No refund for families who have paid water charges

Jack Killian

Mexcanelo wrote: »

Hey, If people were stupid enough to pay it. If you as me, they don't deserve their money back.

I wouldn't actually criticise anyone for paying it; some were forced to by landlords, a pensioner I know was worried in case they'd hit his pension, and there were probably hundreds of other reasons.

What I would say is that anyone who tries to claim it back without returning their "grant" is a hypocrite.

oscarBravo

Mexcanelo wrote: »

It's a completely unlawful.

I'd ask what law has been broken by the introduction of water charges, but I'm guessing this is one of those cases where "unlawful", like "treason", is a word that's been co-opted to mean "something I personally dislike".

Jack Killian

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'd ask what law has been broken by the introduction of water charges, but I'm guessing this is one of those cases where "unlawful", like "treason", is a word that's been co-opted to mean "something I personally dislike".

Yet again there's the inexplicable blurring of the lines between "water charges" per se and the fiasco that we were landed with.

oscarBravo

Jack Killian wrote: »

Yet again there's the inexplicable blurring of the lines between "water charges" per se and the fiasco that we were landed with.

I replied to a post about water charges, which claimed they're unlawful. It didn't mention the "fiasco that we were landed with" - if anyone's blurring lines, it's not me.

Going Forward

Deleted User wrote: »

They should not be included when assessing the impact of metered charges on a population, they absolutely must be included when discussing the current usage of that population.

Dealt with many times. Innacurate estimate replaced with an actual study that provided better estimate. Nothing strange here whatsoever. Actual reading is better than guessing. No surprise.

I'll ask you to point out a lie in any of my posts on this thread or retract this. I'd invite you to find that actual post and quote it in the relevant thread if it does indeed exist.

No. Not contradicting the results in the slightest. The results are clear and available to be collated from the data that that study that you refused to analyze yourself. What we can infer from those results is a very different matter.

Good question, however what has it got to do with the study posted? Or anything that I've posted on the matter in this thread?

There are raw figures there, I have analyzed them independently of IW and come to similar conclusions after finding the same results. Would you like to repeat the process and explain how your work with the raw figures gives us different answers?


No.

Because I was interested in the water survey, and independently analyzed the raw figures from it. I noticed that you repeatedly and often quoted that survey with some aplomb even though I had shown you how badly you are reading it. I am asking you to correct that by either improving your understanding of it, or else just simply desisting. It's really annoying seeing things posted repeatedly that you've taken time to dissect and find fault in. But I will do it, if you require it.

Is the average figure that a "Normal Household" (a household with no leaks) is expected to use. As found in the study.

The study also discovers the existence of quite a few examples of "Non-Normal Households" (households with leaks or bafflingly high usage). These households usage is so high that it manages to push the entire sample mean up over 10%, an enormous figure! You cannot simply exclude these figures from your conclusions about what Ireland's overall usage is.

No. I actually took the study that they got the figures from, and independently analyzed them. You know that this is true given that I went to the effort to graph the distributions and explain it.

I am not a sheep, I am sceptical and so went to the effort to understand the raw figures myself. Have you?

I have falsified the figures (Proved them to be false) many times, yet you insist on posting them unabated. The figure of 111lpd is not a 'false figure' it is a figure that gives us a completely different metric from the one that you present it as. Either use it correctly, or not at all.

As always, I offer you once again the opportunity to point out flaws with the study, issues with the figures, miscalculations that might have happened etc. If you take issue with the water survey, explain why. If you take issue with the inferences, you'll need to reference the survey to explain why too.

First, I think I owe you an apology as it was another poster who spent days trying to claim that IW had actually saved €300m as per BG's biddding claims. You didn't step in to say he was incorrect but that still doesn't excuse me from saying you were the one doing it, so hands up from me when I'm in the wrong.

I've been out of the loop for a few days and will respond to your post shortly.

Jack Killian

oscarBravo wrote: »

I replied to a post about water charges, which claimed they're unlawful. It didn't mention the "fiasco that we were landed with" - if anyone's blurring lines, it's not me.

Fair point. I guess my having bucked the trend re the other post and treating its seriousness with a suitable amount of grains of salt made me overlook that - mea culpa!

Mexcanelo

Jack Killian wrote: »

I wouldn't actually criticise anyone for paying it; some were forced to by landlords, a pensioner I know was worried in case they'd hit his pension, and there were probably hundreds of other reasons.

I would. For those renting, I'll give you that, can't really criticise. It's the Landlord who is the idiot in that case.

There was a dispicable fear campaign launch against pensioners. Saying the charge could be taken from their payments. Which IW never had any right to do.

Mexcanelo

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'd ask what law has been broken by the introduction of water charges, but I'm guessing this is one of those cases where "unlawful", like "treason", is a word that's been co-opted to mean "something I personally dislike".

What makes IW unlawful is the fact that the state can't force a citizen to sign a contract with a private company. Which is essentially what people who paid it did.

You can pay IW if you like but it's not mandatory. If you decide not to, there is nothing IW can do about it.

They can't cut your suppy, they can't do a thing.

You have essentially made donation to private company.

A fool and his money are easily parted

ezra_pound

Mexcanelo wrote: »

What makes IW unlawful is the fact that the state can't force a citizen to sign a contract with a private company. Which is essentially what people who paid it did.

You can pay IW if you like but it's not mandatory. If you decide not to, there is nothing IW can do about it.

They can't cut your suppy, they can't do a thing.

You have essentially made donation to private company.

A fool and his money are easily parted

That is absolute rubbish.

Chips Lovell

Mexcanelo wrote: »

What makes IW unlawful is the fact that the state can't force a citizen to sign a contract with a private company. Which is essentially what people who paid it did.

This is incorrect. There's nothing unlawful about it and, given their unpopularity, if it were, someone would have doubtlessly challenged it by now.

Nobody is being forced to become a customer of Irish Water. If you don't want to be a customer, you can opt to disconnect yourself from the public water and drainage system and make your own arrangements.

K-9

Mod:

Everybody up the standard a bit please. Calling another post nonsense, accusing others of lying, saying people are stupid or other personal attacks, are below the standard expected in the forum. Anybody continuing to do the above will be banned from posting in the thread. Thank you.

RealJohn

I'd love to know why people who paid and chose not to stand up against the charge think they should be entitled to anything back. Those people weakened the case of those who actually stood against the charges. They made their bed and now they can lie in it.

swampgas

RealJohn wrote: »

I'd love to know why people who paid and chose not to stand up against the charge think they should be entitled to anything back. Those people weakened the case of those who actually stood against the charges. They made their bed and now they can lie in it.

People who paid were following the law of the land. You may disagree with that law, but part of civil disobedience is living with the (lawful) consequences of breaking those laws.

I paid, and I don't expect anything back, however I don't expect non-payers to be let off the hook either. If non-payers are fined that suits me fine, their protest as non-payers is still clear and their willingness to pay a fine is proof of their sincerity.

Anyone protesting who won't pay a fine cannot be distinguished from someone who simply doesn't want to pay.

Zubeneschamali

RealJohn wrote: »

I'd love to know why people who paid and chose not to stand up against the charge think they should be entitled to anything back.

I paid, and I don't think I am entitled to anything back. I also think non-payers should be pursued until they pay up or die. I don't really mind which.

Now, if some legal change is made to say people did not owe water charges for the period in question, then I did not owe water charges and I get my money back. I think this is very unlikely.

Jayop

I wonder have IW released any figures of payment levels since the GE?

Surely no-one has paid the last bill.

RealJohn

swampgas wrote: »

People who paid were following the law of the land. You may disagree with that law, but part of civil disobedience is living with the (lawful) consequences of breaking those laws.

I paid, and I don't expect anything back, however I don't expect non-payers to be let off the hook either. If non-payers are fined that suits me fine, their protest as non-payers is still clear and their willingness to pay a fine is proof of their sincerity.

Anyone protesting who won't pay a fine cannot be distinguished from someone who simply doesn't want to pay.

What business is it of yours if other people get fined? The consequences of the civil disobedience are whatever they turn out to be. They can say that there's to be a fine but if the fine is quashed or simply never collected, that is still a consequence, whether you like it or not.

As for saying that a protester's protest is only clear if they pay a fine, I'm sorry (and I hope that this isn't a breach of the mod warning a few posts back) but that is utter nonsense. "Oh we acknowledge your discontent but not only did we get your money but we took some more to acknowledge your discontent." Yeah, that'd be a really effective protest. Do you think the powers that be would give a damn about a few demonstrations if all the demonstrators still paid the charges and fines?

I'm sorry but the way this should go is simple:
1. Water charges are abolished and those who paid accept that they made a mistake paying in the first place and write it off as having backed the wrong horse.
or
2. Water charges stay and those who didn't pay end up having to accept it eventually, possibly with an amnesty on the fines so that the new government can pretend they've compromised (though probably not).

Frankly, those who paid and then expect their money back as like 'scabs' - they went to work while their colleagues went on strike but then want to benefit from the sacrifice they weren't willing to make.

spurious

RealJohn wrote: »

Frankly, those who paid and then expect their money back as like 'scabs' - they went to work while their colleagues went on strike but then want to benefit from the sacrifice they weren't willing to make.

Or you could see it as the 'scabs' being the freeloaders who chose to disobey the law, but now want it all to be forgotten and face no consequences.

RealJohn

spurious wrote: »

Or you could see it as the 'scabs' being the freeloaders who chose to disobey the law, but now want it all to be forgotten and face no consequences.

You could but given that they were the ones taking on the risk, I don't think that would be the reasonable interpretation. You could consider them 'scabby' as in 'cheap' but they are still the ones trying to affect change.

swampgas

RealJohn wrote: »

What business is it of yours if other people get fined? The consequences of the civil disobedience are whatever they turn out to be. They can say that there's to be a fine but if the fine is quashed or simply never collected, that is still a consequence, whether you like it or not.

As for saying that a protester's protest is only clear if they pay a fine, I'm sorry (and I hope that this isn't a breach of the mod warning a few posts back) but that is utter nonsense. "Oh we acknowledge your discontent but not only did we get your money but we took some more to acknowledge your discontent." Yeah, that'd be a really effective protest. Do you think the powers that be would give a damn about a few demonstrations if all the demonstrators still paid the charges and fines?

I'm sorry but the way this should go is simple:
1. Water charges are abolished and those who paid accept that they made a mistake paying in the first place and write it off as having backed the wrong horse.
or
2. Water charges stay and those who didn't pay end up having to accept it eventually, possibly with an amnesty on the fines so that the new government can pretend they've compromised (though probably not).

Frankly, those who paid and then expect their money back as like 'scabs' - they went to work while their colleagues went on strike but then want to benefit from the sacrifice they weren't willing to make.

Unfortunately not everyone agrees with you that paying for water is wrong, nor do they agree that breaking the law is the right thing to do. If you break the law because you think it's a bad law, you have to face the consequences, and if you respect the principle of the rule of law then you take the hit. Otherwise it's just anarchy and everyone choosing which laws they agree with and which taxes or bills they feel like paying.

Breaking the law and refusing to pay a charge towards a public service is not a trivial thing to do. Especially as a lot of other people have paid up.

Expecting me to accept that I have "backed the wrong horse" when in fact I've obeyed the law and made my contribution seems backwards, and contrary.

Again, the correct way to change the law is to change the government. If the electorate don't put in a government that changes the law the way you want it, you either suck it up, or accept the penalties of civil disobedience.

RealJohn

You're right. If you break the law you gave to accept the consequences. However, you won't accept that if there turn out to be no consequences, that's still accepting the consequences.

Some people paid the water charge. That's fine. That's their business but if they paid it, that means they accepted it, whether they liked it or not, and as such, they're not entitled to expect a refund. Those who did not pay did not accept it as a just charge (in many cases) so, if it's abolished, they've been vindicated and shouldn't be fined (or charged).

Either it's just and should be paid or it isn't and shouldn't. If you chose to pay and call it just by doing so, you have no right to expect a refund.

K-9

Mod:

Enough scabs and freeloader stuff, thank you.

Zubeneschamali

RealJohn wrote: »

Some people paid the water charge. That's fine. That's their business but if they paid it, that means they accepted it, whether they liked it or not, and as such, they're not entitled to expect a refund.

I already said, I don't expect a refund. I don't think I'm entitled to a refund.

I'd rather have bailiffs after you til you die than get the couple of hundred I've paid back.

But if the rules are changed so that you don't owe anything, I get my money back. No govt minister would dare suggest anything less.

swampgas

RealJohn wrote: »

You're right. If you break the law you gave to accept the consequences. However, you won't accept that if there turn out to be no consequences, that's still accepting the consequences.

Some people paid the water charge. That's fine. That's their business but if they paid it, that means they accepted it, whether they liked it or not, and as such, they're not entitled to expect a refund. Those who did not pay did not accept it as a just charge (in many cases) so, if it's abolished, they've been vindicated and shouldn't be fined (or charged).

Either it's just and should be paid or it isn't and shouldn't. If you chose to pay and call it just by doing so, you have no right to expect a refund.

I see where you're coming from, but I don't think you can simply choose not to pay a legally required charge while many other people are paying it, and expect to be let away with it. Best case for you is the charges are scrapped, you pay what's outstanding and accept that you won't have to pay any more after that.

But I didn't just choose to pay my bill, I chose to obey the law. Giving you an amnesty while I get no refund is a bad precedent, and I would be very annoyed were any party to suggest it.

If IW were scrapped and charges dropped, would you be prepared to pay what's outstanding, or would you expect to be given a free pass?

Jack Killian

spurious wrote: »

Or you could see it as the 'scabs' being the freeloaders who chose to disobey the law, but now want it all to be forgotten and face no consequences.

You couldn't, actually, because every household has paid almost as much to IW again in tax through the LGF,

Edit : Edited as I saw the warning above late.

Going Forward

Deleted User wrote: »

They should not be included when assessing the impact of metered charges on a population, they absolutely must be included when discussing the current usage of that population.

They may certainly be included in any discussions, but not in consumption data, because it is technically described by Irish Water as "unaccounted for water", not consumed water (The water metering programme and our related ‘first fix’ policy seek to reduce customer side leakage.

We will analyse domestic metering data returns to build up a better picture of water usage and review estimates for Unaccounted for
Water (UFW), including leakage in all water supply zones during 2015 and 2016.)

The PR exercise known as the First Fix Free scheme (which we are funding) is going to repair them. The last I read of this was that this initiative had identified just 18million litres a day leaking post-meter, from the 1.7billion litres of water produced daily, or for those blinded by "millions", just 1.05%.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/water/irish-water-crisis/irish-water-saves-3bn-litres-of-water-31582270.html
http://www.thejournal.ie/irish-water-leaks-and-payment-2368201-Oct2015/
http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/irish-water-claims-18-million-6574443

It is a PR exercise because IW and the Government knew that getting public buy in was going to be difficult enough without getting the public to pay metered charges for water that was leaking whilst almost fifty percent of it was going to be left leaking in the network, with little faith that the network was going to be repaired.

We are now almost past the first quarter of 2016, and I've yet to see any press releases about leakage figures being reduced anywhere but customer-side. Nothing about network leakage target reductions being met.

Deleted User wrote: »

Good question, however what has it got to do with the study posted? Or anything that I've posted on the matter in this thread?

Why not answer it then? Anything to do with a "support Irish Water at every opportunity" stance?

Deleted User wrote: »

Because I was interested in the water survey, and independently analyzed the raw figures from it. I noticed that you repeatedly and often quoted that survey with some aplomb even though I had shown you how badly you are reading it. I am asking you to correct that by either improving your understanding of it, or else just simply desisting. It's really annoying seeing things posted repeatedly that you've taken time to dissect and find fault in. But I will do it, if you require it.

Take it up with UE.

Deleted User wrote: »

You cannot simply exclude these figures from your conclusions about what Ireland's overall usage is.

Irish Water did, why can't I?

"We propose using the CSO adjusted overall average usage figure of 111 litres per person per day." So do I.

Deleted User wrote: »

I actually took the study that they got the figures from, and independently analyzed them. You know that this is true given that I went to the effort to graph the distributions and explain it.

I am not a sheep, I am sceptical and so went to the effort to understand the raw figures myself. Have you?

No one said you were a sheep.

If Irish Water say that average personal consumption (excluding outliers, for good reasons, as I've explained earlier) is 111 litres a day who are you to question them?

Deleted User wrote: »

I have falsified the figures (Proved them to be false) many times, yet you insist on posting them unabated. The figure of 111lpd is not a 'false figure' it is a figure that gives us a completely different metric from the one that you present it as. Either use it correctly, or not at all.

As always, I offer you once again the opportunity to point out flaws with the study, issues with the figures, miscalculations that might have happened etc. If you take issue with the water survey, explain why. If you take issue with the inferences, you'll need to reference the survey to explain why too.

You have "falsified the figures".

Proved them to be false, many times.

Your charts and graphs were interesting, as indeed are charts and graphs at the Young Scientist Exhibition.

However, the underlying message that I have gotten from all of your posts on this subject is a yearning for some recognition for "all the effort" you've put in to making the nice charts, alongside the fact that you can't accept that IW excluded outliers to determine their final figure.

All I can say is that sometimes there is a real need to just be able to see the wood for the trees.

This is one of those times.

Ireland, a country that does not have pay by usage water charges, has one of the lowest personal consumption rates in the OECD, according to our new "water utility".

The onus on you now is to provide some other reliable source (other than yourself and your falsified figures) to contradict the latest personal consumption figure of 111 litres per day per person provided by "the water utility".

I'm sure the readers would be interested in seeing it.

Going Forward

RealJohn wrote: »

You could but given that they were the ones taking on the risk, I don't think that would be the reasonable interpretation. You could consider them 'scabby' as in 'cheap' but they are still the ones trying to affect change.

Who is to say that those who haven't "engaged" wouldn't mind paying up what they owe now if they thought it would put an end to this expensive charade?

RealJohn

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I already said, I don't expect a refund. I don't think I'm entitled to a refund.

I'd rather have bailiffs after you til you die than get the couple of hundred I've paid back.

But if the rules are changed so that you don't owe anything, I get my money back. No govt minister would dare suggest anything less.

And if the rules change so that people still owe in theory but Irish Water write it off as a bad debt as part of the abolition of water charges?

For the record, I have not stated whether or not I've paid. You're making assumptions on that one.

RealJohn

Going Forward wrote: »

Who is to say that those who haven't "engaged" wouldn't mind paying up what they owe now if they thought it would put an end to this expensive charade?

Maybe some of them wouldn't. That's not really relevant until that proposal is actually on the table though.

RealJohn

swampgas wrote: »

I see where you're coming from, but I don't think you can simply choose not to pay a legally required charge while many other people are paying it, and expect to be let away with it. Best case for you is the charges are scrapped, you pay what's outstanding and accept that you won't have to pay any more after that.

But many of those who won't pay dispute that it actually is legally required. When it was brought in, there were already laws on the books stating that domestic water was to be paid for through general taxation and that there was to be no additional charges for domestic water use. The then government made no changes to either of these laws (initially at least - they might have seen to it subsequently), they just added another one contradicting them.
If the then government had chosen to simply raise taxes to pay for the setting up of Irish Water, there'd be no logical argument against it. They didn't though. They went another way which gave those who didn't want to pay a pretty good argument not to.

swampgas wrote: »

But I didn't just choose to pay my bill, I chose to obey the law. Giving you an amnesty while I get no refund is a bad precedent, and I would be very annoyed were any party to suggest it.

I don't think it does because this is an exceptional case in which the then government introduced a charge that was explicitly forbidden in the law at the time it was proposed. It was never a just charge and they should never have brought it in in the first place. If you're annoyed, that's not really their problem. I presume you were annoyed to pay it in the first place and that didn't stop you.

swampgas wrote: »

If IW were scrapped and charges dropped, would you be prepared to pay what's outstanding, or would you expect to be given a free pass?

Like I said before, I haven't actually stated whether I've paid or not. However, given that I don't believe that it was ever a just charge, I don't see why those who haven't paid should be forced to, whether charges remain or not.

For the record, I'm not some anti-austerity alliance contrarian who objects to any new taxes or paying extra for anything. I don't like the property tax for example but I don't consider it unjust and, while I'd obviously rather not pay it, it never occurred to me not to. The same applies to the USC (not that I can do anything about that one anyway). I don't like that they called it a 'charge' when what it is is a tax but I accepted that it was a necessary evil.

In fact, I don't actually even have an objection to being charged for domestic water use. What I have an objection to is being charged multiple times for it. If the law says that water is paid for through general taxation, taxes need to be reduced in line with charging for it directly. That didn't happen. If there's a law on the books that says that sanitation bodies cannot charge for domestic water, that law needs to be removed before another law contradicting it is brought in. That didn't happen.

Also, if they are going to charge people for water usage, charging a flat rate is utter nonsense. Why waste a load of money installing water meters against people's will, even when they have expressly forbidden the workers from doing so, if they're not going to be used to calculate the charge? Why bring in the charge before those meters were installed? (I still don't have one.) Why give people a 'credit' to reduce the charge when they could just reduce the charge directly?

The entire thing was completely incompetently and dishonestly implemented from the very start. They need to hit the reset button.

By the way, I don't care if the people who paid get their money back if the charges for those who didn't pay get dropped. That's none of my business. I just don't think they're entitled to expect it or to be upset if they don't get it.

Clampdown

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I already said, I don't expect a refund. I don't think I'm entitled to a refund.

I'd rather have bailiffs after you til you die than get the couple of hundred I've paid back.

But if the rules are changed so that you don't owe anything, I get my money back. No govt minister would dare suggest anything less.

Why do you have this weird concept of bailiffs chasing people around like Dog the Bounty Hunter 'til you die'? It might make you feel better to think that this would happen, but it won't ever happen over the small amounts people owe.

You allowed yourself to get scammed. Blame the government and yourself, not those of us who saw through the scam and had the backbone to resist. IMO anyone who paid showed either a lack of brains or a lack of balls or both. It was plain as day to anyone who bothered to look that this was a crony quango, set up by an arrogant shower who think all us ordinary Joe Soaps are there to be ripped off and exploited and they would have got away with all of it if not for the people who stood up and kept fighting against it and didn't give up. This company was not set up to do anything other than extract money from Irish people, water was just a convenient way to do it because we didn't have a water tax already and people need it to live so many would be frightened of being cut off for non payment.

They took your money and wasted it and nothing is gonna happen to non-payers so instead of entertaining these fantasies of bailiffs chasing people, maybe you should think a bit harder nexf time before letting the government fleece you of your hard earned without a fight. I will admit I get a bit of satisfaction that people who bent over and paid are not being refunded, but I would absolutely be demanding a refund if I were you.

Why should the consultants of a company that failed due to it's incompetence and corruption being exposed still be walking around with your money, getting free lunches you paid for? Why should IW employees be going to laughing yoga classes you paid for? Because that's where your money went, it was not taken in exchange for providing you with clean water. You should be sending bailiffs after IW to get your cash back! Or maybe they could give you a voucher for some bottled water at least then you could get what you paid for.

Jack Killian

RealJohn wrote: »

But many of those who won't pay dispute that it actually is legally required. When it was brought in, there were already laws on the books stating that domestic water was to be paid for through general taxation and that there was to be no additional charges for domestic water use. The then government made no changes to either of these laws (initially at least - they might have seen to it subsequently), they just added another one contradicting them.
If the then government had chosen to simply raise taxes to pay for the setting up of Irish Water, there'd be no logical argument against it. They didn't though. They went another way which gave those who didn't want to pay a pretty good argument not to.

I don't think it does because this is an exceptional case in which the then government introduced a charge that was explicitly forbidden in the law at the time it was proposed. It was never a just charge and they should never have brought it in in the first place. If you're annoyed, that's not really their problem. I presume you were annoyed to pay it in the first place and that didn't stop you.

Like I said before, I haven't actually stated whether I've paid or not. However, given that I don't believe that it was ever a just charge, I don't see why those who haven't paid should be forced to, whether charges remain or not.

For the record, I'm not some anti-austerity alliance contrarian who objects to any new taxes or paying extra for anything. I don't like the property tax for example but I don't consider it unjust and, while I'd obviously rather not pay it, it never occurred to me not to. The same applies to the USC (not that I can do anything about that one anyway). I don't like that they called it a 'charge' when what it is is a tax but I accepted that it was a necessary evil.

In fact, I don't actually even have an objection to being charged for domestic water use. What I have an objection to is being charged multiple times for it. If the law says that water is paid for through general taxation, taxes need to be reduced in line with charging for it directly. That didn't happen. If there's a law on the books that says that sanitation bodies cannot charge for domestic water, that law needs to be removed before another law contradicting it is brought in. That didn't happen.

Also, if they are going to charge people for water usage, charging a flat rate is utter nonsense. Why waste a load of money installing water meters against people's will, even when they have expressly forbidden the workers from doing so, if they're not going to be used to calculate the charge? Why bring in the charge before those meters were installed? (I still don't have one.) Why give people a 'credit' to reduce the charge when they could just reduce the charge directly?

The entire thing was completely incompetently and dishonestly implemented from the very start. They need to hit the reset button.

By the way, I don't care if the people who paid get their money back if the charges for those who didn't pay get dropped. That's none of my business. I just don't think they're entitled to expect it or to be upset if they don't get it.

^ Nail & head

Going Forward

RealJohn wrote: »

But many of those who won't pay dispute that it actually is legally required. When it was brought in, there were already laws on the books stating that domestic water was to be paid for through general taxation and that there was to be no additional charges for domestic water use. The then government made no changes to either of these laws (initially at least - they might have seen to it subsequently), they just added another one contradicting them.
If the then government had chosen to simply raise taxes to pay for the setting up of Irish Water, there'd be no logical argument against it. They didn't though. They went another way which gave those who didn't want to pay a pretty good argument not to.

I don't think it does because this is an exceptional case in which the then government introduced a charge that was explicitly forbidden in the law at the time it was proposed. It was never a just charge and they should never have brought it in in the first place.

The legal position is that the previous water services legislation prohibited water service providers charging for domestic/household water.

That section of the previous act was just repealed by one line in the current legislation, which also defines customers of Irish Water.

This gives IW legal authority to at least attempt to charge households for water.


http://www.water.ie/help-centre/questions-and-answers/does-ireland-have-an-exem/

Going Forward

Going Forward wrote: »

They may certainly be included in any discussions, but not in consumption data, because it is technically described by Irish Water as "unaccounted for water", not consumed water (The water metering programme and our related ‘first fix’ policy seek to reduce customer side leakage.

We will analyse domestic metering data returns to build up a better picture of water usage and review estimates for Unaccounted for
Water (UFW), including leakage in all water supply zones during 2015 and 2016.)

What? The water that was measured was water that was 'consumed'. If it is delivered past the meter it is consumed. If (as is extremely likely) the leaks past the meter are significant and causing huge figures (as were seen) that is still consumed water.

The water survey gives us a number of interesting results. You appear to either misunderstand them, or misrepresent them. I'm asking you to improve your understanding so that you don't misrepresent them. Can you do this please?

Going Forward wrote: »

The PR exercise known as the First Fix Free scheme (which we are funding) is going to repair them. The last I read of this was that this initiative had identified just 18million litres a day leaking post-meter, from the 1.7billion litres of water produced daily, or for those blinded by "millions", just 1.05%.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/water/irish-water-crisis/irish-water-saves-3bn-litres-of-water-31582270.html
http://www.thejournal.ie/irish-water-leaks-and-payment-2368201-Oct2015/
http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/irish-water-claims-18-million-6574443

It is a PR exercise because IW and the Government knew that getting public buy in was going to be difficult enough without getting the public to pay metered charges for water that was leaking whilst almost fifty percent of it was going to be left leaking in the network, with little faith that the network was going to be repaired.

What has this got to do with your repeated and incorrect use of the figures from the Water Survey? You'll note I've only discussed the water survey with you here.

Going Forward wrote: »

We are now almost past the first quarter of 2016, and I've yet to see any press releases about leakage figures being reduced anywhere but customer-side. Nothing about network leakage target reductions being met.

Again, quite extraneous from the issue I've asked you to correct, which is your repeated misuse of the figures from the water survey. Can you agree to either understand and use the figures appropriately, or stop using them badly to try to make some vague points?

Going Forward wrote: »

Why not answer it then? Anything to do with a "support Irish Water at every opportunity" stance?

We were discussing the water survey. I'm happy to discuss other elements of your problems with the water provision services of the nation once I'm sure you've managed to correct your understanding of what the Water Study gave us. Are you still disagreeing with the details I've given about the water Study? What has your analysis of the raw figures given us differently?

Going Forward wrote: »

Take it up with UE.

I'm not sure that UÉ have anything whatsoever to do with your repeated misunderstandings in the face of repeated correction on the figures from the water survey. If anything it would be more appropriate to take it up with anyone who's ever been responsible for your education in logic, reasoning, statistics or simple English.

The survey was carried out by a third party, who made the raw data available for all and sundry.

I have taken that raw data and analyzed it, and have repeatedly offered you my findings which you unbasedly disagree with.

Care to share your analysis of the Water Survey with us?

Going Forward wrote: »

Irish Water did, why can't I?
"We propose using the CSO adjusted overall average usage figure of 111 litres per person per day." So do I.

That's the figure in the presence of metered charging.

Not the figure in the absence of metered charging.

Nor the figure for average current consumption.

I have pointed this out many times now. It is becoming farcical to see you keep trying it.

Going Forward wrote: »

No one said you were a sheep.

If Irish Water say that average personal consumption (excluding outliers, for good reasons, as I've explained earlier) is 111 litres a day who are you to question them?

Firstly, that's not what they said.
Secondly, I'm someone who has analyzed the same figures that they did to come to their answers, and come to similar results.

I have offered you many times the opportunity to do the work yourself. I find it strange that you question my work without ever attempting it yourself. If I am wrong, the figures are there to show me as such, I invite you again to do so an explain.

Going Forward wrote: »

You have "falsified the figures".

Proved them to be false, many times.

Correct. I'm glad you agree.

The water survey suggests that the normal usage for a normal household in the presence of metering would be something similar to 111lppd.

It also tells us that the actual consumption is closer to 120lllpd due to the presence of extremely high consumption households.

You repeatedly misrepresent the second metric with the the first figure. They are not the same quite clearly. Please improve your understanding of the water survey and its results, or simply desist from re-posting a figure that has been falsified many times to you.

Going Forward wrote: »

Your charts and graphs were interesting, as indeed are charts and graphs at the Young Scientist Exhibition.

For any budding young scientists, the graphs where made using Jupyter, scipy and bokeh charts.

Going Forward wrote: »

However, the underlying message that I have gotten from all of your posts on this subject is a yearning for some recognition for "all the effort" you've put in to making the nice charts, alongside the fact that you can't accept that IW excluded outliers to determine their final figure.

No recognition required. Simply requesting that you stop posting clear inaccuracies. You cannot claim ignorance at this stage.

Going Forward wrote: »

All I can say is that sometimes there is a real need to just be able to see the wood for the trees.
This is one of those times.

Great, can you tell us about your problem with the water survey then? As I've reaptedly asked you? Issues with the methodology, the raw figures, the results or the conclusions available?

Going Forward wrote: »

Ireland, a country that does not have pay by usage water charges, has one of the lowest personal consumption rates in the OECD, according to our new "water utility".

The onus on you now is to provide some other reliable source (other than yourself and your falsified figures) to contradict the latest personal consumption figure of 111 litres per day per person provided by "the water utility".

I have done in this very thread, I have linked the posts showing that, I have explained that you are misrepresenting the figure repeatedly. They have given a figure of 111lppd as a measure of X, you are instead using it as a measure of Y. X and Y are not the same thing.

Going Forward wrote: »

I'm sure the readers would be interested in seeing it.

Anyone still reading can find the post here which does just that.

This entire post can be consolidated into "What is your problem with the water survey? And why can you still not understand what it tells us even after I've explained it to you more than 5 times?". I'm fine with you ignoring the whole rest of the post and answering just these two questions.

RealJohn

Going Forward wrote: »

The legal position is that the previous water services legislation prohibited water service providers charging for domestic/household water.

That section of the previous act was just repealed by one line in the current legislation, which also defines customers of Irish Water.

This gives IW legal authority to at least attempt to charge households for water.


http://www.water.ie/help-centre/questions-and-answers/does-ireland-have-an-exem/

Neither the url you provided nor the link provided on the page it directs to makes any reference to the law forbidding sanitation authorities for charging for water. I wasn't talking about the exemption (though it's worth noting that the last government did try to claim that we were required by the EU to bring in water charges, which simply wasn't the case). I was referring to this:
www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/act/29/section/12/enacted/en/html

Going Forward

RealJohn wrote: »

Neither the url you provided nor the link provided on the page it directs to makes any reference to the law forbidding sanitation authorities for charging for water. I wasn't talking about the exemption (though it's worth noting that the last government did try to claim that we were required by the EU to bring in water charges, which simply wasn't the case). I was referring to this:
www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/act/29/section/12/enacted/en/html

If memory serves me correctly, the 2013 Act repealed a domestic charging prohibition contained in the 2007 Act.

I could be wrong, but seem to recall checking it!

It would be interesting if someone could find it, I can't search through the Acts properly on the phone.


As for the "exemption", it's never any harm to give Irish Water's own reasons as to why it was set up, it was nothing to do with any "exemption" or for any externally required demands for compliance with the WFD.

It was a badly implemented attempt at pulling a financial stroke to get water provision "off the books" and according to Eurostat, signalled the ultimate political aim of privatising water services in Ireland and doing nothing else substantially different than the regime which preceded it.


Not one person here can explain what prompted Eurostat to blurt that out in the first place....

oscarBravo

Going Forward wrote: »

If memory serves me correctly, the 2013 Act repealed a domestic charging prohibition contained in the 2007 Act.

I could be wrong, but seem to recall checking it!

It would be interesting if someone could find it, I can't search through the Acts properly on the phone.

Yup. §28 of the 2013 act removes §105.1 of the 2007 act. §29 repeals the provision referred to by RealJohn.

Going Forward

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not sure that UÉ have anything whatsoever to do with your repeated misunderstandings in the face of repeated correction on the figures from the water survey. If anything it would be more appropriate to take it up with anyone who's ever been responsible for your education in logic, reasoning, statistics or simple English

And this is where I decide that your posts and your raw data don't deserve any more of my time or attention.

RealJohn

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yup. §28 of the 2013 act removes §105.1 of the 2007 act. §29 repeals the provision referred to by RealJohn.

My point anyway was that there had been a law actually forbidding the charging for water and that the last government, in their wisdom, thought they should bring in a law contradicting it without any justification for it other than that they wanted to be allowed to charge for domestic water.

Going Forward

RealJohn wrote: »

My point anyway was that there had been a law actually forbidding the charging for water and that the last government, in their wisdom, thought they should bring in a law contradicting it without any justification for it other than that they wanted to be allowed to charge for domestic water.

That's how it works.

One new little line in legislation could also abolish domestic water charges.

oscarBravo

RealJohn wrote: »

My point anyway was that there had been a law actually forbidding the charging for water and that the last government, in their wisdom, thought they should bring in a law contradicting it without any justification for it other than that they wanted to be allowed to charge for domestic water.

Your point makes it clear that you don't understand how legislation works. If there's a law preventing something, and the government wants that thing to be allowed, then the government introduces a new law repealing the old one. It happens all the time.

Were you under the illusion that laws are permanent and immutable?

BoatMad

Clampdown wrote: »

Why do you have this weird concept of bailiffs chasing people around like Dog the Bounty Hunter 'til you die'? It might make you feel better to think that this would happen, but it won't ever happen over the small amounts people owe.

You allowed yourself to get scammed. Blame the government and yourself, not those of us who saw through the scam and had the backbone to resist. IMO anyone who paid showed either a lack of brains or a lack of balls or both. It was plain as day to anyone who bothered to look that this was a crony quango, set up by an arrogant shower who think all us ordinary Joe Soaps are there to be ripped off and exploited and they would have got away with all of it if not for the people who stood up and kept fighting against it and didn't give up. This company was not set up to do anything other than extract money from Irish people, water was just a convenient way to do it because we didn't have a water tax already and people need it to live so many would be frightened of being cut off for non payment.

They took your money and wasted it and nothing is gonna happen to non-payers so instead of entertaining these fantasies of bailiffs chasing people, maybe you should think a bit harder nexf time before letting the government fleece you of your hard earned without a fight. I will admit I get a bit of satisfaction that people who bent over and paid are not being refunded, but I would absolutely be demanding a refund if I were you.

Why should the consultants of a company that failed due to it's incompetence and corruption being exposed still be walking around with your money, getting free lunches you paid for? Why should IW employees be going to laughing yoga classes you paid for? Because that's where your money went, it was not taken in exchange for providing you with clean water. You should be sending bailiffs after IW to get your cash back! Or maybe they could give you a voucher for some bottled water at least then you could get what you paid for.

wow, so people correctly following the law of the land " allowed themselves to be scammed"

well I think the the USC is a scam , I suggest you not pay that

in fact why do you pay any taxes , sure they are all scams


really mate, your logic is simply another word for anarchy

gladrags

BoatMad wrote: »

wow, so people correctly following the law of the land " allowed themselves to be scammed"

well I think the the USC is a scam , I suggest you not pay that

in fact why do you pay any taxes , sure they are all scams


really mate, your logic is simply another word for anarchy

He has a point.

You could argue that mortgages to some point are scams,and that the banks are hoodwinkers and chancers.

Scammers or so to speak.

Tax evaders are another example,be they corporate or individual.

You could argue that our government harbours tax scammers.

RealJohn

oscarBravo wrote: »

Your point makes it clear that you don't understand how legislation works. If there's a law preventing something, and the government wants that thing to be allowed, then the government introduces a new law repealing the old one. It happens all the time.

Were you under the illusion that laws are permanent and immutable?

No, I was under the impression that if a law expressly forbids something then there's probably a good reason for that so overturning it by simply saying "well we've changed our minds on this one - it's the opposite now" isn't good enough.

oscarBravo

RealJohn wrote: »

No, I was under the impression that if a law expressly forbids something then there's probably a good reason for that so overturning it by simply saying "well we've changed our minds on this one - it's the opposite now" isn't good enough.

So you think that laws should be immutable, and that it should never be possible for a government to repeal a law passed by a previous government?

That would be an interesting society.

RealJohn

oscarBravo wrote: »

So you think that laws should be immutable, and that it should never be possible for a government to repeal a law passed by a previous government?

That would be an interesting society.

Are you actually that stupid or are you doing it intentionally so as to imply I am? Point out to me where I said that please?

Zubeneschamali

RealJohn wrote: »

No, I was under the impression that if a law expressly forbids something then there's probably a good reason for that so overturning it by simply saying "well we've changed our minds on this one - it's the opposite now" isn't good enough.

This, and not pot-holes, parish pumps and protests, is what the Dáil is actually for. It is a legislature - it is there precisely to change existing laws and make new ones.

oscarBravo

RealJohn wrote: »

Are you actually that stupid or are you doing it intentionally so as to imply I am? Point out to me where I said that please?

You're objecting to a government being able to repeal a law. If there's another interpretation of what you said, please explain it to me.

RealJohn

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're objecting to a government being able to repeal a law. If there's another interpretation of what you said, please explain it to me.

No I'm not. Please point out where I have objected to a government being able to repeal a law please or where I said that governments should never be able to change laws.

oscarBravo

RealJohn wrote: »

No I'm not. Please point out where I have objected to a government being able to repeal a law please or where I said that governments should never be able to change laws.

OK, I'll have one more stab at it: you don't think government should be able to repeal laws unless they have reasons for doing so that you personally approve of.

If I'm wrong again, you're just going to have to lower yourself to explaining what it is you actually mean.

RealJohn

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK, I'll have one more stab at it: you don't think government should be able to repeal laws unless they have reasons for doing so that you personally approve of.

If I'm wrong again, you're just going to have to lower yourself to explaining what it is you actually mean.

Well at least you're getting closer to it, except that we're not talking about me personally. They wanted to bring in a law that the vast majority of the country didn't want and was already forbidden by the existing law. They knew that the change to the law wasn't wanted and not only did they do it but, rather than giving a good, legitimate reason for changing it, they lied repeatedly about it. That is the issue. It's not exactly rocket science.