Irish Water Discussion {MERGE}

conorh91 · 15-09-2014 9:47pm

seamus wrote: »

You do not own, nor have any domain or responsibility over anything which is not within the boundaries of your property.

Rylands v Fletcher, which is Tort 101, disagrees with you.

Examples like the above are why people should never make 'intuitive' statements of law.

I'm only pointing it out because it is so glaring on a legal discussion forum.

Anyway I agree with the general sentiments regarding Irish Water.

BornToKill · 15-09-2014 10:33pm

conorh91 wrote: »

Rylands v Fletcher, which is Tort 101, disagrees with you.

Examples like the above are why people should never make 'intuitive' statements of law.

I thought that for Rylands -v- Fletcher to apply, something must have escaped from one's property and caused harm. If it hasn't come from within the property there is no obligation under Rylands.

Five Lamps · 15-09-2014 10:40pm

cowzerp wrote: »

your property is considered out to the main pipe, and out to the center of the road also, you will be billed for it to be repaired if it's the pipe leading from the main pipe to your home.

I'm just trying to recall the last time I heard of a citizen calling in the contractors to fix a pipe from outside their boundary wall to the "mains pipe". By your reasoning it should be a pretty common occurence?

Johnboy1951 · 15-09-2014 10:44pm

seamus wrote: »

This "centre of the road" nonsense has been going around for a long time, I recall someone saying it to me when I was a child. You do not own, nor have any domain or responsibility over anything which is not within the boundaries of your property.

You cannot control anything that Irish Water does either to the road or the pipes outside of your property.

If you look at property maps, you can see that the marking on the map goes out to the centre of the road for the width of the site.

This is normal ...... but it certainly does not give me control over who travels over that road or any responsibility for anything on, in or under the road.

Five Lamps · 15-09-2014 10:50pm

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

If you look at property maps, you can see that the marking on the map goes out to the centre of the road for the width of the site.

This is normal ...... but it certainly does not give me control over who travels over that road or any responsibility for anything on, in or under the road.

I've never seen a property map that would include a public road as part of the plot.

Johnboy1951 · 15-09-2014 10:55pm

Five Lamps wrote: »

I've never seen a property map that would include a public road as part of the plot.

I have one in this house, so I can assure you they do exist

emo72 · 15-09-2014 10:58pm

whats jail like these days anyway?

Wheety · 15-09-2014 10:58pm

What if you want a meter installed as you know you'd be using less than the average?

All these protesters are stopping this. They won't stop the bills arriving in January.

Just saw on Facebook that they stopped the meters being installed on my Mother's road.

Five Lamps · 15-09-2014 11:05pm

emo72 wrote: »

whats jail like these days anyway?

After slopping out you'll be delighted to have some metered running water.

Esel · 15-09-2014 11:08pm

Wheety wrote: »

Just saw on Facebook that they stopped the meters being installed on my Mother's road.

As pointed out above, your mother does not own the road.

15-09-2014 11:14pm

conorh91 wrote: »

Rylands v Fletcher, which is Tort 101, disagrees with you.

Examples like the above are why people should never make 'intuitive' statements of law.

I'm only pointing it out because it is so glaring on a legal discussion forum.

Anyway I agree with the general sentiments regarding Irish Water.

Rylands v Fletcher only applies to things which were within the boundaries of your property and escaped from those boundaries. You're not applying it correctly in this context. I dunno if Tort 101 got that far.

emo72 · 15-09-2014 11:19pm

Five Lamps wrote: »

After slopping out you'll be delighted to have some metered running water.

brilliant i love it. getting to **** and piss in the same room im sleeping in. any lad would love it. i really hope they dont give me early relase like those damn non tv licence payers. im in first.

Five Lamps · 15-09-2014 11:38pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Rylands v Fletcher only applies to things which were within the boundaries of your property and escaped from those boundaries. You're not applying it correctly in this context. I dunno if Tort 101 got that far.

Depends how IW installed that valve!

Victor · 16-09-2014 12:31am

Five Lamps wrote: »

I've never seen a property map that would include a public road as part of the plot.

With older properties, the land under the road is often owned by the adjacent property owners. However, most roads are in the charge of the council, who are responsible for maintenance and control right relating to utilities, etc.

If the right of way is closed, e.g. a bend in the road is realigned, the land normally reverts to the land owner.

In modern estates, etc. property owners only own to the boundary wall / fence.

FreudianSlippers · 16-09-2014 9:24am

Carawaystick wrote: »

Saying there is no cost to an individual is the same as saying welfare fraud or tax evasion has no cost to an individual.
UÉ get their income from customers.
If there's loads of leaks or worse structural damage from a leak, all the customers are going to pay for this

UÉ staff or management are very unlikely to take any hit for this

You're purposely misrepresenting what I'm saying - the customer will not be directly charged for leaks outside of their property.

FreudianSlippers · 16-09-2014 9:40am

Deleted User wrote: »

Rylands v Fletcher only applies to things which were within the boundaries of your property and escaped from those boundaries. You're not applying it correctly in this context. I dunno if Tort 101 got that far.

Also, in Tort 201 (or however that bloody numbering system works) you learn about some slightly newer cases like Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1 House of Lords.

The defendant council were responsible for the maintenance of the pipe work supplying water to a block of flats. A leak developed which was undetected for some time. The water collected at an embankment which housed the claimant’s high pressure gas main. The water caused the embankment to collapse and left the gas main exposed and unsupported. This was a serious and immediate risk and the claimant took action to avoid the potential danger. They then sought to recover the cost of the remedial works under the principle established in Rylands v Fletcher.

Holding that the defendant was not liable as their use of land was not non-natural, Lord Bingham stated:

I think it clear that ordinary user is a preferable test to natural user, making it clear that the rule in Rylands v Fletcher is engaged only where the defendant's use is shown to be extraordinary and unusual. This is not a test to be inflexibly applied: a use may be extraordinary and unusual at one time or in one place but not so at another time or in another place.

sesswhat · 16-09-2014 1:00pm

A new water main passes close to my property on the public road.

However, my supply is connected to an old scheme run by the local council with all the pipework on private land. As new houses were built, they all tapped into the pipes where they ran behind the sites.

Ultimately the pipes go back to a reservoir maintained by the council and fed by the public water supply. Back in the 70's and 80's there was a charge for users of about £200/year but since then there have been no charges (I think there is an allowance per user but as they have no way of knowing who uses the water they must simply add up the allowances).

When the representative from Irish Water was asked about council run group schemes on a radio interview she was a bit vague about their plans for them but said they would probably take them over in the long run.

My question is whether I am a customer of Irish Water or not at this time?

I get from water from a group scheme but ultimately from the public mains as well.

(I have a septic tank so waste water does not apply)

Fred Swanson · 16-09-2014 1:02pm

This post has been deleted.

sesswhat · 16-09-2014 1:26pm

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Is this because there is no way they can meter my supply?

I thought they might treat public fed schemes the same way as they treat people in flats, with more than one user sharing the same public connection.

My neighbour had a representative from Irish Water at his house taking pictures and mapping the location of his connection (to the same scheme).

Fred Swanson · 16-09-2014 1:29pm

This post has been deleted.

Ogham · 16-09-2014 1:34pm

sesswhat wrote: »

A new water main passes close to my property on the public road.

However, my supply is connected to an old scheme run by the local council with all the pipework on private land. As new houses were built, they all tapped into the pipes where they ran behind the sites.

Ultimately the pipes go back to a reservoir maintained by the council and fed by the public water supply. Back in the 70's and 80's there was a charge for users of about £200/year but since then there have been no charges (I think there is an allowance per user but as they have no way of knowing who uses the water they must simply add up the allowances).

When the representative from Irish Water was asked about council run group schemes on a radio interview she was a bit vague about their plans for them but said they would probably take them over in the long run.

My question is whether I am a customer of Irish Water or not at this time?

I get from water from a group scheme but ultimately from the public mains as well.

Irish Water are taking over whatever was provided by the local authorities - so you will be an Irish Water customer.

Johnboy1951 · 16-09-2014 3:43pm

Ogham wrote: »

Irish Water are taking over whatever was provided by the local authorities - so you will be an Irish Water customer.

"will" at some time in the future --- maybe ...... things can change over time ......

conorh91 · 16-09-2014 6:26pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Rylands v Fletcher only applies to things which were within the boundaries of your property and escaped from those boundaries. You're not applying it correctly in this context.

As i have stated, I'm not applying it at all in this context because it is completely irrelevant to this context and I never intended to apply it to this context.

I was responding to seamus's statement that you do not have any responsibility over something that is "not on your property". I said that although my post has no application to Irish Water, Seamus's statement is not a valid general rule, and particularly not the bit I have placed in quotation marks.

Seems pretty clear and obvious.

BornToKill wrote: »

I thought that for Rylands -v- Fletcher to apply, something must have escaped from one's property and caused harm.

Yeah, that's the point. It is not on your property, but it is 'of' your property, and you have responsibility for it elsewhere.

Ogham · 16-09-2014 7:40pm

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

"will" at some time in the future --- maybe ...... things can change over time ......

No - I mean now - from October. He is not paying water charges now - so it must be run by the council. All council water services now come under Irish Water.

Five Lamps · 16-09-2014 8:31pm

sesswhat wrote: »

Is this because there is no way they can meter my supply?

I thought they might treat public fed schemes the same way as they treat people in flats, with more than one user sharing the same public connection.

My neighbour had a representative from Irish Water at his house taking pictures and mapping the location of his connection (to the same scheme).

I thought that all these group schemes had a requirement for each house to be metered?

Johnboy1951 · 16-09-2014 8:45pm

Ogham wrote: »

No - I mean now - from October. He is not paying water charges now - so it must be run by the council. All council water services now come under Irish Water.

Not necessarily ....... some Councils have not been charging Group Water Schemes for the water they provide, and in fact have been paying such schemes funding to help maintain the system .... but they are still Group Water Schemes and do not fall under the remit of Irish Water.

No doubt there are other schemes which the LA/Council have completely taken over, and such schemes do fall under the remit of IW.

EDIT:

I should add that each household on a Group Water Scheme has an allowance of some 225 cu. mtrs (IIRC) and some schemes would not exceed the total allowed and so no water might be chargeable.

Johnboy1951 · 16-09-2014 8:47pm

Five Lamps wrote: »

I thought that all these group schemes had a requirement for each house to be metered?

If the intent was to have the Council take the scheme in hand, then yes I believe so ...... what is the state of the scheme mentioned here though is another matter ...... pipes through private land would not normally be acceptable to the LA to take over the scheme.

Fred Swanson · 16-09-2014 8:47pm

This post has been deleted.

Carawaystick · 17-09-2014 12:51am

Is sewerage affected?
My sewer joins a shared sewer under our back gardens serving several houses before joining a main sewer under public land

If I'm paying UÉ for waste water then are they now somewhat responsible for the sewerage under neighbours land?

Victor · 17-09-2014 3:19am

Carawaystick wrote: »

Is sewerage affected?
My sewer joins a shared sewer under our back gardens serving several houses before joining a main sewer under public land

If I'm paying UÉ for waste water then are they now somewhat responsible for the sewerage under neighbours land?

You will tend to find that the neighbours are collectively responsible for the sewer until it reaches the public street.

Irish Water Discussion {MERGE}

Comments