Freeman Megamerge

Sesudra

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg9w_ngHKko

And again! You think they'd have better things to be doing with their time than tying front line public service workers in weird quasi legal arguements and posting sneering videos on Youtube

Five Lamps

Wow, is there any less intelligent life form than Tom?

Rather than wasting peoples time, Tom, it would be far easier for you to state what your own intention is - I do not accept the laws/rules/polices/guidelines that have been set and live with the consequences and/or benefit. Job done.

mrs vimes

I only listened to a couple of minutes of "Tom is an utter imbecile" before my brains started dripping out my ears. I'm pretty sure they abolished HTO as a grade about 10 years ago and they are all EO now.

Probably part of the conspiracy ;-)

Reg'stoy

Vogon poetry has nothing on our Tom.

Robbo

Robbo wrote: »

It seems Bill Cullen has perhaps switched allegiances from Colonel Mustard to one of the other svengalis.

He issued proceedings against 30 parties in one action, where he's registered 10 lis pendens. Jackie Lavin has also been issuing proceedings by the new time as well.

I hope whatever hearing dates he gets don't interefere with him being blasted into orbit.

Withdrawn.

Whilst Bill was still listed as an applicant in person, he appears to be now with legit representation from Scotland. Although the firm previously sent someone over for one of Ben's "conferences"...

Beano

Robbo wrote: »

Withdrawn.

Whilst Bill was still listed as an applicant in person, he appears to be now with legit representation from Scotland. Although the firm previously sent someone over for one of Ben's "conferences"...

a couple of questions on that article (bolding mine).

it says

He had also looked for declarations that the appointment of the receivers were null and void and had made allegations of breaches of Central Bank and Consumer Protection Codes.

What would consumer protection codes have to do with any of this? Surely business to business transactions like this would not be covered?

How are a legal firm from a different jurisdiction involved? Would they have to get permission from the Law Society to practice as lawyers in ireland?

dloob

I've heard a lot of stuff about them not being customers of Irish Water as they don't consent blah blah blah....

But Freemen love their definitions so you think they would have spotted this definition in the Irish Water Service (No. 2) Act 2013.

“customer” means, in relation to the provision of water services, the occupier of the
premises in respect of which the water services are provided;

So are you the occupier of a premises to which water services are provided? Congratulations you are an Irish Water customer!

I suppose Tom could come up with some argument that he isn't the occupier of any premises, but then he'd have to pay the NPPR charge

fxotoole

dloob wrote: »

I've heard a lot of stuff about them not being customers of Irish Water as they don't consent blah blah blah....

But Freemen love their definitions so you think they would have spotted this definition in the Irish Water Service (No. 2) Act 2013.

So are you the occupier of a premises to which water services are provided? Congratulations you are an Irish Water customer!

I suppose they Tom come up with some argument that he isn't the occupier of any premises, but then he'd have to pay the NPPR charge

They're Freemen of the Land.... they live on the land. Therefore they do not consent to being "occupiers" of any premises.

Losty Dublin

dloob wrote: »

I suppose Tom could come up with some argument that he isn't the occupier of any premises, but then he'd have to pay the NPPR charge

He'll probably claim that the bank which lent him straw own his house so they are the ones who should pay. No mention of illegal bank loans will be made at this sitting.

Essien

The boys in blue are gonna need a lot of these for the protests I reckon

ooter

dloob wrote: »

I've heard a lot of stuff about them not being customers of Irish Water as they don't consent blah blah blah....

But Freemen love their definitions so you think they would have spotted this definition in the Irish Water Service (No. 2) Act 2013.

So are you the occupier of a premises to which water services are provided? Congratulations you are an Irish Water customer!

I suppose Tom could come up with some argument that he isn't the occupier of any premises, but then he'd have to pay the NPPR charge

What is the definition of occupier in this situation,if there is more than 1 person living in the premises who is the occupier?

Esel

ooter wrote: »

What is the definition of occupier in this situation,if there is more than 1 person living in the premises who is the occupier?

The person who pays the bills? (e.g. John of the family Billpayer).

ooter

Esel wrote: »

The person who pays the bills? (e.g. John of the family Billpayer).

Does it say that in the Irish water services act,on www.water.ie or in the pack they're sending out?
Not trying to be smart,just curious and I haven't read the act..

Pro Hoc Vice

ooter wrote: »

Does it say that in the Irish water services act,on www.water.ie or in the pack they're sending out?
Not trying to be smart,just curious and I haven't read the act..

The 2007 Act defines Occupier as follows,


“ occupier ” includes any person entitled to occupy a premises and any other person having, for the time being, control of the premises;

No. 2 act of 2013 says,

“customer” means, in relation to the provision of water services, the occupier of the premises in respect of which the water services are provided;

ooter

So could it be any one of a number of people occupying a premises?

FreudianSlippers

ooter wrote: »

So could it be any one of a number of people occupying a premises?

I presume it is left purposely vague to ensure that occupier non-owners are held equally liable for the charge. If you own/occupy obviously you "control" so they need to ensure that others that "control" are caught.

It's certainly not the most elegant way of dealing with it, but it gets the job done.

dloob

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

The 2007 Act defines Occupier as follows,


“ occupier ” includes any person entitled to occupy a premises and any other person having, for the time being, control of the premises;

No. 2 act of 2013 says,

“customer” means, in relation to the provision of water services, the occupier of the premises in respect of which the water services are provided;

Occupier is defined in the No. 2 act of 2013 as well, it's not all that different though from the 2007 version.

“occupier” means, in relation to a premises, the person for the time being entitled to the
occupation of the premises

Would cover everyone in the premises as customer then I would think.

ooter

it seems to me they have no way of distinguishing between an occupier and the occupier.
each to their own but why anyone would want to volunteer to become "the occupier" for irish water purposes or any other purpose for that matter is beyond me..

ooter

ooter wrote: »

it seems to me they have no way of distinguishing between an occupier and the occupier.
each to their own but why anyone would want to volunteer to become "the occupier" for irish water purposes or any other purpose for that matter is beyond me..

That's actually why the provision is worded that way. If they need to pursue you then they designate who they think the occupier is. If they fall within the definition in the act then they can be pursued. Stops nonsense arguments about who the occupier actually is

ooter

Deleted User wrote: »

That's actually why the provision is worded that way. If they need to pursue you then they designate who they think the occupier is. If they fall within the definition in the act then they can be pursued. Stops nonsense arguments about who the occupier actually is

why don't they just do that then?

Peregrinus

They do do that.

Look at it from the point of view of Irish Water (or any other utility company). They don't know, and are not in a position to find out, whose name is on the tenancy agreement, or even if there is a tenancy agreement, and they don't know and don't want to have to care about whether the names on the title deeds are the same as the names of the people in the property. People can and do divide up interests in property in all kinds of ways, but none of them are particularly important as far as utilities go. The people actually in the property are the people who are using the services provided by the utility company; it make sense for the legilislative framework to make the people who occupy the property primarily liable to pay for the utilities, regardless of the basis on which they occupy it. "Occupier" gets you there.

ooter

But with any other utility company you apply to avail of their service and are required to give a name for billing purposes,Shirley that's not the case with Irish waterwater because you're going to get the water anyway?

ezra_pound

ooter wrote: »

But with any other utility company you apply to avail of their service and are required to give a name for billing purposes,Shirley that's not the case with Irish waterwater because you're going to get the water anyway?

Shirley, my dear, water is no different to any other utility. If you change house you notify the company of the change of occupier and thus bill payer. You take a meter reading etc.

ooter

Well I would've thought it is different to any other utility because you cannot be switched off and you don't have to apply for the service because you're already getting it.
I just think it's wide open to abuse by the occupiers.

Robbo

The Hub are apparently going to take an action against Irish Water. Should be entertaining.

Losty Dublin

Robbo wrote: »

The Hub are apparently going to take an action against Irish Water. Should be entertaining.

What's their approach/complaint in this case?

whippet

Losty Dublin wrote: »

What's their approach/complaint in this case?

I'd imagine pure fantasy

my friend

Losty Dublin wrote: »

What's their approach/complaint in this case?

They're bringing Matlock back from the dead.

Ken.

my friend wrote: »

They're bringing Matlock back from the dead.

Lionel Hutz sitting second chair.

joela

No consent, peaceful protest, garda violation of the constitution, it is all happening in this video!

https://www.facebook.com/DublinSaysNo.DSN/posts/974939129199261