[victoria]

Hi all
Well here's a situation for you. Been in our house a couple of months. I noticed that the electricity bill shows 2 meters at $1.039 per day, one is anytime & the other is economic. Now please stay awake! The economic meter isn't used as it was for hot water & our property uses gas for this. So the economic meter is redundant. On checking with the supplier, by having anytime only, the daily charge for the meter drops to 91c.But to have the economic meter removed will cost $80.
Here's the figures folks.
1.039 - .91 = .129 x 365 = 47.85
Righto then, do we continue to pay for something that isn't used or pay to have said redundant item removed for a fee equivalent to 2 years rent?
We hope to live here forever so holding out for an eventual buyer isn't a consideration. Oh the foibles of living in our beloved NZ.:uhoh

[bob_the_engineer]

Well Victoria, I didn’t know that!

I had no idea you were charged more for the 2nd meter, personally I’d have it removed, just because I hate the idea of handing money to a company for nothing. I bet there are thousands of these around the country, write to fair go and complain about it. Do you know that telecom no longer charge for rental phones because of fair go, maybe they could get the cost of removal thrown out. It does seem unfair, particularly if you didn’t ask for it and now you have a choice of either “pay for it” or “pay for it to be removed”. My god fair go would be in their element with a story like that! :p

Bob

[Asli&Mark]

Firstly it depends on how long you are going to stay there to recover the cost, the other is how the meter is wired, as there are different methods.

If the meter is on for night units, and conected only to the tank (some also connect to night store units) then as you are on gas it probably worth getting rid in the long term.

If however the whole house changes over to the other meter, then maybe keeping it could be an option, and running things like dishwasher and washing machines later could make a saving.

This all differs from house to house, and supplier to supplier on cost and setup.

Hope that helps your decision,

[victoria]

Thanks Bob. I might make an enquiry at the CAB first & take it from there.
Asli & Mark. This meter was "hot wired" to the water cylinder only. That was removed by the previous owners & a gas hot water system put in. The original hot water cylinder is gone & the pipes are capped off. So this meter is not used at all. I'm thinking of asking an electrician for advice on whether it's worth keeping in the circumstances. Hopefully some friendly free advice as it's getting silly paying money on something that's not in use & come to think of it, the time as well. I'll keep you posted as this might be of use for new buyers to bear in mind eh?

[Asli&Mark]

Hi Victoria,

from what you have said, it would sound as if they had the water tank as a night store unit, only being powered later on the night rate. If that is the case for sure, then you would be better of in removing the other meter if you are going to be there for over the 2 years.

The $80 cost is not too bad for what has to be done, and who has to do it, your normal sparky cannot touch the meter, it has to be done by an inspector.

Your free advice from a sparky.. :)
Mark

[victoria]

Thanks for the free advice Mark ... one less errand to do!

[bob_the_engineer]

Hi Victoria,

from what you have said, it would sound as if they had the water tank as a night store unit, only being powered later on the night rate. If that is the case for sure, then you would be better of in removing the other meter if you are going to be there for over the 2 years.

The $80 cost is not too bad for what has to be done, and who has to do it, your normal sparky cannot touch the meter, it has to be done by an inspector.

Your free advice from a sparky.. :)
Mark

Mark you have to be kidding mate!

“The $80 cost is not too bad for what has to be done” and “who has to do it” what a joke

I know exactly how much work (and skill) is involved and $80 is an extortionate fee.

Put this into perspective, If your “inspector” screws up, gets electrocuted, and they run him to A&E there is an excellent chance that the doctor that saves him/her is paid less than HALF that as an hourly fee! (don’t even ask about the nurse and the paramedic!)

$80, not too bad your kidding!

Bob

[Derv]

I agree with Mark. $80, and the hourly rate on which that is based, is very reasonable, especially when you take into account the years of apprenticeship and training to become an electrician, and then the extra training which has to be done to qualify as an inspector - not "inspector", as you put it, please. The work has to be done by an inspector because it involves removal of a meter - Government regulations do not allow an electrician to carry out such work.

[Asli&Mark]

Hi Bob

$80 is not extortionate fee when you add it up, for a sparkys rates, and inspector is more, $40 hourly rate, minimum 1 hour, $25 COC and then travel, which everyone is now charging because of costs. A conection inspection here is about $120 depending on which one on the areas as there are 3 here.
And I would be very concerned if the inspector was to get electrocuted, they can pull the fuses, in the tardis or on the pole, we don't have such luxury.

[PeteS]

Mark you have to be kidding mate!

“The $80 cost is not too bad for what has to be done” and “who has to do it” what a joke

I know exactly how much work (and skill) is involved and $80 is an extortionate fee.

Put this into perspective, If your “inspector” screws up, gets electrocuted, and they run him to A&E there is an excellent chance that the doctor that saves him/her is paid less than HALF that as an hourly fee! (don’t even ask about the nurse and the paramedic!)

$80, not too bad your kidding!

So you expect a man who has done an apprenticeship, gained electrician status, done another 3 years, more exams, gained inspector status, to advertise, be available on the phone, give free advice, travel out to do the job, issue certification, for less than $80? Get real. No wonder there is a shortage of skilled tradesmen in NZ.

And electricians and inspectors in NZ can be fined up to $10,000 per contravention of the electrical regulations. Unlike the medical fraternity who are immune from being sued for medical negligence.

If you had asked at the time you took out the agreement with your electric supply company, you could have had the metering changed for very little.

[victoria]

I think this is beginning to go down the wrong road now. I was simply bringing something to light that may be of use to buyers unaware of such things.Had I known I would certainly have followed this on with the supplier at the onset. Just trying to weigh up the pros & cons of which way to go now. Thanks for the advice so far.

[bob_the_engineer]

Sorry Victoria,

Not for my comments about the cost of an electrician, of for my stupidity regarding spelling, but I am sorry for interrupting your thread about electricity meters.

Your quite right, I didn’t know about the cost of having a meter removed, and you made a valuable point about the unexpected cost; Forewarned is forearmed as they say.:)

Kindest regards Bob.

[BoroCraig]

Bob,

I couldn't leave this without asking about your 'not being charged for rental phones' comment - could you please clarify what you mean by this i.e. is this if you get a ltelephone ine in a rental property or am I being a numpty?

Thanks,

Craig

Well Victoria, I didn’t know that!

I had no idea you were charged more for the 2nd meter, personally I’d have it removed, just because I hate the idea of handing money to a company for nothing. I bet there are thousands of these around the country, write to fair go and complain about it. Do you know that telecom no longer charge for rental phones because of fair go, maybe they could get the cost of removal thrown out. It does seem unfair, particularly if you didn’t ask for it and now you have a choice of either “pay for it” or “pay for it to be removed”. My god fair go would be in their element with a story like that! :p

Bob

[bob_the_engineer]

Hi Craig,

Telecom were leaving a charge on the account of any household that historically rented a phone. This meant that if you bought a house when the previous owner had rented a phone they charged you for the phone (they assumed the previous owner had left the phone for you).

Some people had paid 10 years rental for phones there’d never seen. (BT were doing this in the 80’s I’d seen it before so I picked up on it quite quickly and NZ telecom stopped charging me as soon as I moved in, and phoned them)

The funny thing was when watchdog pointed out that every phone line comes with an insurance policy, almost everyone pays a couple of dollars a month for “insurance” just in case the phone wire (from the pole) breaks.

Its reasonable value, but not if your renting, loads of people pay the insurance without thinking, but their paying insurance on a phone line that they don’t own. The line is the landlords.

When watchdag pointed this out, well telecom did a quick u turn on the phone rentals to shut them up!

Anyone in NZ renting a house? Have a look on your phone bill, unless your terribly astute (or like me tight lol) then I’ll bet your paying to insure your landlords phone line.

It’s a small amount, and to me just a point of amusement, but to telecom it’s a huge amount of revenue.

Bob