Irish Water Discussion {MERGE}

Paulw

Victor wrote: »

Refusing to pay for water would be no different to going into a buffet (self service) restaurant, eating all around you and then refusing to pay.

Except for the fact that the Govt confirmed that people already pay for water service through their taxes. :eek:

http://directdemocracyireland.ie/coveney-makes-honest-mistake/

Would there be a legal case to take in relation to being charged twice for the same service? I don't see the Govt cutting other taxes, so that we are only paying for water once, via the water charges.

I am not refusing to pay for water, but I am refusing to pay twice.

whippet

Paulw wrote: »

Except for the fact that the Govt confirmed that people already pay for water service through their taxes. :eek:

http://directdemocracyireland.ie/coveney-makes-honest-mistake/

Would there be a legal case to take in relation to being charged twice for the same service? I don't see the Govt cutting other taxes, so that we are only paying for water once, via the water charges.

I am not refusing to pay for water, but I am refusing to pay twice.

@paulw .. your first mistake in this post is quoting anything from Direct Democracy Ireland's website ... have a look in the Politics thread and the Freeman Megamerge thead in Legal Discussion.

It is true that your tax euros have been paying for your water up now through central government. Central government no longer will be funding it so it needs to become a utility.

By your reasoning should those who have private wells / group water schemes receive a tax rebate on their PAYE as they have been paying for their water but not actually receiving it.

Nothing that the government pays for is free .. DDI are spinning this like it is a revelation. Are the footpaths free, are the public parks free etc .. these are all being paid by the taxpayer.

You will not be paying for it twice .. you will be paying your taxes as normal and then for water as a utility.

BTW .. the 'no consent, no contract' stuff is nonsense ... brought to you by the same people who believe that unless you agree to a law it does not apply to you ... just google Bobby of the Family Sludds

rameire

I love that some of the stickers they have also say
" I do not hold an international treaty with you "

the tripe these people are spouting is utter rubbish.

Paulw

whippet wrote: »

@paulw .. your first mistake in this post is quoting anything from Direct Democracy Ireland's website ... have a look in the Politics thread and the Freeman Megamerge thead in Legal Discussion.
You will not be paying for it twice .. you will be paying your taxes as normal and then for water as a utility.

BTW .. the 'no consent, no contract' stuff is nonsense ... brought to you by the same people who believe that unless you agree to a law it does not apply to you ... just google Bobby of the Family Sludds

I totally agree that the "no consent, no contract" stuff is rubbish. No disagreement there.

I simply quoted that website since it was an easy source that shows the comments made by the minister. Other than that, I agree that their website is useless.

But, I disagree with your idea that you will not be paying for it twice. Now that you won't be paying for water directly through your taxes, those funds that were previously used for water will be spend elsewhere by Govt (TDs salary, expenses, etc). I object to having to pay a new utility bill for something I have already been paying for my entire working career through taxes.

seamus

racso1975 wrote: »

Am seeing and a lot about this. Folks saying if you don't sign the pack they are sending out and return it saying no contract entered into or agreed to then they cannot pursue for payment. I know they have a piece on the website stating they will persue in court for breach of contract. Is a contract assumed because you use water?

In short, a formal contract is not required for a debt to be owed.

The best example I can give, is moving into a new home. When you get in, the electricity is already on. You are liable for the cost of that electricity from the moment you start using it, whether or not you contact the ESB.

In effect, using the service makes you liable for the cost of that service. The only real defence to that would be a reasonably-held belief that the service was free, or arguing that the price subsequently levied was excessive.

If your house is connected to the public mains and/or public sewer, it's assumed that you are using the service. Which is a fair assumption to make.

Paulw, the article you quote is of course dishonestly representing the minister's remarks. Nobody ever claimed that water was free. If it was, this wouldn't be an issue. The claim is that a lot of people are getting their water for free - which is true; about half of the population pay no income tax.

LegallyAbroad

*sigh*

You're going to end up paying either way. Get it over and done with now and stop with all the hassle you're going to cause yourself with the DDI/Freeman loopers.

Valetta

Paulw wrote: »

But, I disagree with your idea that you will not be paying for it twice. Now that you won't be paying for water directly through your taxes, those funds that were previously used for water will be spend elsewhere by Govt (TDs salary, expenses, etc). I object to having to pay a new utility bill for something I have already been paying for my entire working career through taxes.

Up to now you have been paying for water through general taxation. (Paying once)

From now on, you will pay directly through water charges.(Paying once).

At no time in the past or from now on will you have paid twice.

Paulw

Paulw wrote: »

But, I disagree with your idea that you will not be paying for it twice. Now that you won't be paying for water directly through your taxes, those funds that were previously used for water will be spend elsewhere by Govt (beds in hospitals, education, front line police services). I object to having to pay a new utility bill for something I have already been paying for my entire working career through taxes.

Just changed the section in bold there cause your selective bias on what the central fund pays for was a little narrow.

Paulw

Deleted User wrote: »

Just changed the section in bold there cause your selective bias on what the central fund pays for was a little narrow.

If that's where money went, I wouldn't have an issue with it, but it's definitely not where the money goes. Funding for hospitals, education and policing is all down, and well down the govt list of priorities. :mad:

LegallyAbroad

Paulw wrote: »

If that's where money went, I wouldn't have an issue with it, but it's definitely not where the money goes. Funding for hospitals, education and policing is all down, and well down the govt list of priorities. :mad:

That's because taxes are well down. We no longer get that €42,670,234,519.04 in stamp duty that we did in 2007. We also no longer have the billions in cheap credit fuelling the purchases that led to the stamp duty.

That's why funding for services is down. TD's salaries costs a miniscule amount.

Paulw

LegallyAbroad wrote: »

That's because taxes are well down. We no longer get that €42,670,234,519.04 in stamp duty that we did in 2007. We also no longer have the billions in cheap credit fuelling the purchases that led to the stamp duty.

That's why funding for services is down. TD's salaries costs a miniscule amount.

And taking more money out of the pockets of people will make matters worse, since people will be less able to save/spend.

As for TD's salaries ... yeah, must be hard for them living on €90k+ per annum. I'm sure I'd struggle on that money too. If a TD earned the salary of an average employee in Ireland, then they might actually be more effective and might see why it is important to properly manage taxation, rather than them living in a financially secure environment where they don't need to ever worry about taxes, VAT, household charges, property tax and now water charges. It must be nice.

But ... this is the legal discussion group, not politics.

Paulw

Paulw wrote: »

But ... this is the legal discussion group, not politics.

Yeah but if you're gonna talk twaddle about law then you might as well branch out.

You've gotten the answer here anyway - water was never "free" it just came from central fund and now it's not. Therefore it must be paid for by other means.

LegallyAbroad

Paulw wrote: »

As for TD's salaries ... yeah, must be hard for them living on €90k+ per annum

Never said it was.

I'm sure I'd struggle on that money too.

Haven't a clue.

If a TD earned the salary of an average employee in Ireland, then they
might actually be more effective and might see why it is important to properly
manage taxation, rather than them living in a financially secure environment
where they don't need to ever worry about taxes, VAT, household charges,
property tax and now water charges. It must be nice.

They're not average employees, though. They're better educated and work longer hours than the average joe. Why don't you run for office?

Robbo

Would it be a useful exercise here if we debunked the living **** out of each claim the various anti-water charge groups are promoting as legal gospel? Especially given that some are soliciting donations for a "challenge".

Paulw

LegallyAbroad wrote: »

They're not average employees, though. They're better educated and work longer hours than the average joe. Why don't you run for office?

Yeah, they're definitely not average. Not sure I would agree about being better educated. I've never seen any educational requirement to become a TD. Work longer hours ... yeah, possibly.

Why don't I run for office? Because I like what I currently do, and it gives me a decent work/life balance while paying me enough to be content.

Pro Hoc Vice

Paulw wrote: »

If that's where money went, I wouldn't have an issue with it, but it's definitely not where the money goes. Funding for hospitals, education and policing is all down, and well down the govt list of priorities. :mad:

As a % of total public spending what do you think is Health, Social Welfare and Education. And as a total of tax income what do you think those 3 areas add up to.

To help you

http://budget.gov.ie/Budgets/2013/Documents/Expenditure%20Report%202013%20Part%20I.pdf

Carawaystick

Obviously a customer can negotiate the terms of a contract, and UÉ can't enforce unfair terms on a consumer, if the terms aren't negotiated.

UÉ also can't ignore the sale of goods and supply of services acts, their submissions to cer show they want ride roughshod over these consumer rights.

Pro Hoc Vice

Carawaystick wrote: »

Obviously a customer can negotiate the terms of a contract, and UÉ can't enforce unfair terms on a consumer, if the terms aren't negotiated.

UÉ also can't ignore the sale of goods and supply of services acts, their submissions to cer show they want ride roughshod over these consumer rights.

Then like any consumer they can not take the supply.

What exact unfair terms are being imposed and what exact breach of the sale of goods and supply of services act.

Going Forward

Here's the em, "application" form:

http://www.water.ie/docs/Irish-Water-customer-application-form-ENGLISH-SAMPLE.pdf

http://www.water.ie/docs/Irish-Water-customer-application-guide_ENGLISH.pdf

"If you don’t contact us or we don’t receive a completed form from you, we are obliged to bill you based on the details we have about your household. If you are metered, we will charge you for water services based on the meter readings. If you do not have an Irish Water installed water meter, we will charge you the default assessed charge as outlined in the Water Charges Plan (see page 8). Furthermore you will not receive any water services allowances."

Sully

Why can't the allowances be provided through Social Welfare? Is there not such an option for electricity or other services?

Cookie_Monster

Paulw wrote: »

Except for the fact that the Govt confirmed that people already pay for water service through their taxes. :eek:

no, you don't. You part pay for it but it is and has mostly been paid for by government borrowing, not tax.

Carawaystick

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Then like any consumer they can not take the supply.

What exact unfair terms are being imposed and what exact breach of the sale of goods and supply of services act.

unfair terms:
UÉ want to charge people if they are not customers, and expect non-customers to inform them that aren't customers... :eek:
UÉ want customers to sign up without stating the price of the goods to be supplied.

I'd contend that the good/service UÉ are selling/supplying is clean drinking water, and wastewater removal.

UÉ propose to charge for supply interruptions of less than 24 hours duration
UÉ propose to charge for water unfit for human consumption.
UÉ want to charge customers where they supply poisoned water ( such as lead in the water in Limerick city)
UÉ want to charge for water that is excessively turbid - The photo on the first page of this shows clear water. Goods sold by description, need to match the description.

Pro Hoc Vice

Carawaystick wrote: »

unfair terms:
UÉ want to charge people if they are not customers, and expect non-customers to inform them that aren't customers... :eek:
UÉ want customers to sign up without stating the price of the goods to be supplied.

I'd contend that the good/service UÉ are selling/supplying is clean drinking water, and wastewater removal.

UÉ propose to charge for supply interruptions of less than 24 hours duration
UÉ propose to charge for water unfit for human consumption.
UÉ want to charge customers where they supply poisoned water ( such as lead in the water in Limerick city)
UÉ want to charge for water that is excessively turbid - The photo on the first page of this shows clear water. Goods sold by description, need to match the description.

Considering everyone connected to supply is a customer is not an unfair term.

The price has been disclosed.

The other issue if they arise are contract issues and if a person feels aggrieved by service they can either bring a case or decide to not avail of the service.

Going Forward

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

no, you don't. You part pay for it but it is and has mostly been paid for by government borrowing, not tax.

And borrowings are serviced by taxes.
At least that was the idea last time I checked.

whippet

Going Forward wrote: »

And borrowings are serviced by taxeswhat ever revenue the state can get in.
At least that was the idea last time I checked.

corrected that for you

actuallylike

Can someone shed a bit of legal light on the No Consent No contract mumbo jumbo going around facebook? For anyone that doesn't know, there seems to be a lot of people spouting nonsense about sending the Irish water envelopes back to sender with No Consent, No Contract on it, thinking that it'll make the whole thing go away. It all has a Freeman kinda vibe to it. It's obviously nonsense but I've seen some of my friends sharing the post.

Now I have absolutely no legal background whatsoever, and I assume that anyone writing this on their envelope doesn't either, so I'd like someone if they could to explain why this is nonsense and futile (or surprise me and tell me it's a good idea). Lots of people going to be left with a trickle of water because of this anti government brigade.

ps I'm not after any discussion on whether this is morally good or bad or the justness for privatisation or otherwise. simply a legal explanation on why sending your envelope back with these magic, 'abandon ship' styled words will do nothing but harm you (or as I said, why it could be a great and wonderful thing)

actuallylike

actuallylike wrote: »

Can someone shed a bit of legal light on the No Consent No contract mumbo jumbo going around facebook? For anyone that doesn't know, there seems to be a lot of people spouting nonsense about sending the Irish water envelopes back to sender with No Consent, No Contract on it, thinking that it'll make the whole thing go away. It all has a Freeman kinda vibe to it. It's obviously nonsense but I've seen some of my friends sharing the post.

Now I have absolutely no legal background whatsoever, and I assume that anyone writing this on their envelope doesn't either, so I'd like someone if they could to explain why this is nonsense and futile (or surprise me and tell me it's a good idea). Lots of people going to be left with a trickle of water because of this anti government brigade.

ps I'm not after any discussion on whether this is morally good or bad or the justness for privatisation or otherwise. simply a legal explanation on why sending your envelope back with these magic, 'abandon ship' styled words will do nothing but harm you (or as I said, why it could be a great and wonderful thing)

Irish Water is a statutory subsidiary of Bord Gais. Like all State monopolies (Irish Water is clearly a monopoly) the provision of the service is subsumed from the activities of the State. Irish Water simply takes over the services previously supplied by the County Councils and then undertakes the duties required of it by Statute. Bord Gais is a semi-state and therefore so is Irish Water. They are both created by Statute.

The Act doesn't create a contract with the State. It doesn't create a contract at all. It nominates a statutory body to undertake the installation of meters, the repair and installation of pipelines and the regulation of both. Not all of the water services are subsumed to Irish Water. ESB still control many of the reservoirs for example for hydroelectric purposes and much of the water release through those reservoirs is governed by private agreement between the ESB and the relevant County Councils.

If you want water then this is the method the State has chosen to provide it. Even if there was an explicit contract you can consent to it by action. By using the State's water supply you are agreeing to be bound by the terms of its use. It's the equivalent of getting on a Luas and not paying for a ticket. You have consented to the contract just by getting on board.

In the simplest possible terms here are the issues:

• Irish Water will now be supplying the water to your home
• The Central Fund, which previously paid for water to every home in the country, will no longer be doing so
• The new method of paying for that water will be via the charges payble to Irish Water
• Those charges are mandatory under statute and not a simple matter of contract
• Insofar as a contract exists it is to allow you to avail of statutory allowances for water usage, thus reducing your overall fee
• Even if the entire thing was covered solely by contract law all you would need to do in order to consent to the contract is turn on your tap as you can consent by action (such as the Luas example above)

hullaballoo

actuallylike wrote: »

Can someone shed a bit of legal light on the No Consent No contract mumbo jumbo going around facebook? For anyone that doesn't know, there seems to be a lot of people spouting nonsense about sending the Irish water envelopes back to sender with No Consent, No Contract on it, thinking that it'll make the whole thing go away. It all has a Freeman kinda vibe to it. It's obviously nonsense but I've seen some of my friends sharing the post.

Now I have absolutely no legal background whatsoever, and I assume that anyone writing this on their envelope doesn't either, so I'd like someone if they could to explain why this is nonsense and futile (or surprise me and tell me it's a good idea). Lots of people going to be left with a trickle of water because of this anti government brigade.

ps I'm not after any discussion on whether this is morally good or bad or the justness for privatisation or otherwise. simply a legal explanation on why sending your envelope back with these magic, 'abandon ship' styled words will do nothing but harm you (or as I said, why it could be a great and wonderful thing)

Tbh, you've probably summed it up as well as any lawyer.

Mumbo. Jumbo.

Going Forward

whippet wrote: »

corrected that for you

No, you just edited someone else's post.

Esel

Valetta wrote: »

Up to now you have been paying for water through general taxation. (Paying once)

From now on, you will pay directly through water charges.(Paying once).

At no time in the past or from now on will you have paid twice.

Do think that general taxes will be reduced when water charges come in?