Irish Water Discussion {MERGE}

chasm

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Interesting development locally ...... there are houses on a group water scheme, who received their letter and returned it as appropriate == not a customer due to being on a group water scheme.

Today sub-contractors for IW began digging up at the side of the road to expose the pipes and fit IW water meters.

As far as I am aware those pipes would be 'private property' and to do this work is deliberate damage to private property without any permission to do so.

I believe this has also happened in other locations, but I have not read anything about what the consequences of those actions were.

Has anyone got information about such events?

Something like this happened to a relation of mine. They are on a group water scheme and have a meter through that scheme. IW came out a few months ago and removed the original meter and installed an IW one. Relation told them they were on a private scheme but they installed new meter any way. They contacted the guy in charge of their scheme, who then contacted IW and again explained the case to them - also requested the return of the original meter that was removed as it had not been read! He informed my relations that he would get it sorted and that they had nothing to worry about, that the scheme is private and they would not owe IW anything.

Heard no more about it until recently, IW were back out to read the meter or something and my relative went out to the guy and explained the situation again, he had a chat with the guy from the group scheme and from what i was told it was decided that the IW meter would be left in but they are not classed as customers. I don't think they have been able to locate the original meter!
The IW guy told my relation that the County council had previously been out and surveyed the houses in the area and passed those details to IW for the metering. There are about 5 or 6 houses on their lane, the first 2 are on a public water scheme and it appears the county council assumed other houses further up were on the same scheme!

Johnboy1951

As an update ..... it seems that some 6 houses were interfered with by IW sub contractors, and those six houses are well within the scheme ..... meaning that houses on either side of them are also in the scheme.

No doubt there is some sort of mix-up (how that could happen I have no idea) ...... but I must say that I would be really pissed if IW came along and stole my meter and replaced it with one of theirs, with no permission from me to do so.
No doubt those meters cost the home owners quite a bit when fitted.

It is surprising that home owners did not call the police ..... what those subbies did was theft and interfering with private property.

Little CuChulainn

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

As an update ..... it seems that some 6 houses were interfered with by IW sub contractors, and those six houses are well within the scheme ..... meaning that houses on either side of them are also in the scheme.

No doubt there is some sort of mix-up (how that could happen I have no idea) ...... but I must say that I would be really pissed if IW came along and stole my meter and replaced it with one of theirs, with no permission from me to do so.
No doubt those meters cost the home owners quite a bit when fitted.

It is surprising that home owners did not call the police ..... what those subbies did was theft and interfering with private property.

Not if it was a mistake. Theft requires an element of deception.

Johnboy1951

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Not if it was a mistake. Theft requires an element of deception.

That would make for an interesting side-discussion as the owners informed the subbies they did not want their meters removed ...

Theft.

4.—(1) Subject to section 5 , a person is guilty of theft if he or she dishonestly appropriates property without the consent of its owner and with the intention of depriving its owner of it.

(2) For the purposes of this section a person does not appropriate property without the consent of its owner if—

(a) the person believes that he or she has the owner's consent, or would have the owner's consent if the owner knew of the appropriation of the property and the circumstances in which it was appropriated, or

As the meters were taken away ..... and apparently are being disposed of in some manner ..... the owners are being deprived of the property and their ownership of the meters (and indeed ownership of the pipes themselves).

Johnboy1951

chasm wrote: »

Something like this happened to a relation of mine. They are on a group water scheme and have a meter through that scheme. IW came out a few months ago and removed the original meter and installed an IW one. Relation told them they were on a private scheme but they installed new meter any way. They contacted the guy in charge of their scheme, who then contacted IW and again explained the case to them - also requested the return of the original meter that was removed as it had not been read! He informed my relations that he would get it sorted and that they had nothing to worry about, that the scheme is private and they would not owe IW anything.

Heard no more about it until recently, IW were back out to read the meter or something and my relative went out to the guy and explained the situation again, he had a chat with the guy from the group scheme and from what i was told it was decided that the IW meter would be left in but they are not classed as customers. I don't think they have been able to locate the original meter!
The IW guy told my relation that the County council had previously been out and surveyed the houses in the area and passed those details to IW for the metering. There are about 5 or 6 houses on their lane, the first 2 are on a public water scheme and it appears the county council assumed other houses further up were on the same scheme!

The question I would have in that situation is this:

Has ownership of the IW meter been passed to the group water scheme, or has IW retained ownership?

It would be an interesting situation if IW retained ownership of the meter .....

Losty Dublin

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

That would make for an interesting side-discussion as the owners informed the subbies they did not want their meters removed ...



As the meters were taken away ..... and apparently are being disposed of in some manner ..... the owners are being deprived of the property and their ownership of the meters.

You don't own the meters; the water provider owns them so it's unlikely that you are being deprived of your property by they removing the meter.

I presume that you have been in contact with whomever it is that supplies you with water? What have they said is their position?

Johnboy1951

Losty Dublin wrote: »

You don't own the meters; the water provider owns them so it's unlikely that you are being deprived of your property by they removing the meter.

I presume that you have been in contact with whomever it is that supplies you with water? What have they said is their position?

Those who paid for the meters and their installation (on their property mostly) are the owners of the meters in the group water scheme.

Also the pipework that carries the water is in joint private ownership in a group water scheme.

Any interference with either pipework or meters is interference with private property.

Little CuChulainn

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

That would make for an interesting side-discussion as the owners informed the subbies they did not want their meters removed ...



As the meters were taken away ..... and apparently are being disposed of in some manner ..... the owners are being deprived of the property and their ownership of the meters (and indeed ownership of the pipes themselves).

You conveniently skipped over the important word in the crime, "dishonestly".

Johnboy1951

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

You conveniently skipped over the important word in the crime, "dishonestly".

Hehehehehe ..... I know of no way someone can take my property without permission, having been fully informed of ownership etc, except 'dishonestly' ...... but maybe there is some means to do so 'honestly' that I am unaware of.

Little CuChulainn

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Hehehehehe ..... I know of no way someone can take my property without permission, having been fully informed of ownership etc, except 'dishonestly' ...... but maybe there is some means to do so 'honestly' that I am unaware of.

If they didn't believe your claim and believed what their boss had told them i can't see how they could be accused of dishonesty. It wouldn't exactly be the first time they heard that excuse.

Losty Dublin

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Those who paid for the meters and their installation (on their property mostly) are the owners of the meters in the group water scheme.

Also the pipework that carries the water is in joint private ownership in a group water scheme.

Any interference with either pipework or meters is interference with private property.

I would sincerely doubt that you personally own the pipe and meter installed in a group scheme, even if you paid installation fees but am open to correction. If you feel that you actually do now them, you need to contact your group scheme and/or solicitor to clarify all of this, what happened in relation to the removal of your previous infrastructure and to see if you can take this further if you have been wronged.

Johnboy1951

Losty Dublin wrote: »

I would sincerely doubt that you personally own the pipe and meter installed in a group scheme, even if you paid installation fees but am open to correction. If you feel that you actually do now them, you need to contact your group scheme and/or solicitor to clarify all of this, what happened in relation to the removal of your previous infrastructure and to see if you can take this further if you have been wronged.

All I can suggest is that you check what a private group water scheme is.

Losty Dublin

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

All I can suggest is that you check what a private group water scheme is.

I know what they are. All I am doubting is that an account holder actually owns their own meter, pipes etc in one, though I did say that I am open to correction on this (And proof of same, please.).

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

FreudianSlippers

Isn't the key with regard to the GWS whether you have a connection to the public sewer or not? If you have GWS, but you access the public sewer, UÉ needs to know how much water is going into your property because they assess on an in/out basis.

Paulw

Just curious, since it doesn't impact me at all, but on what legal basis can IW charge a landlord for water services if a tenant doesn't register? ESB/Board Gais can't charge a landlord if a tenant doesn't pay, so how can IW claim they will?

Little CuChulainn

Paulw wrote: »

Just curious, since it doesn't impact me at all, but on what legal basis can IW charge a landlord for water services if a tenant doesn't register? ESB/Board Gais can't charge a landlord if a tenant doesn't pay, so how can IW claim they will?

I presume if they dont have details of a tenant they deal with it as an unoccupied property, for which the owner is responable.

Paulw

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I presume if they dont have details of a tenant they deal with it as an unoccupied property, for which the owner is responable.

But, I assume, if it went to court (because a landlord has no obligation to pay for a utility they are not using), then the court would side with the landlord, and IW would be left having to find and then chase a tenant, since the landlord has no legal obligation to give any details about the tenant to a utility company?

Peregrinus

The water is supplied to the landlord's property and if anyone other than the landlord is in occupation of that property, the landlord should know about it. If the landlord's defence to a claim for water charges is that someone else is occupying the property, he's going to have to adduce evidence to that effect, and that evidence is likely to identify the tenant.

Ogham

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Isn't the key with regard to the GWS whether you have a connection to the public sewer or not? If you have GWS, but you access the public sewer, UÉ needs to know how much water is going into your property because they assess on an in/out basis.

If someone on a public sewer is not a customer of IW for supply - they will not normally meter them and they will then pay the "assessed" charge for waste only. ( Situation liek this will be pretty rare)

Paulw

Peregrinus wrote: »

The water is supplied to the landlord's property and if anyone other than the landlord is in occupation of that property, the landlord should know about it. If the landlord's defence to a claim for water charges is that someone else is occupying the property, he's going to have to adduce evidence to that effect, and that evidence is likely to identify the tenant.

To court, yes, of course he has to identify the resident, but not to IW. I can't see anything in the Water Services Act(s) that compel the landlord to identify the tenant.

Peregrinus

But it's very much in his interests to. And you don't usually have to pass a law to compel people to act in a way that their own interest would lead them to act. The sooner the landlord tells IW the identity of the tenant, the sooner he stops being bothered by demands, and later court actions, from IW to get him to pay for the water consumed on the premises.

Little CuChulainn

Paulw wrote: »

But, I assume, if it went to court (because a landlord has no obligation to pay for a utility they are not using), then the court would side with the landlord, and IW would be left having to find and then chase a tenant, since the landlord has no legal obligation to give any details about the tenant to a utility company?

The landlord would have to offer some proof to counter the assumption he is not liable. This could be the tenant or simply the record of prtb registration. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Grolschevik

So the Gardai are impersonating protestors and engaging in violence to discredit them?

Also they pepper-sprayed women and children yesterday?

Of course, you've heard nothing about this because the Denis O'Brien owned media is photoshopping the truth out of existence. Or something...

Christ, I despair.

Losty Dublin

Grolschevik wrote: »

So the Gardai are impersonating protestors and engaging in violence to discredit them?

Also they pepper-sprayed women and children yesterday?

Of course, you've heard nothing about this because the Denis O'Brien owned media is photoshopping the truth out of existence. Or something...

Christ, I despair.

Happily the Horse has a mouth, so to speak

https://www.facebook.com/tony.gavin.948

Johnboy1951

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Happily the Horse has a mouth, so to speak

https://www.facebook.com/tony.gavin.948

What does this mean?

Not being on facebook I have no idea what you linked to except someone's facebook page/whatever.

Losty Dublin

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

What does this mean?

Not being on facebook I have no idea what you linked to except someone's facebook page/whatever.

The photographer who took the photos was alleged to have edited the photos by some. In the link he refutes the charge and posts up 5 photos of the brick throwing incident.

Johnboy1951

Losty Dublin wrote: »

The photographer who took the photos was alleged to have edited the photos by some. In the link he refutes the charge and posts up 5 photos of the brick throwing incident.

Thanks

..... but this does not impact on the allegations posted, does it?

So the Gardai are impersonating protestors and engaging in violence to discredit them?

Little CuChulainn

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Thanks

..... but this does not impact on the allegations posted, does it?

The photo posted with those allegations has been doctored. When you compare a before and after it's evident that the "stab vest" has been coloured in to make if look all navy where before there was a light coloured stripe. Add to that the fact there is zero evidence to support it at all makes it a pretty weak allegation.

garhjw

Some loser posts bull on the web and you simpletons take it as gospel? Good lads