Irish Water Discussion {MERGE}

Carawaystick

Victor wrote: »

You want them to waste money wandering the country checking a few million sewers? It will suit most people to say whether they are or aren't connected.

You mock me about my thoughts on the pay rates of UÉ. They want to charge EUR94 per hour to have a person investigate a site.
and 188 for the first hour.
They want to charge 282 euros for the first hour of an out of hours inspection. They want a minimum one hour fee.
Yet they want someone who's sourced and paid for their own water and sewerage system to work for free to tell them they are not a customer?

Imagine you've come home from a hard weeks work, and these lads and lassies want you to do their work for them?

That 282 euros per hour does include employers prsi, but take that away and its is bananas pay, in the Boomtown Rats Banana Republic sense, not those McCann buckos sense.

Victor wrote: »

How come? Invariably ther eis one telephone wire, one electricity wire and one gas pipe going to every premises.

There is no standing charge for water, so the charge is only for the goods and service supplied.
It is interesting that there were more than two handfulls of water suppliers before the UÉ monopoly was set up, and water could be sourced from more than one source, so it's not unlike the gas supply situation, where it's all coming from the same pipes into Loughshinny.

Victor wrote: »

What is your basis for believing this?

second paragraph

Victor wrote: »

You mean no different from anyone else?

it cannot guarantee the security of Customer data transmitted via the internet; any transmission is entirely at the Customer's own risk.

I believe this is an unfair term. UÉ could take steps to reduce the risk of interception and assume the risk for it's own transmissions that fall short of best practice

Victor wrote: »

And what of 'new' customers - people who have moved after not paying their bills?

Is this any different to people who haven't paid their esb or gas bill?

Graham

Carawaystick wrote: »

second paragraph

it cannot guarantee the security of Customer data transmitted via the internet; any transmission is entirely at the Customer's own risk.

I believe this is an unfair term. UÉ could take steps to reduce the risk of interception and assume the risk for it's own transmissions that fall short of best practice

That looks like a fairly standard data protection notice and there's certainly nothing contained within it that would suggest they have any intention of transferring data outside of 'best practice'.

Have you considered lodging a complaint with the data protection registrar.

Carawaystick

Graham wrote: »

I believe this is an unfair term. UÉ could take steps
That looks like a fairly standard data protection notice and there's certainly nothing contained within it that would suggest they have any intention of transferring data outside of 'best practice'.

Have you considered lodging a complaint with the data protection registrar.

I'm not a customer of UÉ and I won't be after the end of this month either. One of the Ms C's will be, so then maybe I can complain. But until the end of Autumn, I have no grounds to complain.

Esel

Have you read about the NPPR surcharges? They are harsh, to say the very least.

While things like this might be struck down at some future date, it might be hard to hold one's breath in the meantime. Not saying knuckle under, just play it safe - i.e. do not subject yourself to more pressure than you can safely handle.

Carawaystick

Esel wrote: »

Have you read about the NPPR surcharges?

the nppr taxes are different.

water charges are from a private company supplying a good and a service.
nppr taxes are just a tax for 'owning' real property

Victor

Esel wrote: »

@Victor: Can't see how you calculated that at €4.71 per m3?

Total cost divided by number of m3. €367.50/(63+15)=€4.71

S.O

As I post I wanna make clear I don,t believe into any of that freeman stuff, a key reason in my view why so many people are sharing this info around facebook and posting photos of the envelopes with all the freeman literature on them is because a lot of people want to fight and resist water charges in any way they can, at the moment there is no single national anti water charges campaign, none of the tds from any parties or the Independents are not giving any advice regarding the Irish water forms or leadership as to how in what way water charges should be fought. That,s where these freeman type groups are filling the void with all the facebook pages and advice they re giving, to a lot of people out there these groups are seen the only ones trying to fight the water charges in some way and people who are looking for some sort of leadership on how water charges should be fought see these groups giving advice people will listen to them and take their advice on board, there is people in my facebook friends list who would of done well in secondary school and well in college and be smart enough sharing all this contract stuff on their facebook and buying into it.

actuallylike

sin_26 wrote: »

Who payed for water till IW born? From what money? What happen with money which has been assigned for paying water before water charges if i will be obliged to pay again (twice in fact) for water distribution?

This is what I would like to know. The main response from the non paying types is that we already pay for it through taxes. Now, I don't expect our taxes to go down because we are now paying Irish Water so I'm assuming there's not a section of our tax, if we could break it down, that references our water payments, and if there is, wouldn't that have to be changed?
sorry I sound dense

Wile E. Coyote

JustAddWater wrote: »

I AM paying twice. If I pay my water charge and paye remains the same

The government can spend what portion of my paye they used to pay for water with, on party balloons now for all I know, but who's still paying for it? Me and you is who

You're not paying twice and people need to get that idea out of their head. General taxation subsidises a lot of things that we already pay for directly such as TV licence, motor tax and property tax.

cordangan

To be honest I can understand the reason for paying the water charge and the property tax BUT the universe social charge is shocking and about to increase. No valid reason for this hidden tax. Not a protest in site.

Losty Dublin

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Well, what wud ya know; it's Ben's BFF, Tony Rochford.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/man-gets-injunctions-to-stop-irish-water-from-installing-meter-271284.html

I also notice that... "Yesterday, Mr Rochford was fined €60 at Trim District Court after he pleaded guilty to obstructing the road near his home on 27 May."

Ah, the famous failed hunger striker. Has he made a full recovery, I wonder?
Is he protesting against paying for water or against faulty meter lids?

tayto lover

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Its scary how many thick ***** are on this web site.

Mirror mirror on the wall
whose the thickest ***** of all?

actuallylike

actuallylike wrote: »

This is what I would like to know. The main response from the non paying types is that we already pay for it through taxes. Now, I don't expect our taxes to go down because we are now paying Irish Water so I'm assuming there's not a section of our tax, if we could break it down, that references our water payments, and if there is, wouldn't that have to be changed?
sorry I sound dense

http://www.water.ie/help-centre/questions-and-answers/why-has-irish-water-been-set-up/
Why has Irish Water been set up?

The cost of providing treated drinking water and the collection and treatment of our wastewater is expensive. It costs about €1.2 billion per year to fund the current system, with most of this funding coming from the Exchequer.

Moreover, capital investment in water infrastructure needs to increase in the years ahead to guarantee quality water supply and meet high environmental standards. By establishing a national water utility, funding for future investment can be secured and greater economies of scale achieved for the delivery of services.

lorenzo87

Well said MaryAnne.
I don't have a big income, things are tight, probably a lot tighter than the people moaning about these water charges.
But I understand why these meters are coming in, it costs the state over a billion and we don't appreciate our natural resources, it is as simple as that. Now people will appreciate a bit of water, which is a good thing.

ligertigon

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Its scary how many thick ***** are on this web site.

Very insulting, forums are for discussion

Pro Hoc Vice

ligertigon wrote: »

Very insulting, forums are for discussion

That's the problem very little discussion and a lot of stupid, facts are ignored by posters, who have no interest in discussion. Also my posting was made when I was as pissed as a lord, the devil drink.

kneemos

What's the story with "not signing the contract"that the anti water charge brigade are on about?

Grolschevik

kneemos wrote: »

What's the story with "not signing the contract"that the anti water charge brigade are on about?

It's bull****..

http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057283427/1

kneemos

kneemos wrote: »

What's the story with "not signing the contract"that the anti water charge brigade are on about?

It's best to look at the whole picture and make up your own mind. The Anti Water charge, Anti Household Charge/LPT are not being totally honest. They claimed to have a legal team to defend anyone who wouldn't pay. The "legal team" backtracked to giving advice only. In other words, you're on your own if you decide to go down the won't pay route.

Ogham

Carawaystick wrote: »

the nppr taxes are different.

water charges are from a private company supplying a good and a service.
nppr taxes are just a tax for 'owning' real property

Irish Water is a state owned public utility company - a subsidiary of Ervia (new name for Bord Gais Eireann) which is a statutory body . It is not a private company .

Yes - Irish Water have to say they are a "Private Company Limited by Shares" - but those shares (2 of them) are owned by the Dept of Environment and Dept of Finance. It is not like Centrica (who now own Bord Gais Energy)

When Bord Gais was originally set up it was set up in the same way as a "private company limited by shares". This is the same set up.

When a company is set up it is either private (shares not available to public) or public (PLC) with shares available to the public.
Maybe if it was called Bord Uiscce people would have accepted it more easily?

Where were all these protesters when BordGais Energy was sold to Centrica.?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

It's best to look at the whole picture and make up your own mind.

While this is often true I'm afraid in this case it's not quite true. The "no consent no contract" brigade are lying to you. Flat out lying. The ones who don't understand it are just being stupid and propagating a myth, the ones who know they're selling snake oil are just opportunist cowards who use other people to make themselves feel important.

There is no other side to this debate. You can argue all you like about whether the charge is right or if we should protest it but as far as it's legality I am sorry but absent the Act being found to be unconstitutional (cannot think how it could be by the way) then the Water charges are absolutely legal and nothing you write on the envelope will change that.

Cliff notes:

The charges are legal
Pay them
Stop pissing off An Post by clogging them up with bull**** written on Irish Water envelopes

Johnboy1951

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 ...

This has really pee'd me off ...... although I have had a water meter installed for many years IW will insist on fitting their own apparently, and despite their claims otherwise, I will be paying again for a water meter to be installed.

BTW, there is some interesting reading in the 'contract' document.
Apparently some terms remain undefined ....... I wonder what is 'reasonable' ? .... I feel sure what I would consider reasonable would not necessarily be what they consider reasonable.

There could be some 'interesting' interpretations about what you are allowed to put into the waste water piping to

Losty Dublin

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

This has really pee'd me off ...... although I have had a water meter installed for many years IW will insist on fitting their own apparently, and despite their claims otherwise, I will be paying again for a water meter to be installed.

Good for you having a meter and all but it's not their meter and as such it won't do you any good.

Cryos

Victor wrote: »

Total cost divided by number of m3. €367.50/(63+15)=€4.71

Thanks for that, it seems a bit much though for toilets, a kettle and power washer :S

ligertigon

Deleted User wrote: »

While this is often true I'm afraid in this case it's not quite true. The "no consent no contract" brigade are lying to you. Flat out lying. The ones who don't understand it are just being stupid and propagating a myth, the ones who know they're selling snake oil are just opportunist cowards who use other people to make themselves feel important.

There is no other side to this debate. You can argue all you like about whether the charge is right or if we should protest it but as far as it's legality I am sorry but absent the Act being found to be unconstitutional (cannot think how it could be by the way) then the Water charges are absolutely legal and nothing you write on the envelope will change that.

Cliff notes:



The charges are legal
Pay them
Stop pissing off An Post by clogging them up with bull**** written on Irish Water envelopes

lol, "there is no other side to this debate"
classic line, do you mind if i use it at a stand up some time:p

Johnboy1951

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Good for you having a meter and all but it's not their meter and as such it won't do you any good.

That is what has me peeved ..... there should be some scheme for taking over existing infrastructure, rather than duplicating it.

kneemos

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

That is what has me peeved ..... there should be some scheme for taking over existing infrastructure, rather than duplicating it.

It would need to be readable remotely and capable of being restricted in case of non payment I would imagine.

Losty Dublin

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

That is what has me peeved ..... there should be some scheme for taking over existing infrastructure, rather than duplicating it.

OT but on what basis have you got a water meter outside of the new billing system?

Johnboy1951

Losty Dublin wrote: »

OT but on what basis have you got a water meter outside of the new billing system?

When it was a private scheme before the Local Authority took it over .... they would not take over unless each house had a meter, IIRC ...... rather some time ago so am not absolutely sure of facts.

Five Lamps

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

When it was a private scheme before the Local Authority took it over .... they would not take over unless each house had a meter, IIRC ...... rather some time ago so am not absolutely sure of facts.

All they are doing is updating the meter to a standard used by everyone. This is not duplication. The real duplication is that we have 26+ councils running their own water systems.