No refund for families who have paid water charges

Zubeneschamali

Jack Killian wrote: »

Firstly, I think calling it "your side" is horrendously blinkered and dismissive as it conveniently links me to the likes of Murphy and deliberately hides a preference I would have for charging for wastage.

Your side of this specific question, not the whole IW issue.

IW have commissioned legal advice, and presented a result: a legal opinion that there is no going back.

You have said you are not an expert, but...

Bob24

Jack Killian wrote: »

Nice caveat.

http://nessachilders.ie/2014/12/09/childers-welcomes-clarification-from-european-commission-that-ireland-does-not-need-to-apply-domestic-water-charges-under-eu-law/

http://www.iiea.com/ftp/environmentnexus_faqs/panels-Water-FAQ.html

Here is the directive: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32000L0060&from=EN

How do what you posted satisfy the condition "where this does not compromise the purposes and the achievement of the objectives of this Directive" quoted in article 9.4?

Especially since article 9.1 specifies the following objective: "Member States shall take account of the principle of recovery of the costs of water services, including environmental and resource costs, having regard to the economic analysis conducted according to Annex III, and in accordance in particular with the polluter pays principle".

Since you and I are the polluter as a water consumer and a person producing waste water, the directive clearly requires use to be charged for that pollution.

This is also outlined in slide 7 here:http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/law/pdf/principles/4%20Polluter%20pays%20in%20other%20areas_revised.pdf

"almost every human use of water pollutes it. Domestic washing, cleaning, toilet and sewer systems, all add dirt, waste and chemicals to the water we use. And so the polluter pays principle applies to domestic water usage too. Under the WFD, domestic users will pay for the water they use and also for the post-use treatment of that water"

Jack Killian

Bob24 wrote: »

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32000L0060&from=EN

How does this satisfy the condition "where this does not compromise the purposes and the achievement of the objectives of this Directive" quoted in article 9.4?

Especially since article 9.1 specifies the following objective: "Member States shall take account of the principle of recovery of the costs of water services, including environmental and resource costs, having regard to the economic analysis conducted according to Annex III, and in accordance in particular with the polluter pays principle".

Since you and I are the polluter as a water consumer and a person producing waste water, the directive clearly requires use to be charged for that pollution.

This is also outlined in slide 7 here:http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/law/pdf/principles/4%20Polluter%20pays%20in%20other%20areas_revised.pdf

"almost every human use of water pollutes it. Domestic washing, cleaning, toilet
and sewer systems, all add dirt, waste and chemicals to the water we use. And so the polluter pays principle applies to domestic water usage too. Under the WFD, domestic users will pay for the water they use and also for the post-use treatment of that water"

The response from the Commission is there in black & white:

Can the Commission also specify if cost recovery for domestic users must be linked to individual consumption?

There is no specific requirement in Art 9 of the WFD for cost recovery to rely on individual consumption. However, for the Commission, an adequate implementation of the principle of incentive water pricing included in the provisions of Art 9, as well as of the more general polluter-pays principle embedded in the Treaties, requires a clear link between water tariffs and actual individual water consumption. In this context, water metering seems to be a basic precondition for proper implementation of the WFD.

RealJohn

Godge wrote: »

That is a moral argument, not a legal argument. I thought you were arguing that water charges were illegal.

I don't know where you got that impression. I was questioning their legality, yes. I don't know whether they were/are legal or not. I said they were unjust.

Godge wrote: »

You are also factually wrong about the reduction in taxation. Budget 2015 saw a reduction in €642m in income tax and USC, far outweighing the contribution from water charges.

http://www.budget.gov.ie/Budgets/2015/2015.aspx

The document, Summary of 2015 Budget Tax Measures will explain all.

Does it outweighs the contribution from water charges actually collected or the amount charged? The latter is the important figure there.
Also, does it take into account the amount that went into Irish Water from motor tax?

RealJohn

[Deleted User] wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/budget-2015-top-income-tax-rate-cut-usc-rates-changed-1.1962809?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fbudget-2015-top-income-tax-rate-cut-usc-rates-changed-1.1962809

well....

I don't have access to that article so I can't really comment on it, based on the headline and the first paragraph of it.

RealJohn

Suryavarman wrote: »

You are only paying for water once. There was no reduction in taxation because there is a budget deficit. Also, most of the country are opposed to tax cuts judging by the result of the recent election.

The posters above you claim that there was a reduction in taxation but if you are correct, then the only way I'm only paying once is by non-payment of the charge.

Zubeneschamali

Jack Killian wrote: »

The response from the Commission is there in black & white:

It sure is, and you posted it yourself:

However, for the Commission, an adequate implementation of the principle of incentive water pricing included in the provisions of Art 9, as well as of the more general polluter-pays principle embedded in the Treaties, requires a clear link between water tariffs and actual individual water consumption. In this context, water metering seems to be a basic precondition for proper implementation of the WFD.

Akrasia

Bob24 wrote: »

Here is the directive: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32000L0060&from=EN

How do what you posted satisfy the condition "where this does not compromise the purposes and the achievement of the objectives of this Directive" quoted in article 9.4?

Especially since article 9.1 specifies the following objective: "Member States shall take account of the principle of recovery of the costs of water services, including environmental and resource costs, having regard to the economic analysis conducted according to Annex III, and in accordance in particular with the polluter pays principle".

Since you and I are the polluter as a water consumer and a person producing waste water, the directive clearly requires use to be charged for that pollution.

This is also outlined in slide 7 here:http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/law/pdf/principles/4%20Polluter%20pays%20in%20other%20areas_revised.pdf

"almost every human use of water pollutes it. Domestic washing, cleaning, toilet and sewer systems, all add dirt, waste and chemicals to the water we use. And so the polluter pays principle applies to domestic water usage too. Under the WFD, domestic users will pay for the water they use and also for the post-use treatment of that water"

All of these requirements could be met by giving every family and householder a very generous free allocation of water, one that would never be exceeded under normal circumstances and using the meters to identify leaks and only charge households when they are negligent by leaving their taps running and/or not getting leaks fixed.

Jack Killian

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It sure is, and you posted it yourself:

However, for the Commission, an adequate implementation of the principle of incentive water pricing included in the provisions of Art 9, as well as of the more general polluter-pays principle embedded in the Treaties, requires a clear link between water tariffs and actual individual water consumption. In this context, water metering seems to be a basic precondition for proper implementation of the WFD.

Water metering. Nothing re direct pay-per-use charges.

If someone uses over a certain reasonable amount and is deemed to be wasting, then charge away.

Directive honoured.

Jack Killian

Akrasia wrote: »

All of these requirements could be met by giving every family and householder a very generous free allocation of water, one that would never be exceeded under normal circumstances and using the meters to identify leaks and only charge households when they are negligent by leaving their taps running and/or not getting leaks fixed.

Absolutely spot-on.

The bastardised version that we got from FG, where one individual's average use was allocated to a household would have royally screwed any house with 2, 3 or 4 adults or students renting.

Bob24

Jack Killian wrote: »

The response from the Commission is there in black & white:

Can the Commission also specify if cost recovery for domestic users must be linked to individual consumption?

There is no specific requirement in Art 9 of the WFD for cost recovery to rely on individual consumption. However, for the Commission, an adequate implementation of the principle of incentive water pricing included in the provisions of Art 9, as well as of the more general polluter-pays principle embedded in the Treaties, requires a clear link between water tariffs and actual individual water consumption. In this context, water metering seems to be a basic precondition for proper implementation of the WFD.

Well that quote clearly says "an adequate implementation of the principle of incentive water pricing included in the provisions of Art 9, as well as of the more general polluter-pays principle embedded in the Treaties, requires a clear link between water tariffs and actual individual water consumption".

How can Ireland satisfy this condition if there is no water charge?

Godge

Bob24 wrote: »

Here is the directive: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32000L0060&from=EN

How do what you posted satisfy the condition "where this does not compromise the purposes and the achievement of the objectives of this Directive" quoted in article 9.4?

Especially since article 9.1 specifies the following objective: "Member States shall take account of the principle of recovery of the costs of water services, including environmental and resource costs, having regard to the economic analysis conducted according to Annex III, and in accordance in particular with the polluter pays principle".

Since you and I are the polluter as a water consumer and a person producing waste water, the directive clearly requires use to be charged for that pollution.

This is also outlined in slide 7 here:http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/law/pdf/principles/4%20Polluter%20pays%20in%20other%20areas_revised.pdf

"almost every human use of water pollutes it. Domestic washing, cleaning, toilet
and sewer systems, all add dirt, waste and chemicals to the water we use. And so the polluter pays principle applies to domestic water usage too. Under the WFD, domestic users will pay for the water they use and also for the post-use treatment of that water"

That is the first time I have seen the Nessa Childers link. It is absolutely hilarious. Does she think people are stupid? Somehow she is claiming that the EU have said that member states, including Ireland, do not have to apply individualised domestic water charges to comply with the Water Framework Directive.

The full quote from the Commission reads:

"There is no specific requirement in Art 9 of the WFD for cost recovery to rely on individual consumption. However, for the Commission, an adequate implementation of the principle of incentive water pricing included in the provisions of Art 9, as well as of the more general polluter-pays principle embedded in the Treaties, requires a clear link between water tariffs and actual individual water consumption. In this context, water metering seems to be a basic precondition for proper implementation of the WFD."

Essentially what the EU are saying is that there is no specific mention in Article 9 of a requirement for individual metering of consumption. That is true, and nobody has said anything different. Childers thinks this answers the question fully. She must be lacking a few brain cells or she didn't read on.

The next bit is telling. The Commission basically says that they see no way other than individualised water metering to ensure compliance with the WFD and the polluter pays principle. Childers seems not to have read this or completely misunderstood it. How much clearer can you get than "water metering seems to be a basic precondition for proper implementation of the WFD"!!?!?!! SF economic policy is mad at the best of times, but if they are interpreting EU pronouncements in this way, they are taking it to a new level.

The full quote from the Commission is completely in line with the legal opinion published this morning in the Irish Times. I am astonished that the antis believe that the Commission response backs up their view of the world.

Jack Killian

Bob24 wrote: »

Well that quote clearly says "an adequate implementation of the principle of incentive water pricing included in the provisions of Art 9, as well as of the more general polluter-pays principle embedded in the Treaties, requires a clear link between water tariffs and actual individual water consumption".

How can Ireland satisfy this condition if there is no water charge?

Already answered. Use the meter to see who the polluters/wasters are, and charge accordingly.

Zubeneschamali

Akrasia wrote: »

All of these requirements could be met by giving every family and householder a very generous free allocation of water, one that would never be exceeded under normal circumstances and using the meters to identify leaks and only charge households when they are negligent by leaving their taps running and/or not getting leaks fixed.

No, all users are polluting, and the directive is clearly intends to use the "producer pays" principle to reduce pollution in normal use.

If no ordinary user pays anything, there is no incentive to reduce, and we are in violation.

Bob24

Akrasia wrote: »

All of these requirements could be met by giving every family and householder a very generous free allocation of water, one that would never be exceeded under normal circumstances and using the meters to identify leaks and only charge households when they are negligent by leaving their taps running and/or not getting leaks fixed.

Such allocation would certainly not satisfy the polluter pays principle. It is very clear: if I am the one polluting water, I should be the one paying for it - not the Irish government thorough an allowance.

Jack Killian

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, all users are polluting, and the directive is clearly intends to use the "producer pays" principle to reduce pollution in normal use.

If no ordinary user pays anything, there is no incentive to reduce, and we are in violation.

How are "all users polluting" ? What is your basis for this assertion ?

It is not "producer pays", although in fairness that may be an "autocorrect" glitch rather than a deliberate misrepresentation.

RealJohn

RealJohn wrote: »

I don't have access to that article so I can't really comment on it, based on the headline and the first paragraph of it.

cached version available here

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:L2fAzD7cM5oJ:www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/budget-2015-top-income-tax-rate-cut-usc-rates-changed-1.1962809+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Minister for Finance Michael Noonan has announced plans to reduce the Universal Social Charge and the higher rate of income tax, and introduce measures that he says will lessen the impact of water charges on families.

Godge

Akrasia wrote: »

All of these requirements could be met by giving every family and householder a very generous free allocation of water, one that would never be exceeded under normal circumstances and using the meters to identify leaks and only charge households when they are negligent by leaving their taps running and/or not getting leaks fixed.

It cannot be met in that way. In order to encourage conservation and meet the requirements of the Directive, the free allocation cannot be very generous, it can only be the opposite. It must be such that only households that economise strictly on the use of water are able to stay beneath the allowance.

That is why the original scheme of charges set by FG/Labour had free allowances like that.

Bob24

Jack Killian wrote: »

Already answered. Use the meter to see who the polluters/wasters are, and charge accordingly.

Everybody is a polluter. Run your washing machine and you are a polluter. Have a shower and you are a polluter. Flush the toilets and you are a polluter.

Jack Killian

Bob24 wrote: »

Everybody is a polluter. Run your washing machine and you are a polluter. Have a shower and you are a polluter. Flush the toilets and you are a polluter.

A matter of opinion.

Bob24

Jack Killian wrote: »

A matter of opinion.

And in my previous post I quoted the opinion of a group of national judges and prosecutors specialised in environmental law, as posted on the European Commission's website.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/law/pdf/principles/4%20Polluter%20pays%20in%20other%20areas_revised.pdf

"almost every human use of water pollutes it. Domestic washing, cleaning, toilet and sewer systems, all add dirt, waste and chemicals to the water we use. And so the polluter pays principle applies to domestic water usage too. Under the WFD, domestic users will pay for the water they use and also for the post-use treatment of that water."

Any reason you disagree with this?

Jack Killian

Bob24 wrote: »

And in my previous post I quoted the opinion of a group of national judges and prosecutors specialised in environmental law, as posted on the European Commission's website.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/law/pdf/principles/4%20Polluter%20pays%20in%20other%20areas_revised.pdf

"almost every human use of water pollutes it. Domestic washing, cleaning, toilet and sewer systems, all add dirt, waste and chemicals to the water we use. And so the polluter pays principle applies to domestic water usage too. Under the WFD, domestic users will pay for the water they use and also for the post-use treatment of that water."

Any reason you disagree with this?

I have no issue with someone representing that as an argument, or refuting it.

I have an issue with people claiming that the WFD precludes even having the discussion.

RealJohn

[Deleted User] wrote: »

cached version available here

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:L2fAzD7cM5oJ:www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/budget-2015-top-income-tax-rate-cut-usc-rates-changed-1.1962809+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Fine, he said that it would lessen the impact of water charges but not necessarily offset them. If it doesn't offset them completely then it's still being charged twice for them.

Akrasia

Bob24 wrote: »

Such allocation would certainly not satisfy the polluter pays principle. It is very clear: if I am the one polluting water, I should be the one paying for it - not the Irish government thorough an allowance.

We do pay for water through taxation. Having a 'free allowance' paid for by general taxation, with charges for those who exceed their allowance would easily satisfy the polluter pays requirement

Bob24

Jack Killian wrote: »

I have no issue with someone representing that as an argument, or refuting it.

I have an issue with people claiming that the WFD precludes even having the discussion.

So what is your argument to say human use doesn't pollute water?

For example what you be your rational to legally or morally argue that that adding dirt and detergent to water doesn't pollute it?

Godge

RealJohn wrote: »

Fine, he said that it would lessen the impact of water charges but not necessarily offset them. If it doesn't offset them completely then it's still being charged twice for them.

I pointed you to a document that showed a €642m reduction in income tax and USC in 2015, more than covering the cost of water charges.

Godge wrote: »

That is a moral argument, not a legal argument. I thought you were arguing that water charges were illegal.

You are also factually wrong about the reduction in taxation. Budget 2015 saw a reduction in €642m in income tax and USC, far outweighing the contribution from water charges.

http://www.budget.gov.ie/Budgets/2015/2015.aspx

The document, Summary of 2015 Budget Tax Measures will explain all.

Zubeneschamali

Jack Killian wrote: »

A matter of opinion.

Would you drink the water coming out of your dishwasher? From your shower drain?

Bob24

Akrasia wrote: »

We do pay for water through taxation. Having a 'free allowance' paid for by general taxation, with charges for those who exceed their allowance would easily satisfy the polluter pays requirement

1) not everybody pays tax
2) the amount you pay in tax has not connection whatsoever with the quantity of water you pollute

The directive clearly specifies that the amount of the charge has to be related to the amount polluted.

Jack Killian

Bob24 wrote: »

So what is your argument to say human use doesn't pollute water?

For example what you be your rational to legally or morally argue that that adding dirt and detergent to water doesn't pollute it?

As I stated, I have no issue with that being discussed in a wider forum; my initial issue is the lie that the WFD precludes the discussion.

Once the FG crew come out and be honest re he facts, stating same on TV where the wider public can hear how they've lied to date, then we can discuss that topic.

Jack Killian

Bob24 wrote: »

1) not everybody pays tax
2) the amount you pay in tax has not connection whatsoever with the quantity of water you pollute

The directive clearly specifies that the amount of the charge has to be related to the amount polluted.

Not according to the Commission; as quoted in the link I posted. It needs to be factored in, but not directly related.

As the FG proposal stood, a second working adult, paying tax, was paying more for their water than the first person - paying for every drop used; how could that possibly honour the charge being "directly related to the amount polluted" ?

Basically IW as proposed didn't even honour what you now want to honour!

Akrasia

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, all users are polluting, and the directive is clearly intends to use the "producer pays" principle to reduce pollution in normal use.

If no ordinary user pays anything, there is no incentive to reduce, and we are in violation.

There is an incentive to reduce the biggest waste of water by miles, leaking taps and burst pipes.

I think we could happily satisfy the E.U. requirements by focusing on the 46 million litres of water lost to leaks every day rather than berating people for taking too many showers or flushing their toilet.

FreudianSlippers

RealJohn wrote: »

Fine, he said that it would lessen the impact of water charges but not necessarily offset them. If it doesn't offset them completely then it's still being charged twice for them.

... which would be a very valid and logical argument if we didn't have a deficit.

Bob24

Jack Killian wrote: »

As I stated, I have no issue with that being discussed in a wider forum; my initial issue is the lie that the WFD precludes the discussion.

Once the FG crew come out and be honest re he facts, stating same on TV where the wider public can hear how they've lied to date, then we can discuss that topic.

We are discussion it now. Are you arguing water coming out of a washing machine is not polluted and can you explicit why you don't think it is?

RealJohn

Godge wrote: »

I pointed you to a document that showed a €642m reduction in income tax and USC in 2015, more than covering the cost of water charges.

And I replied to that with a question you haven't answered.

FreudianSlippers

Akrasia wrote: »

There is an incentive to reduce the biggest waste of water by miles, leaking taps and burst pipes.

I think we could happily satisfy the E.U. requirements by focusing on the 46 million litres of water lost to leaks every day rather than berating people for taking too many showers or flushing their toilet.

If you ignore the ‘established principles’ part of the WFD, this may be true. But there is no way of knowing because the ‘established principles’ rule is in the WFD. So in your hypothetical example, you may be correct; in the real world, not so much.

RealJohn

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

... which would be a very valid and logical argument if we didn't have a deficit.

No, it's a valid and logical argument anyway. The deficit, while very relevant to the 'big picture' is not relevant to whether or not the water charge is a just charge.

Jack Killian

Bob24 wrote: »

We are discussion it now. Are you arguing water coming out of a washing machine is not polluted and can you explicit why you don't think it is?

Go back a second and explain how - considering the thread is about IW and their payers to date - how IW as originally envisaged honoured the part of the directive that you are now demanding is honoured.

FreudianSlippers

Bob24 wrote: »

We are discussion it now. Are you arguing water coming out of a washing machine is not polluted and can you explicit why you don't think it is?

If posting history in this thread is to be followed, he wants you to prove that it is impossible for said water not to be polluted.

Bob24

Jack Killian wrote: »

Not according to the Commission; as quoted in the link I posted. It needs to be factored in, but not directly related.

You are amazing! Direct quote from the EC response you posed: "the Treaties, requires a clear link between water tariffs and actual individual water consumption"

FreudianSlippers

RealJohn wrote: »

No, it's a valid and logical argument anyway. The deficit, while very relevant to the 'big picture' is not relevant to whether or not the water charge is a just charge.

So if your bills were €100 and you only had €80 your argument is that €20 doesn't matter because it's a "big picture" issue?

Some money goes to subsidisation of water, the remainder is paid for by the consumer. This feels like very basic economics.

Jack Killian

Bob24 wrote: »

You are amazing! Direct quote from the EC response you posed: "the Treaties, requires a clear link between water tariffs and actual individual water consumption"

As I said - explain how IW pricing as envisaged (before FG made it worse) honoured the part that you are now demanding is met ?

Jack Killian

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

So if your bills were €100 and you only had €80 your argument is that €20 doesn't matter because it's a "big picture" issue?

Some money goes to subsidisation of water, the remainder is paid for by the consumer. This feels like very basic economics.

..... and yet, apparently, in breach of the Directive that you are so adamant must be honoured

Bob24

Jack Killian wrote: »

Go back a second and explain how - considering the thread is about IW and their payers to date - how IW as originally envisaged honoured the part of the directive that you are now demanding is honoured.

Surely the current tariffs (which btw are not was was originally ennisaged) don't satisfy the directive either - and I have no doubt one day or another it will have to be addressed. Scrapping the fees would make the matter even worse though.

Now will you answer the question I asked several times? ;-)

FreudianSlippers

Jack Killian wrote: »

..... and yet, apparently, in breach of the Directive that you are so adamant must be honoured

Where in the directive is it stated that subsidisation is in breach of same?

*Keep in mind I'm still waiting on an answer to where anyone has raised valid contrary points to the legal opinion on the WFD.

Jack Killian

Bob24 wrote: »

Surely the current tariffs (which btw are not was was originally ennisaged) don't satisfy the directive either - and I have no doubt one day or another it will have to be addressed. Scrapping the fees would make the matter even worse though.

Now will you answer the question I asked several times? ;-)

I didn't refer to the "current tariffs"; I said the ones originally envisaged

FreudianSlippers

Bob24 wrote: »

Surely the current tariffs (which btw are not was was originally ennisaged) don't satisfy the directive either - and I have no doubt one day or another it will have to be addressed. Scrapping the fees would make the matter even worse though.

Now will you answer the question I asked several times? ;-)

It has been clarified that the Directive does not require full recovery from domestic charges alone. Whether or not the cost of subsidisation is on/off-book is a related but separate issue for the government.

However, given the wording of the WFD in relation to the ‘established principles’, the point remains that it's pretty much impossible to put the no domestic fees genie back into the bottle.

Jack Killian

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Where in the directive is it stated that subsidisation is in breach of same?

*Keep in mind I'm still waiting on an answer to where anyone has raised valid contrary points to the legal opinion on the WFD.

The second statement is a lie.

The directive - according to you guys - requires a direct link between use and payment.

The original IW proposal gave the first person in a household a "free" (aka paid for by tax) allowance, and charged others fully.

Where was your directive then, with the first person subsidised in full ?

Were you campaigning against IW then, because it didn't meet the directive ?

Bob24

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It has been clarified that the Directive does not require full recovery from domestic charges alone. Whether or not the cost of subsidisation is on/off-book is a related but separate issue for the government.

However, given the wording of the WFD in relation to the ‘established principles’, the point remains that it's pretty much impossible to put the no domestic fees genie back into the bottle.

I think having a pretty low cap on how much someone can be charge doesn't work well wit the directive though. As an individual I can leave my taps open 24/7 and I will never be charged more than 180 per year.

Bob24

Jack Killian wrote: »

I didn't refer to the "current tariffs"; I said the ones originally envisaged

Actually you said Irish Water as originally envisaged. And sure I have no problem saying the original allowances were borderline with the directive.

And funny how you are not willing to answer my question :-)

FreudianSlippers

Bob24 wrote: »

I think having a pretty low cap on how much someone can be charge doesn't work well wit the directive though. As an individual I can leave my taps open 24/7 and I will never be charged more than 180 per year.

Ah I see what you mean now. Yes, I'd agree with that but theoretically the cap is also another subsidy so I'd presume that unless someone actually took a case against the country pursuant to the Directive, we'd get away with it for a good few years.