Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…3334363839…333

Comments

  • Options
    #1052
    geeksauce
    Closed Accounts Posts: 826 ✭✭✭geeksauce


    obezyana wrote: »
    How? I wont bother sending it back ill do a Keith Barry on it and make it disappear and sure they have to have evidence plus any Joe Soap could of robbed my lovely and cherished meter.

    They cannot convict if they do not have evidence to back it up.

    They will prosecute you the exact same way the ESB do it, the defence of I didn't tamper with the meter doesn't work for ESB meters so wont work for IW meters.


  • Options
    #1053
    obezyana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,498 ✭✭✭obezyana


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    How are you sure you won't damage it by removing it?


    You do know they only twist off right? So close the shut off valve twist off the meter turn back on the valve and job done. How did you actually think they were going turn people off if they didnt pay?


  • Options
    #1054
    obezyana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,498 ✭✭✭obezyana


    geeksauce wrote: »
    They will prosecute you the exact same way the ESB do it, the defence of I didn't tamper with the meter doesn't work for ESB meters so wont work for IW meters.


    But how can they convict if there is no evidence? your not proving to me that the courts can convict a person even with no evidence.


  • Options
    #1055
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,555 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    obezyana wrote: »
    You do know they only twist off right? So close the shut off valve twist off the meter turn back on the valve and job done. How did you actually think they were going turn people off if they didnt pay?

    I'm not a plumber and haven't looked into how to illegally remove a water meter so no i didn't know that.


  • Options
    #1056
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,955 ✭✭✭Daith


    geeksauce wrote: »
    I don't think they will be able to stop water to a specific apartment, they would instead prosecute the person living in the apartment that is not paying.

    The Occupant? If someone doesn't return their form who are they going to prosecute?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1057
    geeksauce
    Closed Accounts Posts: 826 ✭✭✭geeksauce


    obezyana wrote: »
    But how can they convict if there is no evidence? your not proving to me that the courts can convict a person even with no evidence.

    I posted a link a couple of weeks ago on this very thread showing a court convicted an idiot for tampering with his meter, this idiot used the defence that the ESB couldn't prove he tampered with the meter and he was convicted of tampering with his meter.


  • Options
    #1058
    geeksauce
    Closed Accounts Posts: 826 ✭✭✭geeksauce


    Daith wrote: »
    The Occupant? If someone doesn't return their form who are they going to prosecute?

    The landlord/owner of the property, who I am sure will be only too happy to pass on the details of the occupants of the premises.


  • Options
    #1059
    obezyana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,498 ✭✭✭obezyana


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    I'm not a plumber and haven't looked into how to illegally remove a water meter so no i didn't know that.


    Nor am i. TBH im nont really bothered about the meter its the PPS number issue that is a joke. Im merely pointing out that it could be removed very easily and if its done discreetly how could the courts convict if they dont have evidence of who removed it.


  • Options
    #1060
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,955 ✭✭✭Daith


    geeksauce wrote: »
    The landlord/owner of the property, who I am sure will be only too happy to pass on the details of the occupants of the premises.

    Yes but the occupant hasn't signed a contract. How can IW prove they were using water? This is just more hypothetical wondering tbh.


  • Options
    #1061
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    They cannot convict if they do not have evidence to back it up.
    They can take a civil case which works on the balance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. If your meter is "missing", your neighbours meters aren't and you've been online talking about removing your meter, then a judge will see it most likely that you've removed the meter and rule against you accordingly.

    If you remove the meter and post it back to them, you can be done for illegal tampering. Like gas or electricity, it is not legal for an unauthorised person to perform any work on a public water main. Authorisation for this work can only be provided by Irish Water. That one's an actual criminal matter, so you'd need to make sure nobody sees you messing with it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1062
    obezyana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,498 ✭✭✭obezyana


    geeksauce wrote: »
    I posted a link a couple of weeks ago on this very thread showing a court convicted an idiot for tampering with his meter, this idiot used the defence that the ESB couldn't prove he tampered with the meter and he was convicted of tampering with his meter.


    There must of been some proof that it was him that tampered with it. Surely the court cannot convict a person of something if it cannot be proved.


  • Options
    #1063
    geeksauce
    Closed Accounts Posts: 826 ✭✭✭geeksauce


    obezyana wrote: »
    There must of been some proof that it was him that tampered with it. Surely the court cannot convict a person of something if it cannot be proved.

    History and precedence suggests otherwise


  • Options
    #1064
    obezyana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,498 ✭✭✭obezyana


    seamus wrote: »
    They can take a civil case which works on the balance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. If your meter is "missing", your neighbours meters aren't and you've been online talking about removing your meter, then a judge will see it most likely that you've removed the meter and rule against you accordingly.

    If you remove the meter and post it back to them, you can be done for illegal tampering. Like gas or electricity, it is not legal for an unauthorised person to perform any work on a public water main. Authorisation for this work can only be provided by Irish Water. That one's an actual criminal matter, so you'd need to make sure nobody sees you messing with it.


    Yes the bold i understand so i guess ill have to take the neighbours ones aswell :D Its going to be a busy night.


  • Options
    #1065
    Recondite49
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,004 ✭✭✭Recondite49


    geeksauce wrote: »
    That to me reads like something a child would say in the midst of a tantrum.

    You can ask to be disconnected from the public water supply and then you wont need to pay them a penny, imagine that a simple solution to a simple problem. Don't want to pay for a service, then don't use the service who'd have thought something so simple could solve all your worries.

    Indeed, and little things like thirst and adequate sanitation are no doubt mere details in your smug world view ; are you really trying to be clever?

    Legally speaking we can't be disconnected; so I'm more than happy to have a meter installed, they won't have my name or my money so they can knock themselves out.

    Water is a basic right and the money for this should come from tax rather than as a blanket charge ; if enough people refuse to pay by way of civil disobedience then we may be able to get the Goverment to change its policy.

    Political dissent is not childishness ; in my experience it's only the right wing nuts who try to claim that, no doubt you're different...


  • Options
    #1066
    Recondite49
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,004 ✭✭✭Recondite49


    obezyana wrote: »
    Yes the bold i understand so i guess ill have to take the neighbours ones aswell :D Its going to be a busy night.

    He he good plan! :)


  • Options
    #1067
    geeksauce
    Closed Accounts Posts: 826 ✭✭✭geeksauce


    Daith wrote: »
    Yes but the occupant hasn't signed a contract. How can IW prove they were using water? This is just more hypothetical wondering tbh.

    Dont need to prove that they were using water as their bill is not based on water usage.


  • Options
    #1068
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Daith wrote: »
    Yes but the occupant hasn't signed a contract. How can IW prove they were using water? This is just more hypothetical wondering tbh.
    Again, civil case. If the dwelling is occupied and connected to the public mains and public sewer system, then on the balance of probabilities they have been using water and are liable to pay for it.

    The onus would be on the occupant to show that they've turned off all water-using things (including anything in the heating system) and don't use their toilets or drains.

    Theoretically, if one has gutters draining into the public sewer on their property that would be enough to prove active use of the public sewer system.


  • Options
    #1069
    VinLieger
    Registered Users Posts: 17,998 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    geeksauce wrote: »
    That to me reads like something a child would say in the midst of a tantrum.

    You can ask to be disconnected from the public water supply and then you wont need to pay them a penny, imagine that a simple solution to a simple problem. Don't want to pay for a service, then don't use the service who'd have thought something so simple could solve all your worries.

    But we are all already paying for the service. Councils previously were responsible for managing the water. They paid for it using our taxes and yet there has not been a reduction in taxes now they are no longer managing the water systems.

    As far as im concerned as my taxes are still the same im still paying for my water through the council and until they are reduced accordingly I wont be paying Irish water a 2nd time for it.


  • Options
    #1070
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,955 ✭✭✭Daith


    geeksauce wrote: »
    Dont need to prove that they were using water as their bill is not based on water usage.

    Their bill is based on them being a customer. They haven't signed anything to say they are?

    As you said it would be up to the landlord for tenants but if there is no landlord?
    seamus wrote: »
    The onus would be on the occupant to show that they've turned off all water-using things (including anything in the heating system) and don't use their toilets or drains.

    Why would it be on the occupant? If they returned a form and said "not a customer" are they legally required to let IW staff into their apt?


  • Options
    #1071
    Banjo String
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,380 ✭✭✭✭Banjo String


    seamus wrote: »
    They can take a civil case which works on the balance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. If your meter is "missing", your neighbours meters aren't and you've been online talking about removing your meter, then a judge will see it most likely that you've removed the meter and rule against you accordingly.

    If you remove the meter and post it back to them, you can be done for illegal tampering. Like gas or electricity, it is not legal for an unauthorised person to perform any work on a public water main. Authorisation for this work can only be provided by Irish Water. That one's an actual criminal matter, so you'd need to make sure nobody sees you messing with it.

    A judge would be granted access to a defendants internet activities, based on a missing meter from Irish Water.

    What is this sorcery :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1072
    lazeedaisy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,331 ✭✭✭lazeedaisy


    Hi guys,

    Sure it's been covered already,

    Got another application form from IW in post today, but this was in the name of my dead brother, thing is he died 6 years ago, parents distressed obviously,

    Where the hell are thy getting there info from,

    Father wants to do all kinds of destruction with water meter he is so upset,


  • Options
    #1073
    geeksauce
    Closed Accounts Posts: 826 ✭✭✭geeksauce


    Recondite49 wrote: »
    Indeed, and little things like thirst and adequate sanitation are no doubt mere details in your smug world view ; are you really trying to be clever?

    Legally speaking we can't be disconnected; so I'm more than happy to have a meter installed, they won't have my name or my money so they can knock themselves out.

    Water is a basic right and the money for this should come from tax rather than as a blanket charge ; if enough people refuse to pay by way of civil disobedience then we may be able to get the Goverment to change its policy.

    Political dissent is not childishness ; in my experience it's only the right wing nuts who try to claim that, no doubt you're different...

    You can be disconnected if you want you only have to ask. Ask and you shall receive my child.

    Thirst and adequate sanitation are not little things. If you wish to have enough water for these you will have to pay for the privilege just like everyone else. If you do not want to pay you can ask to be disconnected.


  • Options
    #1074
    obezyana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,498 ✭✭✭obezyana


    Recondite49 wrote: »
    Indeed, and little things like thirst and adequate sanitation are no doubt mere details in your smug world view ; are you really trying to be clever?

    Legally speaking we can't be disconnected; so I'm more than happy to have a meter installed, they won't have my name or my money so they can knock themselves out.

    Water is a basic right and the money for this should come from tax rather than as a blanket charge ; if enough people refuse to pay by way of civil disobedience then we may be able to get the Goverment to change its policy.

    Political dissent is not childishness ; in my experience it's only the right wing nuts who try to claim that, no doubt you're different...


    This for me is the answer. A massive sustained protest and refusal to pay might of just stopped this crap from ever happening. I dont belive the small pockets of resistance to the water meters os going to have an impact. So let them install them all everybody has to do is refuse to pay..........or if they need some one to remove them then im your man :D


  • Options
    #1075
    geeksauce
    Closed Accounts Posts: 826 ✭✭✭geeksauce


    Daith wrote: »
    Their bill is based on them being a customer. They haven't signed anything to say they are?

    As you said it would be up to the landlord for tenants but if there is no landlord?

    I said landlord/owner


  • Options
    #1076
    obezyana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,498 ✭✭✭obezyana


    Banjo String wrote: »
    A judge would be granted access to a defendants internet activities, based on a missing meter from Irish Water.

    What is this sorcery :confused:


    Its ok im hiding behind a Russian word....they dont know my real name i wont be caught. :D

    Oh **** my IP address i should blocked it................


  • Options
    #1077
    geeksauce
    Closed Accounts Posts: 826 ✭✭✭geeksauce


    obezyana wrote: »
    This for me is the answer. A massive sustained protest and refusal to pay might of just stopped this crap from ever happening. I dont belive the small pockets of resistance to the water meters os going to have an impact. So let them install them all everybody has to do is refuse to pay..........or if they need some one to remove them then im your man :D

    Like the mass protests that got rid of the lpt and hhc. Oh wait!!


  • Options
    #1078
    obezyana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,498 ✭✭✭obezyana


    geeksauce wrote: »
    Like the mass protests that got rid of the lpt and hhc. Oh wait!!


    Yes exactly. TBF there is more outrage at this then there was at the others but for some reason people seem to think that by blocking the installation on a small scale that that will stop the process.


  • Options
    #1079
    T-Maxx
    Registered Users Posts: 3,145 ✭✭✭T-Maxx


    Face facts people - you will all pay. Eventually. I honestly can't see why you're wasting your time and energy trying to "beat the system".


  • Options
    #1080
    DeVore
    Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    Because that drag on the system means they will think twice before doing something similar the next time. Its a form of passive protest.

    I'll pay the HHC (which I haven't yet) but I'll make them jump through the hoops and drag me to it first.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1081
    Draco
    Subscribers Posts: 1,911 ✭✭✭Draco


    VinLieger wrote: »
    As far as im concerned as my taxes are still the same im still paying for my water through the council
    Wrong. Water is no longer paid out of central funds. Your taxes do not cover it. The property tax does not cover it (which is what actually goes to the councils these days). There is no reduction in taxes as there's a giant hole in the public finances that need to be filled (and no, it's not just the banking debt).
    VinLieger wrote: »
    and until they are reduced accordingly I wont be paying Irish water a 2nd time for it.
    You are not paying for a 2nd time. You have paid through central taxes for water you have previously used. You will pay Irish water for water you use in the future.

    Water is not free. Water treatment is not free. Maintenance of infrastructure is not free. New infrastructure is not free. The government is no longer paying these out of central funds, instead you are paying directly for them. This is not rocket science.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement