Households must pay for water meters.

Fiskar

Makes you wonder whose codding who.

Smidge

PS. what's the story with sharing water with the neighours ?
Two houses, one meter[/QUOTE]

Aww Dear God
Don't say they are thinking of proposing something as fukcing idiotic as this:eek:
Yeah, can really see that one working.
Mist people in Ireland already can't stand their neighbours without this??

Fiskar

Fiskar wrote: »

Makes you wonder whose codding who.

When I built the house a few years ago, one of the conditions of planning was to install a meter.

The total cost was about €120 for the meter and the underground housing.
I'll be damned if I'm paying twice!!! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Fiskar

You'll know who your neighbour is when you knock on their door in the depths of winter looking to feed a hose from their tap into your attic to fill your water tank. Thats what I don't like about all these charges and changes. Feckin country has more water than we can manage. Another excuse to rape the house holder because the car taxes and Vrt are all down.

Fiskar

Deleted User wrote: »

When I built the house a few years ago, one of the conditions of planning was to install a meter.

The total cost was about €120 for the meter and the underground housing.
I'll be damned if I'm paying twice!!! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

These new water meters have an RF (radio frequency) emitter to allow a meter reading van drive up and down an estate to pick up the readings by radio frequency. Fecker can do 20 houses in under a minute and we are paying for the technology.
Don't know if one can even get a physical reading oneself from the unit as i believe the module is sealed. These are the more serious questions.

"And you say we used how much water!"

And your meter will need to be replaced with a similar model

staker

Fiskar wrote: »

These new water meters have an RF (radio frequency) emitter to allow a meter reading van drive up and down an estate to pick up the readings by radio frequency. Fecker can do 20 houses in under a minute and we are paying for the technology.
Don't know if one can even get a physical reading oneself from the unit as i believe the module is sealed. These are the more serious questions.

"And you say we used how much water!"

Will the consumer not be able to see how much water he's using?
Kind of defeats the practice of water conservation if no active monitoring can be carried out!

Fiskar

No 1, They won't want you opening the cover to look at this unit.

No 2, your bill will be incentive enough to conserve.


From the 6 units installed here in our estate to replace so called " leaking stop cocks" , they are set deep in the ground with a long plastic shank. The units I saw were 450 mm long. Want to have a good pair of eyes to see any dial and the RF tag may do away with the need for a readout.

As I say, they will read remotely so why need a readout.

BTW , a contractor has been doing these units around Navan for the council for the past 18 months. At least 10% of our estate is already done. Spoke to the guys and have seen these units.

Bullseye1

The best way to conserve water is for the LAs to repair the leaks which are occurring on public infrastructure.

No doubt this will be one way of raising revenue. The €40 over 20 years is a rip off. I wonder if they will allow people employ their own contractor?

Fiskar

Fiskar wrote: »

These new water meters have an RF (radio frequency) emitter to allow a meter reading van drive up and down an estate to pick up the readings by radio frequency. Fecker can do 20 houses in under a minute and we are paying for the technology.
Don't know if one can even get a physical reading oneself from the unit as i believe the module is sealed. These are the more serious questions.

"And you say we used how much water!"

And your meter will need to be replaced with a similar model

That explains the "they need replacing every seven years" quote on RTE today, it's the batteries that need changing.

Capt'n Midnight

Fiskar wrote: »

Makes you wonder whose codding who.

Like I said earlier USB camera will work with any existing meter,

€300 is way overpriced

maybe they are powering the meter off the water (turbine) and even then it's still way too much


Also the practice in the UK is to give people allowances for water leaking between the meter and the valve inside the house, would that work in a country of chancers ?

patwicklow

See the photo on this its laughable a photo of eamon gilmore from years a go
stating Water charges are just another tax on workers...he said it when he was on the other side of the fence of course

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Wake-Up-Ireland-Enough-Is-Enough/351069498274146

zenno

I really don't see the problem with this water charge lark as all you people have to do is learn how to turn the water back on yourselves. If it can be turned off it certainly can be turned back on so all you have to do is study the way the meter works and locate the turn on/off pipe and that's it.

When you don't pay for it they will come out and turn it off so when they leave just turn it back on and repeat this as many times as necessary.

I'm sure it will be simular to this but will find out more info on it all when the time comes.

turning off the same as turning on...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_P44FBxgMY

EDIT: I just found this out now so i'm slow off the mark... I got the information from rte radio 1 broadcast yesterday evening explaining this setup... http://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/rteradioweb.html#!rii=9%3A3260582%3A1589%3A18-04-2012%3A

they're putting in new metres that won't be accessable to the public
it was on the radio today. There'll be boxes put off the property so they won't need housholders permission to install them as they're not on the householders property
and each household will have a key fob which can remotely read your metre so you can see how much water you're using. won't be paying this anyway so they can fcuk right off with this as well.

sure it would be a human rights issue if they did cut your water off as you wouldn't be able to flush your toilet or shower or for that matter drink. so I can't see that happening now but they would probably limit your water supply to a very low level to cover themselves.

TheChizler

Does anyone have a link to text where the RF capabilities of the metres has been confirmed? At least they're looking to do it right first time round.

bamboozle

surely if they used their brains we'd be given an option of:

A- pay up front (€500 for argument sake)
B - pay 40 quid a month for 20 years.

with regards the tax itself, the state is paying 1 billion a year in providing water, water charges all of a sudden will greatly reduce water usage, wastage and identify leaks more quickly.

Plus from my perspective i'm much happier seeing these stealth charges applied across the board where comfortable pensioners and all people living in houses are liable to pay rather than just ramping up income tax on people working.

senordingdong

zenno wrote: »

sure it would be a human rights issue if they did cut your water off as you wouldn't be able to flush your toilet or shower or for that matter drink. so I can't see that happening now but they would probably limit your water supply to a very low level to cover themselves.

I imagine there will be a minimalist daily/weekly/monthly allowance for the absolute basics. Though I'll bet the gougers will have to be taken to a European court before they make this concession.

Though that raises the question, if Kenny et al are ranting and raving about how other EU countries pay water charges, how do these other countries circumvent the human rights issue?

zenno

I'm sure a hack program will come out soon to stop it's pump timer. looks relatively straight forward. This gadget will be hacked soon or thereafter installation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Gkz1VnvugA

silly

we have our own well....will we have to get a meter too?

seamus

If you're not connected to a public water main, then obviously you won't need a meter.

Pretty sure the Government need to fire their PR bods (the Communications Clinic, right?) over this utter shambles.

If they had just come out seven days ago and said, "Nobody will have to pay for their meters, there will be a standing charge on the bill out of which we will fund the meters", then it wouldn't have been anything like the issue that's been made of it.

bamboozle wrote: »

surely if they used their brains we'd be given an option of:

A- pay up front (€500 for argument sake)
B - pay 40 quid a month for 20 years.

But if they gave you the option to pay it yourself, they wouldn't be able to overcharge you for the meter and continue charging you for it long after it's been paid off.

It's pretty plain to see that the "40 quid a month for 20 years" is just punting it down the road so that people don't care about it any more. In 20 years time the current heads won't be in government (half of them will be six feet under), and who ever is in charge won't be scrapping any rental/service charge on the bill.

New homes built will be required to have one installed at the builder's expense, but the homeowner will continue to pay a rental/service charge on their bill.

lugha

seamus wrote: »

"Nobody will have to pay for their meters, there will be a standing charge on the bill out of which we will fund the meters", then it wouldn't have been anything like the issue that's been made of it.

First, the people will have to pay for the meters as the government has no income source other than taxpayers money (leaving comm. rates aside). The only question is how exactly they will pay.
And is “standing charge” not just something that sounds more palatable than “meter rent” but the net effect is surely the same?

seamus wrote: »

and who ever is in charge won't be scrapping any rental/service charge on the bill.

I wouldn’t be too sure about that! FF may (or may not!) be finished. But the appetite for the kind of populist stuff that they peddled in the past in still very evident.
I expect a Micky Martin Jnr led FF fighting (and winning!) an election in 20 years time by promising to the abolish property tax / water charges.

No doubt we will then have a new property bubble / Ponzi scheme which buckets of money temporary rolling in, deluding us in to thinking we can dispose of a sensible, robust tax structure……:(

senordingdong

Furthermore, if there is only going to be one company in charge of providing water, can't we challenge it on competitive grounds?

seamus

lugha wrote: »

First, the people will have to pay for the meters as the government has no income source other than taxpayers money (leaving comm. rates aside). The only question is how exactly they will pay.
And is “standing charge” not just something that sounds more palatable than “meter rent” but the net effect is surely the same?

Absolutely. At the end of the day this is all about how it's sold to the public. They should have leapt on this last week when the €300 charge was being mooted and put the question to bed - "No, you will not have to pay for the installation of the water meters". Their failure to do so could end up making this a very serious issue when the actual water charges roll around.

rasper

senordingdong wrote: »

Furthermore, if there is only going to be one company in charge of providing water, can't we challenge it on competitive grounds?

We'll be flogging it off as soon as it's profitable and we'll get the same bs that the troika made us do it

Silverado

If the IMF and the ECB are so keen on us bringing in a water charge and the new water company is going to cost €800m to establish could they not assist us to get it going. After all they know how broke we are and they are insisting on us bringing in these charges.

These people don't seem to know the meaning of "cutting some slack." I think that they are going to get their answer in next month's referendum.

bamboozle

Silverado wrote: »

If the IMF and the ECB are so keen on us bringing in a water charge and the new water company is going to cost €800m to establish could they not assist us to get it going. After all they know how broke we are and they are insisting on us bringing in these charges.

These people don't seem to know the meaning of "cutting some slack." I think that they are going to get their answer in next month's referendum.

its kinda hard to ask them to cut some slack when at the same time there are 1500+ teachers earning over 100k, librarians earning more than the PM of Spain, 5000+ working in HR in the HSE.

we're struggling to reign in a bloated and overpaid civil & public service, we're borrowing 10bn a year to cover these costs and until we get a grip on those costs we can expect the IMF and ECB to be keeping a close eye on things.

rasper

bamboozle wrote: »

Silverado wrote: »

If the IMF and the ECB are so keen on us bringing in a water charge and the new water company is going to cost €800m to establish could they not assist us to get it going. After all they know how broke we are and they are insisting on us bringing in these charges.

These people don't seem to know the meaning of "cutting some slack." I think that they are going to get their answer in next month's referendum.

its kinda hard to ask them to cut some slack when at the same time there are 1500+ teachers earning over 100k, librarians earning more than the PM of Spain, 5000+ working in HR in the HSE.

we're struggling to reign in a bloated and overpaid civil & public service, we're borrowing 10bn a year to cover these costs and until we get a grip on those costs we can expect the IMF and ECB to be keeping a close eye on things.

So the answer is instead of fixing the bucket they just keep filling it , great

lugha

Silverado wrote: »

.... could they not assist us to get it going. After all they know how broke we are and they are insisting on us bringing in these charges.

These people don't seem to know the meaning of "cutting some slack." I think that they are going to get their answer in next month's referendum.

So if they don't give us some extra financial help to implement these measures you propose we should vote to ensure that we get even less financial help?

There may be reasons to oppose this treaty but I'm not sure this is a very good one.

Bullseye1

I know it's alittle off topic but it does go to the whole way thr law works in this country to protect local authorities. If any of you were listening to the Pat Kenny show you will have heard of a case in the district court where Fingal County Council took a business to court for unpaid rates. Now while this might seem reasonable, wait, what actually happened is the previous tenants of the commercial building left without paying the rates. The landlord gets in a NEW tenant (unconnected with previous tenants). And now the NEW tenant is being chased for unpaid rates. We live in a banana republic!

The Judge stated that he would not bring the charge against the new tenant. Someone with some sense.

No doubt Fingal will appeal this case to a higher court. So we have local authorities putting new companies out of business.

It is time people woke up in this country. Your government and it's cronies are ruining us.

bamboozle

rasper wrote: »

So the answer is instead of fixing the bucket they just keep filling it , great

well we could scrap the croke park agreement and make some much needed cuts across the public sector, but politicians would need balls to do something like that, so in the meantime they'll settle on people retiring/dying in the public sector to reduce costs while also nailing us with stealth taxes.

of course the savings made through redundancies in the public sector will be more than matched through the pay increments FF agreed to keep paying the public sector for some bizarre reason.

alternatively, we could means test the childrens allowance, plenty of savings to be made there also.

RoyalMarine

I honestly think they believe they are playing Sim City...

Increase tax, household charge, water charge, etc..
yeah granted people will leave, but new people will come instead...

just hit the x10 speed button until everything is fine...

the groutch

RoyalMarine wrote: »

I honestly think they believe they are playing Sim City...

HSE is more like Theme Hospital

BackScrub

So the money to set this scam up is coming from the NPRF.

Didn't we all pay into this?

We're borrowing from ourselves with interest to install water meters?

harolds57

A guy that works with me was telling me that in leixlip when he was growing up years ago when water meters were brought in, people went around and poured concrete in where the meters were and they were never able to use them again, and they done that outside houses that weren’t even there’s. I hope that doesnt happen again when these new meters go in, would be a shame and against the law.
What I dont understand we are an island country and in this day and age it costs so much to treat the water. I think they need to have a look at the building regulations and have two supplys running into a house one for drinking water and the other for general use. Whats the point having drinking water flowing into your house and sending it up to sit in a tank up in the attic and used to water your plants and flush your toiliet.

senordingdong

harolds57 wrote: »

A guy that works with me was telling me that in leixlip when he was growing up years ago when water meters were brought in, people went around and poured concrete in where the meters were and they were never able to use them again, and they done that outside houses that weren’t even there’s. I hope that doesnt happen again when these new meters go in, would be a shame and against the law.
What I dont understand we are an island country and in this day and age it costs so much to treat the water. I think they need to have a look at the building regulations and have two supplys running into a house one for drinking water and the other for general use. Whats the point having drinking water flowing into your house and sending it up to sit in a tank up in the attic and used to water your plants and flush your toiliet.

Well, what happens if someone torches your wheelie bin? Do you have to pay for a new one or do they continue to collect your rubbish without recording it?

seamus

harolds57 wrote: »

What I dont understand we are an island country and in this day and age it costs so much to treat the water.

Water treatment in general is a fairly expensive business. Being an island nation has nothing really to do with it. Just be glad we don't have to take it from the sea.

I think they need to have a look at the building regulations and have two supplys running into a house one for drinking water and the other for general use. Whats the point having drinking water flowing into your house and sending it up to sit in a tank up in the attic and used to water your plants and flush your toiliet.

Two supplies = twice the infrastructure = twice the cost.

Having an "unclean" supply is dodgy territory anyway. Unclean water doesn't just cause infections from drinking it, it's also caused by using it to wash or cook. You know when you go to the loo and the water splashes up? Infection risk.

You would also find that if people had an "untreated" and "treated" feed into the house, they would start using the "untreated" feed for cooking and cleaning (assuming that's not metered or is cheaper or something) and infection would spread like wildfire.

It works out cheaper overall to use the one supply of treated water for everything.

harolds57

seamus wrote: »

Two supplies = twice the infrastructure = twice the cost.

Having an "unclean" supply is dodgy territory anyway. Unclean water doesn't just cause infections from drinking it, it's also caused by using it to wash or cook. You know when you go to the loo and the water splashes up? Infection risk.

You would also find that if people had an "untreated" and "treated" feed into the house, they would start using the "untreated" feed for cooking and cleaning (assuming that's not metered or is cheaper or something) and infection would spread like wildfire.

It works out cheaper overall to use the one supply of treated water for everything.

So is all this talk about rain water harvesting in private houses a bit of a nice idea but if you want to stay healthy keep away and pay for a proper supply? The only good thing about these water charges is that it has got people talking and thinking about water and the cost assocated.

seamus

harolds57 wrote: »

So is all this talk about rain water harvesting in private houses a bit of a nice idea but if you want to stay healthy keep away and pay for a proper supply? The only good thing about these water charges is that it has got people talking and thinking about water and the cost assocated.

Rainwater harvesting is slightly different, I assumed you were talking about having a separate feed for water which hadn't been fully treated.

The majority of homes in this country don't receive enough rainwater in a month to cover a day's worth of toilet breaks, so collecting rainwater for public use isn't really a goer except in exceptionally wet parts of the country.

StephenHendry

dj jarvis wrote: »

me ..... i have had enough

i will be pushing for a no vote on the treaty in may.

they can stick the household charge and water meter charge up their collective thieving political arses

since the last shower of bastards hung us up to dry this lot have been pulling on our ankles to make sure we are dead

income tax up - USC up - Motor tax up - motor fuel up , house heating up
food up , household charge , prop tax coming , water charges coming
retirement age up - stealth taxes ALL over the place

add this to - my wages down 40% - work down by at least 50% , self employed so if what little work i have left drys up i have NO social entitlements ( also have a chronic long term illness that costs me a fortune each month ) , mortgage to pay , 2 small kids - i have no more to give

the kildare st mafia will have you believe that the world will stop turning if we vote no - well as i see it for me it just cant get any worse
i would be far better off on the dole if i was lucky enough to qualify

VOTE NO - NO MORE PAYING SOMEONE ELSE'S DEBTS

if they bother to help me , then maybe just maybe ill help them
till then - **** you FG\LB

+ 1

its bit like a restaurant asking you to pay for their food they've prepared, got from various wholesalers, delivery charges, their heating and electricity costs etc. this before you go in to the restaurant and ordering whatever you want ,

if FG/Lab thought the household charge caused problems, this will be worse as even the most obediant will object to this nonsense.

Carter P Fly

I was yammering to the missus who's from poland and she said that they introduced a water charge (years and years ago, like in the 80's) and everyone had to pay it and it was a flat rate. You were given the option of installing a water meter to reduce the charge.

Seems to me this is a good way to do it but I sincerly doubt our government will take this sensible but heavy handed approach to the situation and will just fcuk it up as they did the household charge.

ART6

My mains water supply often has a faint brown tinge, and it has a slight musty smell that is much more prominent when boiled in a kettle. So, a couple of years ago, I installed a filter system. Within six months I was alarmed to discover that the filter cartridge was clogged with brown sludge and what looked like multitudes of black fibrous strands. I now change the cartridge every few months.

Therefore, in respect of both the water tax and the household charge, for once I agree with the fourth form bully Hogan as he commented on his reasons for not paying the tax on his property in Portugal: "Why would anyone pay for a service he is not receiving?"

Quite, Big Phil!

snubbleste

ART6 wrote: »

Therefore, in respect of both the water tax and the household charge, for once I agree with the fourth form bully Hogan as he commented on his reasons for not paying the tax on his property in Portugal: "Why would anyone pay for a service he is not receiving?"
Quite, Big Phil!

Eh, you'll find that was an April Fools Day joke conducted by a certain media outlet.

AboutTwoFiddy

bamboozle wrote: »

its kinda hard to ask them to cut some slack when at the same time there are 1500+ teachers earning over 100k, librarians earning more than the PM of Spain, 5000+ working in HR in the HSE.

we're struggling to reign in a bloated and overpaid civil & public service, we're borrowing 10bn a year to cover these costs and until we get a grip on those costs we can expect the IMF and ECB to be keeping a close eye on things.

Inda Kinny has also said that we'll be taking on an extra 2000+ PS workers to look after the water.

Awesome.

dvpower

snubbleste wrote: »

Eh, you'll find that was an April Fools Day joke conducted by a certain media outlet.

No it wasn't

ART6

AboutTwoFiddy wrote: »

Inda Kinny has also said that we'll be taking on an extra 2000+ PS workers to look after the water.

Awesome.

Excellent. That will reduce the welfare bill a bit. Now let's pay them all €100k a year each so that they can start spending and thus save the economy. In fact, why don't we go the whole hog and employ everyone in the public service? After all, we are well on the way to that with welfare, dole, etc. and 400,000 claiming them. Then, with a bit of careful economic planning, we can introduce taxes for the whole population such that every euro paid out is recovered by the government. We are well on the way there, so let's be adventurous!:rolleyes:

This reminds me of the legend of the Oozalem bird. It only has one wing, and so it is destined to fly in ever decreasing circles until it disappears up its own ass hole.:D

dvpower

AboutTwoFiddy wrote: »

Inda Kinny has also said that we'll be taking on an extra 2000+ PS workers to look after the water.

The short term work of installing water meters is likely to be mostly outsourced out. Its not really taking on an extra 2000+ PS workers, now is it?

Biggins

QUESTION.

Assuming some home owners will at some stage, have a leak on their pipe system between where the meter is going to be on a public pavement/road and where the water pipe is going to be connected to the main for a whole estate - will the householder be facing one massive huge bill for all the gallons which might pour our by the minute?

That was asked of me - and I honestly couldn't give them an accurate answer.

Originally Posted by AboutTwoFiddy
Inda Kinny has also said that we'll be taking on an extra 2000+ PS workers to look after the water.

Thats PR spin being spouted by Enda makes me laugh - 2,000 supposed jobs - then (what he is not saying) is that afterwards, they are going to sack 2,000 people?
(...But hush, don't mention that bit!)
Yes - any jobs is good - but lets be honest, the way Enda is cleverly wording it, he's making it sound like these jobs will last which we all know they won't.
All he has to say is that he is making 2,000 temporary jobs - but in PR spin, that don't sound so good for the RTE newsbites!

Smidge

Biggins wrote: »

QUESTION.

Assuming some home owners will at some stage, have a leak on their pipe system between where the meter is going to be on a public pavement/road and where the water pipe is going to be connected to the main for a whole estate - will the householder be facing one massive huge bill for all the gallons which might pour our by the minute?

That was asked of me - and I honestly couldn't give them an accurate answer.



Thats PR spin being spouted by Enda makes me laugh - 2,000 supposed jobs - then (what he is not saying) is that afterwards, they are going to sack 2,000 people?
(...But hush, don't mention that bit!)

Or on the flip side of this question for people who are on group water schemes, where if an issue arises between the customer and the group water scheme, the customer has basically no rights because the group water scheme are considered "private individuals" so therefore it is a civil matter and must be dealt with through the courts:eek:

dvpower

Biggins wrote: »

QUESTION.

Assuming some home owners will at some stage, have a leak on their pipe system between where the meter is going to be on a public pavement/road and where the water pipe is going to be connected to the main for a whole estate - will the householder be facing one massive huge bill for all the gallons which might pour our by the minute?

Presumably the householder would be liable only for leaks on their property.
Putting in meters at various junction points is a great way of detecting and getting leaks sorted out.

Biggins

dvpower wrote: »

Presumably the householder would be liable only for leaks on their property...

Thats the point!
As was asked of myself, what if there is a leak between the meter and the house?
As far as the meter is concerned, the home-owner has just gone nuts with his/her water!

Mint Sauce

Biggins wrote: »

If true - thats another bill then for every householder in the country - on top of their already household tax.
Aren't FG and Labour great!

The more I think about it, the more I want out of this country, and I'm not even a householder.

dvpower

Biggins wrote: »

Thats the point!
As was asked of myself, what if there is a leak between the meter and the house?
As far as the meter is concerned, the home-owner has just gone nuts with his/her water!

Householder would be responsible for that as they own the leaky pipes. That's waste that will be eliminated pretty soon after the first bill hits the mat.