THREAT BY POWER BOARD

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 85, Issue 191, 15 August 1941, Page 7

THREAT BY POWER BOARD

DELINQUENT SUPPLIES CORRESPONDENCE FROM DAIRY COMPANY A suggestion that the Wangaehu Co-operative Dairy Company, Limited, should guarantee its suppliers’ electricity accounts was made at the monthly meeting of the WanganuiRangitikei Power Board yesterday, following an exchange of correspondence on the subject. The board threatened action against delinquent consumers, suppliers of the company, and it was stated that services would be discontinued if consumers’ obligations were not met.

The question was first raised when the da: y company wrote to the board stating that some of its suppliers had received notice that the ’ electricity supply would be cut off. The company, the letter said, was not interested in a supplier’s house supply, but it was interested in seeing that nothing would hinder the cream reaching the factory daily. The directors of the company protested against "this summary treatment, and if it is persisted in the company proposes to take the matter further.” If suppliers were in arrear, it. was suggested there should be some other method of obtaining payment other than cutting off the supply. Board’s Reply. The board replied to this letter that it was just as keenly interested in seeing that production was maintained as the company, and also in seeing that the electricity service was maintained, but the consumer was expected to pay for the service and if he did not, its discontinuance was a logical result. It was pointed out that most traders, including dairy companies. had been known to adopt similar means of protecting their accounts. The reference to “summary treatment" was without any justification since all consumers were warned that failure to meet their obligations would result in discontinuance.

In a further letter the company said that reference to traders adopting similar measures to protect themselves was not a "parity comparison." The board was a monopoly and should not refuse service. The company emphasised the need to maintain increased production to meet Britain’s needs. Service Received. In its next letter the board reiterated that any consumer must pay for the service he received. If the service was to produce cream to maintain production, the farmer concerned was getting a regular income and there was no justification for him not paying his account. The letter added that the board felt that the “patriotic motive" advanced by the dairy company was a "red herring" in the discussion. The question simply was whether a man whose income was assured should be permitted an uninterrupted supply of electricity to produce that income whether he paid for the supply or not.