***ALL THINGS IRISH WATER/WATER CHARGE RELATED POST HERE***

Banjo String

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

If a house is unmetered then they will charge a flat rate, If you refuse to pay this flat rate then you will be taken to court and a judgement will be made against you to pay. If you still refuse to pay then the sheriff will come a knocking and take possessions to the value of the money owed.

All time consuming, and not generating Revenue for Irish Water.

As previously stated, there are 16 sheriffs covering the 26 counties. Shouldn't take them long though.

Ogham

Daith wrote: »

Huh? So there's no point conserving water if you are on a meter for the first six months?

Well - maybe if you want to get used to cutting usage , but no financial incentive.

Banjo String

aidan24326 wrote: »

I haven't read the 'application pack' yet, but Gene Kerrigan writing in The Sunday Indo mentioned a section where the contract you enter into allows them to share your personal information (and pps is linked to just about everything) with unspecified third parties. Meaning just about anyone, as they please. He suggested that they're looking to use your personal details as a 'commercial asset'.

Anyone come across that bit in the application?

Here it is from their own website.

Irish Water will also request Personal Public Service numbers (PPS numbers) from customers. This information will only be used to verify and validate that customers are entitled to any relevant water allowances and will only be shared with the Department of Social Protection for this verification purpose.

Irish Water may keep the customer's data for a reasonable period after the customer ceases to be supplied with Water Services but will not keep it for any longer than is necessary and/or as required by law.

Irish Water may share the customer's data with agents or third parties who act on behalf of Irish Water in connection with the activities referred to above. Such agents or third parties are only permitted to use the customer's data as instructed by Irish Water. They are also required to keep the customer's data safe and secure.

Also....

Data that we collect from you may be transferred to a destination outside the European Economic Area ("EEA"). Where this is the case, Irish Water shall be responsible for ensuring that all relevant laws are complied with to secure the data. It may also be processed by staff operating outside the EEA who works for us or for one of our suppliers. Such staff maybe engaged in, among other things, the processing of your request for information and the provision of support services. By submitting data to Irish Water, the customer agrees to this transfer or processing. Irish Water will take all steps reasonably necessary to ensure that your data is treated securely.

So countries with much more lax data protection laws possibly?

http://www.water.ie/data-protection-notice/

Ogham

Mrs Garth Brooks wrote: »

So the interest rate is the only charge they're giving people for now. Not the cost per unit of water.

Sign away guys, it'll be €1.50 per litre because that's what the shops charge for it.

That interest rate is on unpaid /overdue new connection charges - not on unpaid water charges - as far as I can see.

Timberrrrrrrr

Banjo String wrote: »

All time consuming, and not generating Revenue for Irish Water.

As previously stated, there are 16 sheriffs covering the 26 counties. Shouldn't take them long though.

Yeah because it will be hard to hire more, And it will pay because there will be penalties and interest added onto the bill. A €120 bill could easily become a €1200 bill by playing that game.

Banjo String

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Yeah because it will be hard to hire more, And it will pay because there will be penalties and interest added onto the bill. A €120 bill could easily become a €1200 bill by playing that game.

I'm prepared to take that 'risk'.

I don't think I'm alone either.

geeksauce

iguana wrote: »

They could still be capped above what some people will use once they know they are being charged. And they start charging from October 1st, which nobody I've spoken to seems to be aware of. Everyone seems to be focused on the fact that bills will be coming in January and not realising that means that the metering/billing starts from next week.

That's their own fault tbh, how they wouldn't be aware of this by now is beyond me.

Mrs Garth Brooks

Ogham wrote: »

That interest rate is on unpaid /overdue new connection charges - not on unpaid water charges - as far as I can see.

Still seems to be the only charges they have figured out in all this.

Daith

geeksauce wrote: »

That's their own fault tbh, how they wouldn't be aware of this by now is beyond me.

I was aware that billing starts in Oct but not that everyone would be charged the assessed charge for the first six months even if you have a meter.

Timberrrrrrrr

Banjo String wrote: »

I'm prepared to take that 'risk'.

I don't think I'm alone either.

Of course you're not alone, many naive people in this country think the same and thought the same about bin charges, LPT etc.

Mrs Garth Brooks

Daith wrote: »

I was aware that billing starts in Oct but not that everyone would be charged the assessed charge for the first six months even if you have a meter.

What is the assessed charge?

Ogham

Mrs Garth Brooks wrote: »

What is the assessed charge?

See here http://www.moneyguideireland.com/unmetered-water-charges-how-will-it-work.html

Ogham

Daith wrote: »

I was aware that billing starts in Oct but not that everyone would be charged the assessed charge for the first six months even if you have a meter.

No - Metered bills will be CAPPED at the assessed charge - if your usage is lower - you will be charged less.

Daith

Ogham wrote: »

No - Metered bills will be CAPPED at the assessed charge - if your usage is lower - you will be charged less.

Ah cool. Thanks for clarifying.

Banjo String

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Of course you're not alone, many naive people in this country think the same and thought the same about bin charges, LPT etc.

Naivety is giving one of the most personal and private pieces of information of not just themselves, but that of their children over unquestionably to a commercial entity, who even state in their own terms and conditions that they reserve the right to treat that info as an 'asset' , and they can give it over to 3rd parties, even outside the EEA.

as a poster on this very thread stated yesterday, the best way to predict future behaviour is to go by past behaviour.

What were we told the lpt was for, and where did it eventually end up?

You sign up. I'll choose not to.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/490m-meant-for-local-services-diverted-to-irish-water-255608.html

Naive indeed.

seamus

Banjo String wrote: »

Here it is from their own website.

Seems pretty clear to me

Irish Water will also request Personal Public Service numbers (PPS numbers) from customers. This information will only be used to verify and validate that customers are entitled to any relevant water allowances and will only be shared with the Department of Social Protection for this verification purpose.

Irish Water may share the customer's data with agents or third parties who act on behalf of Irish Water in connection with the activities referred to above.

In other words, IW may share the customer's data in order "to verify and validate that customers are entitled to any relevant water allowances".

This is all very standard stuff, it's on every piece of paper you've ever put your name on in the last 15 years, including arguably more sensitive documents like loan applications.

So countries with much more lax data protection laws possibly?

No. Data protection law allows for storage and/or processing of data outside of the EU only where that storage and processing complies with EU law. Local laws are irrelevant.

Naivety is giving one of the most personal and private pieces of information of not just themselves, but that of their children over unquestionably to a commercial entity, who even state in their own terms and conditions that they reserve the right to treat that info as an 'asset' , and they can give it over to 3rd parties, even outside the EEA.

This is scaremongering nonsense, scraping the bottom of the barrel to try and justify your own decision to screw over your neighbours.

Timberrrrrrrr

Banjo String wrote: »

Naivety is giving one of the most personal and private pieces of information of not just themselves, but that of their children over unquestionably to a commercial entity, who even state in their own terms and conditions that they reserve the right to treat that info as an 'asset' , and they can give it over to 3rd parties, even outside the EEA.

as a poster on this very thread stated yesterday, the best way to predict future behaviour is to go by past behaviour.

What were we told the lpt was for, and where did it eventually end up?

You sign up. I'll choose not to.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/490m-meant-for-local-services-diverted-to-irish-water-255608.html

Naive indeed.

Sensationalism and scaremongering at its finest :rolleyes:

Ogham

dxhound2005 wrote: »

What do you mean there was nobody to have a contract with. What about your local authority who had charge of water supply before?

This place is full of legal experts. I have no training in the law myself. Using your knowledge of contract law, can you cast your eyes over this little lot. Am I right in thinking that interest of 4.5% will be added each month on amounts outstanding to Irish Water?

http://www.water.ie/docs/General-Conditions-for-a-Water-and-Wastewater-connection.pdf

1.12 Payment: Payment of the Connection Charge and any
other amounts agreed between Irish Water and the
Customer shall be made on the due date for payment. Any
overdue accounts shall be subject to an interest payment at
the rate of 4.5% per month or part thereof until payment.

That is the terms and conditions just for a new connection charged to builders / developers etc - not for ongoing domestic water services.

animaal

Water charges have been introduced for two reasons; firstly to take more money from taxpayers. Secondly, to provide a future opportunity for privitisation of Ireland's water. The early talk of water being a "scarce resource" has disappeared, and rightly so. Having a processing cost does not make it scarce.

If the government had just given us all a flat tax/charge, we'd have had to pay it and that would be that. We could add it to the list of existing taxes and charges, and it would at least be transparent. The government could use as much of it as they like to fix the creaky water infrastructure. And the money spent on the quango and metering installation could instead be used to cushion us from pay-per-use charges.

Instead, we end up paying the money, but a large chunk of it will support a gold-plated quango. And unlike a tax, there's a secondary effect - this affects people's quality of life beyond the charge itself. As somebody who uses public transport, I'm not looking forward to rush-hour on a hot summer day, with people minimising the showers they take. Or to the family arguments over who left a tap running for half an hour.

Despite a lot of tough talk, the public won't make a stand. My stand will be to withhold my vote from the current crowd in government. And I won't fall into the trap of voting for the last crowd, who are worse for dropping us into this mess. That severely limits my choices, and I'm not enthusiastic about the alternatives. But if enough people do similar in the medium term, there'll be a niche available for a party who can actually represent the public's interests.

seamus

animaal wrote: »

If the government had just given us all a flat tax/charge, we'd have had to pay it and that would be that.

"That would be that"?
Look at this thread, and the amount of whingers complaining that this is a stealth tax, or an illegitimate charge. Creating a flat water charge would be an even worse solution because it would mean that light users pay as much as heavy users, a wholly unfair set up. Hell, I'd protest a flat water charge because it's neither fair nor transparent.

We could add it to the list of existing taxes and charges, and it would at least be transparent. The government could use as much of it as they like to fix the creaky water infrastructure. And the money spent on the quango and metering installation could instead be used to cushion us from pay-per-use charges.

A flat charge paid into a central fund is "more transparent"?
Do you even understand the meaning of the word? The fact that we know how much has been spent on these quangos and that we will pay-per-use makes this kind of water charge far more transparent. Not only do you know how much you are paying, but you also know what that money is being used for. A flat charge going anonymously into a central exchequer fund is the exact opposite of transparent.

shruikan2553

seamus wrote: »

"That would be that"?
Look at this thread, and the amount of whingers complaining that this is a stealth tax, or an illegitimate charge. Creating a flat water charge would be an even worse solution because it would mean that light users pay as much as heavy users, a wholly unfair set up. Hell, I'd protest a flat water charge because it's neither fair nor transparent.
A flat charge paid into a central fund is "more transparent"?
Do you even understand the meaning of the word? The fact that we know how much has been spent on these quangos and that we will pay-per-use makes this kind of water charge far more transparent. Not only do you know how much you are paying, but you also know what that money is being used for. A flat charge going anonymously into a central exchequer fund is the exact opposite of transparent.

A flat charge for water tax is what many of us are getting.

seamus

shruikan2553 wrote: »

A flat charge for water tax is what many of us are getting.

Temporarily.

shruikan2553

seamus wrote: »

Temporarily.

Once they figure out how to meter apartments I will gladly start paying. Instead they have decided they have no idea what they are doing so let's just start charging.

Leroy42

So charges begin on 1st October.

Those without a meter will be charged a flat rate from this time based on some average per person in the household. So lets say there are two of you living in an apartment then surely just put down there is only 1! They can use the PPS to verify the name and adress of the person on the form, but can't check the other way.

For those on a meter, am I right in thinking that the meter reading is taken off-site (so unlike the ESB etc nobody will actually look at the meter?

Someone metioned earlier that those on a meter will only be charged up to the cost for those unmetered, but I assume for those that conserve water they will only pay for thwta they use, up to the maximum charge?

It was mentioned in the papers a few months ago that IW would carry out the first fix on a persons property FOC, IW are denying this and saying that it is not there issue. Which is it?

animaal

seamus wrote: »

"That would be that"?
Look at this thread, and the amount of whingers complaining that this is a stealth tax, or an illegitimate charge. Creating a flat water charge would be an even worse solution because it would mean that light users pay as much as heavy users, a wholly unfair set up. Hell, I'd protest a flat water charge because it's neither fair nor transparent.

"That would be that" because regardless of how much whinging takes place, the taxman would take it. No choice. And it would be a tax to pay for upkeep of infrastructure, not upkeep of a quango. It would be transparent, because we'd all know well in advance how much we're going to be paying, not just as each bill comes through the letterbox.

As for fair, not all state-provided services are funded in a pay-as-you-use manner. People can have different opinions, and I think that services like health care, water, or education can be fine without a pay-as-you-go model. But I wouldn't argue over it, and I'll respect your opinion if you think different.

seamus wrote: »

A flat charge paid into a central fund is "more transparent"?
Do you even understand the meaning of the word?

I think knowing how much I'll be paying next month, and every month after that is more transparent than some quango telling me that my bill will be a surprise every quarter, and the price will go up if we conserve too much. Where the money goes afterwards doesn't affect the transparency of the charge. And even if it did, while Irish Water will (hopefully) be very open about how much they spend on maintaining infrastructure, I doubt we'll know where the rest goes.

But yes, maybe you just have a better understanding than I do of what "transparent" means.

keno-daytrader

Good ole Phil, he promised us free leak fixes for a year after Irish water start billing, well thats out the window already.

"To help households control consumption, the Government will fund a scheme providing a free first fix of leaks" He wrote this just 3 short months ago.

http://www.leinsterexpress.ie/news/local-news/reforming-ireland-s-water-minister-phil-hogan-writes-for-the-leinster-express-1-6131677

I have a leak of 1000's of liters a day and this is the response I got from Irish water. (Im a tenant but responsible for what goes thru the meter)

"Thank you for your email regarding a potential leak.

The owner/occupier is responsible for the maintenance for any water pipe work up to 225mm from the boundary of their property. Irish Water are responsible for the maintenance for any water pipe work beyond this point. If the leak is on your private property, it would be your responsibility to get it fixed."

Wow now they will cover a full 8 inches from the property!

Thanks Phil, enjoy that great EU job and 2 fat pensions you will get, your the best!

jamesbere

Is the leak on your property?

Akrasia

Hey, don't talk badly of Irish water. They're safeguarding our water for our future!

seamus

animaal wrote: »

As for fair, not all state-provided services are funded in a pay-as-you-use manner. People can have different opinions, and I think that services like health care, water, or education can be fine without a pay-as-you-go model. But I wouldn't argue over it, and I'll respect your opinion if you think different.

I disagree that water would be in the same category as health or education since it's a utility like power.

I think knowing how much I'll be paying next month, and every month after that is more transparent than some quango telling me that my bill will be a surprise every quarter, and the price will go up if we conserve too much.

That's consistency, not transparency. Transparency is showing you why you're paying the amount that you are. If ESB (or whoever), decided to charge you a flat €300 a month regardless of how much power you used, you'd be at a loss to explain why they're charging you that, and why you're still paying €300 even though you went on holidays for two weeks.

Where the money goes afterwards doesn't affect the transparency of the charge. And even if it did, while Irish Water will (hopefully) be very open about how much they spend on maintaining infrastructure, I doubt we'll know where the rest goes.

Well of course it affects the transparency of the charge. The cost of water is dependent on where the company spends its money. If you don't know that, then you cannot say whether the charge is reasonable or not. If you know where the company spends its money, then you can see a direct correlation between company spending and the amount you pay at the tap. That is, you can see through all of the layers - transparency.

They will be required to file an annual return every year which will provide this financial information. There cannot be a "black hole" where "the rest goes" because everything will have to be detailed in their returns.

Whether it's spent effectively or prudently is another matter, but the whole thing will be perfectly transparent.

Akrasia

The landlord/tenant divide here is a massive loophole in this whole water charges situation. If I'm responsible for paying for all the water used in my rented property, but my landlord refuses to or delays in repairing a leak, then the householder could be liable for a huge bill that the tennant has no control over.