectation of caring for their needs at least until their progeny is ready to leave home. This applies the world over. In much of the world, there is an unambiguous social expectation that progeny will care for their parents' needs once the parents become too old or infirm to look after their own needs. This latter is a principal reason why families outside the economically-developed world tend to be large. This relationship has been partly or substantially broken in the economically-developed world. Older people have been commodified and packaged into care homes, providing 751,851 jobs in the UK, and 18,400 jobs in Northern Ireland, and thereby costing upwards of £100 million per annum in wages alone.

Second, I remain to be convinced that there is such a thing as a 'generation' outside catastrophic events such as a major war (such as the First World War, in the former Yugoslavia, and currently in Ukraine). Mostly, I consider references to 'generations' to be marketing (such as the invention of the teenager in the 1950s, phrases such as 'the grey pound', and Saga holidays) or political rhetoric (such as "a land fit for heroes" after the First World War, and that of the, admittedly much-to-be-admired, Atlee administration in the economic wasteland following the Second World War attempting to engender a sense of optimism in younger adults). Younger people in economically-developed countries typically like to differentiate themselves from their parents, in ways that are, at root, superficial such as musical taste, clothing fashion and dialect, but largely retain their parent's values.

Third, the idea that one generation is required financially to support another is predicated on the concept of paid employment being the only mechanism by which people can support themselves, and the primary mechanism by which the government can raise money through taxation. Whilst this has been the case in Britain only over the past few centuries, it is not the case the world over. There are other ways by which people can, do and have to support themselves, at much lower cost to the environment, as well as other ways by which government can raise money to pay for services and welfare, such as corporation tax, import duties and VAT. In the absence of income tax and National Insurance, it can hardly be said that one generation is being required to support another.

Fourth, specifically in the UK, when I was a child, municipally-owned social housing was the largest of the housing sectors. Privately-rented accommodation was either for rich people, or the subject of discussion regarding Rachmanism. Housing associations, such as the Peabody Trust were charities, and run as such. Owner-occupied housing was for those who were well-to-do, was an out-of-reach aspiration for many, and an inspiration for some to work hard. Then the Thatcher administration sold off a great many 'council houses', almost overnight creating her "property-owning democracy" (who would be more likely to vote for the Conservative Party). However, almost all of these 'council houses' are now owned by buy-to-let private landlords. All that has happened, therefore, is that municipally-owned social housing has been sold at considerably-reduced prices into the privately-rented housing sector. Whereas local councils had charged rents that allowed them to maintain their properties, private landlords operate their housing portfolios for profit. Consequently, the same people who would have been in 'council housing' fifty years ago, paying affordable rents, are now having to pay rents that include a profit for the landlord, over and above the cost of the landlord's buy-to-let mortgage. The massive house-buying spree from the 1980s to 2008, initiated by the Thatcher administration, caused house prices to spiral. This served as a positive feedback loop to the conversion to using housing as investment rather than primarily as personal accommodation. Younger people may now be feeling hard-done-by because they are having to pay proportionately more of their income in rent than had social housing still been in the hands of local councils, but for thirty of the past forty three years, and despite the obvious inequities and hardship caused, they have voted for MPs wedded to this housing policy.

Fifth, compared with when I was a young adult, young people have much higher material expectations. I frequently hear radio vox pops in which young people complain that they cannot afford to buy their own house. My father was 30 before he was able to buy a house, having worked hard, scrimped and saved. My personal story is very similar. I furnished my house with gifts, with hand-me-downs, with goods bought from sale rooms, and with items from classified advertisements. It took fourteen years before I could afford to buy a new sofa. Now young people expect to have £1,000 smartphones with £50 per month data contracts. Many of them expect to have a car. They expect to attend music festivals (Glastonbury: £350), to go on holiday to Ibiza, to eat out regularly and to have take-away food delivered to their door. They have subscription music, sport, drama and reality television streamed to their smartphones. This was all futuristic science fiction when I was their age, not least in terms of cost. For reasons I cannot understand, young people are willing to take on upwards of £30,000 of unsecured debt, something I could never have contemplated doing, in order to attend university.

When people born this century reach adulthood, they will live in a Britain that is less, not more, equal than it was when I was their age, and that is because their parents repeatedly voted for it to be this way. Throughout my life I have worked, mostly as a volunteer, to make the world in general, and UK society, a better place in which to live. Whilst I have attended my fair share of noisy demonstrations and silent vigils, I have mostly engaged in practical efforts to improve things, and have intentionally not sought primarily to benefit myself. I am unclear that, apart from making a noise about things, young people / young adults are doing that much to improve the society in which they live.

When you pay for your water bill, the charge may also include a proportion of investments made in water provision for the future. 

What are your feelings about this idea? Have your views have changed over the past year.

When the water companies were privatised in 1989, it was explicitly so that they would invest in infrastructure. This was because the Thatcher administration had intentionally strangled the ability of the regional water authorities to borrow money. The Thatcher administration was ideologically committed to privatising the provision of fresh water and sewage removal, and knew clearly that the general public was overwhelmingly opposed to it, as they still are. In 2017, "research by the University of Greenwich suggested that consumers in England were paying £2.3 billion more every year for their water and sewerage bills than they would if the water companies had remained under state ownership." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_privatisation_in_England_and_Wales)

In the twenty years following privatisation, "the privatised water companies paid more than £57bn in dividends, at the same time as running up large amounts of debt, the interest on which is effectively paid for by customers." (Jonathan Portes, The Guardian, 16 August 2022).

Over the past 33 years, the private water companies have extracted a considerable amount of money from their customers, and paid a lot of that money to money lenders, to overseas entities and to shareholders. The amount of of money invested in infrastructure does not equal the sum of borrowing and the additional money taken by water companies from their customers.

Rhetorically, I should like to ask why the water companies wish to charge even more - "for future investment". However, I know the answer: because they can - they are private monopolies.

Have my views changed over the past year? Yes. I have read much more about the privatisation, the financial affairs of the water companies, and the extent of regulatory failure. I was happier in my erstwhile ignorance.  

Tuesday 20 September 2022: Sources of Fresh Water

Tuesday 20 September 2022: Sources of Fresh Water

1.What water sources are you aware of?​

2. Where do you think your water currently comes from?​

​3. What other water sources do you think Affinity Water can use to source more water for their customers?

Water sources: rivers, from run-off; reservoirs, mostly from run-off, although also partly from groundwater, and from pumped water; groundwater in aquifers. My tap water is pumped from the local aquifer. Whilst locally (south eastern Kent), the aquifer is the best form of natural storage, further west in Kent there is a need for greater reservoir capacity, although this is outside the area allocated to Affinity Water to manage.

The following four options increase water supply. What are your first impressions of each option. Is there anything in particular that concerns you about it? What would you want to know of see proven to feel entirely comfortable with this water source?

Desalination

My first impression regarding desalination is that it is completely unnecessary in the UK, when there is both abundant supply, and so much that could be done to manage and reduce demand, e.g. fixing the mains water leak that has been running in Elham for at least the past ten days, giving households the wherewithal to store grey water for further use. I see the need for desalination in areas of the world where there little precipitation. However, the UK has plenty of rainfall - it is simply managed remarkably badly.

I used to be much more in favour of desalination, until I found out how greedy it is for power, with all the environmental consequences that brings. Now that I recognise there are also further negative environmental consequences of desalination, I am significantly opposed to it in the UK. Part of the problem is that water companies operating in the commercial sector have no responsibility to reduce demand for water. Neither is there any joined-up-ness with building regulations. New houses could be built to much more demanding standards that reduced water demand, and housing estates built only where there is sufficient supply to sustain them. It seems to me that desalination plants are a technological fix for failing to address a wide range of shortcomings in the system of water supply and use in the UK.

Water Transfer

My first impression is that this is such an obvious solution that I assume the reason why new schemes happen so little is due to the artificial borders created by a privatised water supply system, as well as the sums of money involved. I grew up on the edge of North Wales, where there can be few people unaware of the transfer of fresh water from Lake Vyrnwy to Liverpool, and fresh water being transferred from the Lake District to Manchester. I then lived in north eastern England where there can be few people unaware of the transfer of fresh water from Kielder Water into the rivers Tyne, Wear and Tees to supply fresh water to much of north eastern England. These schemes were built before the water supply system was privatised. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Major_water_transfer_schemes_in_England_and_Wales_map.svg I note that your third 'benefit' suggests that water transfer only 'may' give benefit to water flow in rivers - this was one of the very purposes of Kielder Water. It also seems to me that the 'costs' you list of transferring water mostly appear to be trying quite hard to make it sound problematic and undesirable: a) almost any water tastes better than water in London, and so transferring water to London would be a blessing; b) I am mystified why you suggest that the volume of transfer is limited. It is limited only by the diameter of the pipe one is willing to lay between reservoir and river/canal, and the number of pipes. The diameter of the concrete water pipe that runs southwards from Kielder Water is huge; c) Drinking water was contaminated at Camelford - transporting water does not, in itself contaminate water - the issue is how the water is managed; d) Whilst your statement about potentially-invasive species may be theoretically true, in practice there seems little reason why this should be hard to manage when the water is travelling through pipes. I recall plenty of evidence of invasive species of plants (e.g. Himalayan balsam and giant hogweed) along the River Wear that had nothing to do with Kielder, and everything to do with the failings of the National Rivers Authority and the Environment Agency. The only 'cost' that you list which seems significant to me is the energy required to move the water. I believe that the amount of energy required per unit volume to be a small fraction of the energy required to desalinate sea water. Therefore, much better to do everything to reduce demand first.

Reservoir to Store Water

My first impression is that this option is entirely obvious. Its use (combined with water transfer to lower rainfall areas) is relevant to geographies both that lend themselves to reservoirs, such as hilly topography, and are not underlain by aquifers (the most desirable water storage solution). There is little that concerns me about reservoirs. Even Kielder Water, which is 11 km in length actually occupies an infinitesimal proportion of the land area of the UK. The Kielder dam generates hydroelectricity. If there were rare plant species (a hangover from the end of the last ice age) there in the north Pennines, then moving those plants to similar habits nearby will not have been rocket science. Kielder was chosen because it was sparsely populated, and few people had to be relocated. The amenity value of a large reservoir is considerable - I used to sail on Derwent Reservoir (western County Durham) and I know that there are watersports on Bewl Water on the Kent/East Sussex border. I should like to see more reservoirs built, large and small. The last major public water supply reservoir to be constructed in the UK for water supply purposes was Carsington in 1991, and this was only finished subsequent to privatisation of the water companies because of the dam collapse (q.v.).

Recycled Water

My first impression is that this is a desirable option, but possibly not for producing potable water. It is not that I am especially squeamish, so much as: a) to clean water to a lower quality may require less energy b) to clean water to a lower quality may require fewer chemicals, and therefore less risk of contamination Cleaned non-potable water can be introduced to rivers (to improve flow rates), used for agriculture and supplied to factories. I very much like the idea of recycling water, but am less keen on the ongoing costs (both financial and to the environment - energy and pollution).

Wednesday 14 September 2022: Call Centres

Wednesday 14 September 2022: Call Centres

1. What are your thoughts and expectations of a contact centre?

• Is there anything in particular that annoys or frustrates you about contact centres?
• When it comes to contact centre wait times, would you say you are more, the same or less patient than before the pandemic?

2. Imagine you called an Affinity Water contact centre:

• What would you say is a reasonable time to wait to get through to the right person, and why?
• What kind of service would you want to receive from the call agents? How would you define the ‘ideal experience’?
• Is there anything you feel you should be able to do online rather than having to call Affinity Water?

From my experience, I like it best when I am directed to the most appropriate method for contacting an organisation about my issue or concern:

1. telephone conversation;

2. online chat - which can be cumbersome, but has the merit of being able to save the text for reference;

3. online message application - which I dislike because the character limit is usually far too small, and the has the same disadvantages as e-mail without the advantages;

4. e-mail - which is best because it permits me to write precisely what it is that I wish, but has the disadvantages that I might not be sure that the e-mail was even received or read, and might never be acted on because of being asynchronous (whereas telephone conversations and online chat are in real-time).

Simple reporting, say regarding a water meter reading, is best handled by an application on the website.

If I telephone, then I prefer to speak directly with a call handler, and dislike having to navigate through multiple levels of branching in order to arrive at the correct (or incorrect) departmental call centre. 

I dislike being passed between different call handlers, although I also appreciate that my issue may be most competently dealt with a person who actually knows what they are talking about, rather than a call handler who knows nothing or who might as well be a robot. I am willing to wait for the right person to become available, but it is important for me to know roughly how long I shall be required to wait. I prefer it when the original call handler breaks into my waiting to tell me that the right person is still busy but knows that I am waiting. Ten minutes would be fine, half an hour would not be okay.

I like it best when the call handler takes their time and is obviously making notes about my issue or concern on a computer record. I like it when my issue can be dealt with during the space of one telephone conversation, although I appreciate that many issues require much more than that - such as further information, or decisions being made by other departments. I also like it when the call handler instructs me what I should do if what they have explained ought to happen doesn't actually happen.

I am not bothered about the call handler's name, because I know that I am extremely unlikely to speak with the same call handler twice. I greatly prefer the call handler to call me by my family name (Mr Hughes), and I dislike it when the call handler calls me by my given name (Peter), especially if they are easily young enough to be a great grandchild.

When my call is put on hold, I prefer to listen to some 'classical' music rather than silence, but this must be punctuated with an indication that the call remains live - such as the call handler occasionally breaking into the music (or silence) to say that they are still dealing with my issue. I hate it when, after half an hour of nothing I have to decide whether to end the call and start all over again. 

Have you ever had to contact customer services in any way (call/ email/ Twitter/ Instagram etc.)?

• If you have, please tell us about the experience, and how you think it could have been improved.
• What would you change to make Affinity Water’s overall customer service experience better?

I have been in contact with Affinity Water's customer services by telephone and by e-mail. I do not use social media.

As I recall, my experience was straightforward. I liked the fact that I received an automatic acknowledgement that my e-mail had been received. I was less enthusiastic about the length of time suggested before a response was likely to be forthcoming. Improvement? Speed up.

1. How likely are you to check Affinity Water’s website to find solutions before calling?

• Are there any topics where you prefer talking to a call agent rather than going online? If so, when and why?

2. What about if you reached out to Affinity Water via email/Twitter/Instagram:

• What kind of service would you want to receive? How would you describe the ‘ideal experience’?

3. Are there any key differences between your expectations for the contact centre vs email or other forms of communication? If yes, please tell us why!

It is my practice to scour a website before picking up a telephone. Partly, I need to know if the company concerned already recognises the kind of issue that is concerning me; partly I need to find out if there are already solutions to the issue; partly, if possible, I need to know if the company has a preferred route to engaging with my experience of the problem.

Every time I raise a problem with a call-handler it feels like my issue may be too complex for them to address, and I typically spend time and effort trying to get them on my side sufficiently to listen to my actual needs rather than simply than a clichéd, generalised need.

As I do not use social media, and do not have a smartphone, there is no possibility of me communicating using a smartphone application  I have already explained about my use of e-mail.

I should prefer to use videoconferencing. 

Imagine you contact Affinity Water and tell them about an issue you are having. How long would you expect to wait for the below issues to be resolved?

In each response below, please give us a sense of A) what you think a fair wait is before Affinity start working on the issue, and B) why you think this is a fair wait period…

1. A billing issue or query
2. A problem with low pressure
3. A leak in your property
4. A leak further down your street

My response to each of the examples is the same: Affinity Water should have a responsibility to begin addressing the issue, in whatever way is appropriate, immediately. This does not mean that the issues are of equal urgency: for example, a major leak (wherever) should be stopped as soon as possible. However, I see no reason why delay should be tolerated. More importantly, there should be a target time for resolution of the issue. A billing issue should be resolved within a fortnight. Low water pressure, if proving disruptive, should be resolved within 48 hours. Minor leaks (losing little water, and causing no damage) should be resolved within a fortnight, whereas major leaks should be resolved within 36 hours.

Monday 5 September 2022: Energy Efficiency Labelling

Monday 5 September 2022: Energy Efficiency Labelling

A1. When was the last time you purchased a kitchen appliance? What did you buy? 

I bought a Daewoo air fryer, about three years ago. I bought it to replace a failed Daewoo Airfryer, which I had bought to replace a failed Daewoo Airfryer.

My focus was strongly on trying to reduce my spending on electrical heating, and therefore consuming as little electricity as possible. I understood air fryers to cook food using much less electricity than a standard electric oven. 

When I bought the machine, there was no energy efficiency labelling on the appliance, nor on the packaging, nor in the documentation (I have just been to check). The same situation applies to the Morphy Richards breadmaker, of which I have now consecutively owned seven.

Besides, much of the value of efficiency labelling involves indicating the percentage of consumed electrical power devoted to the purpose of the appliance, rather than being wasted as heat. As heat for cooking was what I required of the air fryer, energy efficiency labelling seemed somewhat superfluous.

Regarding my purchase of the air fryer, the materials/resources (sometimes referred to as 'embodied carbon') used to make each flawed machine considerably outweighed any issues of energy efficiency. I require an appliance to last a long time and receive a lot of use. Whilst I should prefer that it did so energy efficiently, this is secondary to its usefulness and longevity. I accept that a breadmaker making 150-200 loaves a year for three years reaches the end of its life, and the embodied carbon in its manufacture (and transportation) must be factored in to total energy use - a balance may have to be struck between greater longevity (proportionately less embodied carbon) and greater energy efficiency (how little electrical energy it uses to do its job).

When I can, I try to have appliances (washing machine, dishwasher, fridge, microwave oven) repaired. The microwave oven that I had had for twenty years had been repaired several times before it failed irreparably. When I bought a replacement microwave oven from Argos on 12 September 2019, energy efficiency was one of the criteria I tried to find out about, but failed. 

A2. Thinking about when you bought this appliance, what were the top three things you looked for? Why? This may include things like the model, cost, style/design, capacity, how energy efficient it was, good reviews, available in a shop near you etc

My purchasing criteria tend to be many, including (in this order) whether I actually require the appliance and how much I am likely to use it, how reliable it is reputed to be (which may or may not include brand), bad customer reviews on websites, price/affordability, how easily it can be returned if faulty. I have little interest in style. All other things being equal, I would choose a more energy efficient appliance over a less energy efficient appliance. I buy mostly online.

A3. To what extent do you consider energy labels to be important?

I consider energy labels to have a modest level of importance, but mostly in terms of pushing manufacturers to make their appliances more energy efficient regardless of whether the customer takes much notice of them. Public-facing organisations (such as the Consumer Association) promote good practice and expose short-comings, thus indirectly influencing customer decisions.

B1. What type of information would you expect to gain from water efficiency labelling. What should the label tell you/measure? Do you consider that the water efficiency label should include how much water the appliance uses per cycle, and how much water is used to manufacture the item?

As indicated above, I consider that the value of water efficiency labelling would mostly lie in the pressure on manufacturers to reduce the amount of water used by the appliances they manufacture, and during the manufacturing process, rather than directly influencing the buying decisions of customers. I could imagine, however, that environmental pressure groups might attempt to influence regulators to bring about, or tighten, regulations regarding the maximum amount of water an appliance should use.

For my own interest, I find it valuable to know the volume of water used by a cycle of each programme of an appliance.  However, I would not expect to find this information on a sticky label. Neither would I be adequately equipped to interpret the data without appropriate context (requiring more information and a computer). I suppose what I might find useful would be the kind of energy ratings regarding lightbulbs (until they started adding plusses). This would tell me that an appliance has been rated (by someone, but by whom?) as being less or more water efficient.

2. How much impact do you think water efficiency labelling would have on you? Why?

• Thinking about your friends and family, how beneficial do you feel these would be to them? Why? 
• When it comes to trust, what level of trust would you have in these labels? Why? 

The most water-efficient appliance is often the one not bought in the first place. Is it really necessary to have the appliance?

Would I choose to buy an appliance that I knew to be a little less water efficient than another? Yes, if it had other benefits. How about very much less water efficient than another model? No, possibly not ... and yet ... if an appliance's water efficiency rating was based on a singe 'Eco' setting, and the water efficiency of other programme settings was no different from that of any other similar appliance, then I hope that I would not be suckered into buying the greenwash.

I would not trust a manufacturer's own water efficiency rating, no more than I would trust car manufacturers to tell the truth about fuel economy and exhaust emissions.  

3. Which would be more important to you, an energy or water efficiency label? Why?

As indicated above, I consider the value of efficiency labelling appliances lies in the pressure it can exert on manufacturers to improve the efficiency (water or energy) of the appliances they manufacture, and to reduce water/energy use during the manufacturing process, rather than informing customers to help them choose between two similar appliances. Given all the qualifications about which I have written above, I consider both water efficiency and energy efficiency to be equally important.