No refund for families who have paid water charges

nhunter100

Mr.Micro wrote:

No matter. The point is still the same, buddy. Justification of not paying for clean quality water for all, now and in the future. Instead, don't pay and leave it with the council guy, where quality is not guaranteed let alone sustainable. All the other issues I mentioned much more important, but let's all get hung up on water charges.

Start your own thread about those issues if you feel so strongly.

BailMeOut

nhunter100 wrote: »

Ah the scaremongering never ceases.You need to learn the difference between a bill/ charge and taxes it is very relevant. Particularly if you set up a company for eventual privatisation.

why the scaremongering about privatisation? Can anyone find a good example of anything done in Ireland by public service that is any good? Water is perfect for a private company to run properly. Yes state would still own the water and infrastructure but FFS the state has an appalling track record of maintaining or running our water system properly.

BailMeOut

BailMeOut wrote: »

why the scaremongering about privatisation? Can anyone find a good example of anything done in Ireland by public service that is any good? Water is perfect for a private company to run properly. Yes state would still own the water and infrastructure but FFS the state has an appalling track record of maintaining or running our water system properly.

If the Government has made such a bags of it, why not privatise it?

ads20101

nhunter100 wrote: »

Ah the scaremongering never ceases.

I am sorry if you think that I was scaremongering, this was not my intention. Equally, I don't feel that I have said anything wrong.

I am just saying that the non payment of a bill generally results in some kind of consequences. The severity of such depends on how much the provider wants to claim the money back.

Equally, I understand that they may just let everyone off with it too. Doesn't seem very fair to those who were just adhering to the law.

BailMeOut

Deleted User wrote: »

If the Government has made such a bags of it, why not privatise it?

They should and that has always been the plan.

oscarBravo

nhunter100 wrote: »

So if I pay the water charge I'm in line for a tax refund? Correct?

I've tried and tried to figure out how you got that from what I typed, and the only conclusion I can arrive at is that you're being deliberately obtuse.

heyjude wrote: »

It is not against the law not to pay your utility bill, whether it be electricity, gas or water, anymore than it is against the law not to make payments on your car or mortgage, so the frequently laid claim by the pro-water charge lobby that people who haven't paid the water charge are breaking the law is also false.

You might want to do some research into the concept of "contract law".

BailMeOut

BailMeOut wrote: »

They should and that has always been the plan.

So, what's the problem. Privatise and get the job done!

nhunter100

ads20101 wrote:

Equally, I understand that they may just let everyone off with it too. Doesn't seem very fair to those who were just adhering to the law.

Without the protests the bills would have been a damn sight higher. I think gratitude is owed to the protestors tbh.

Arkady

Deleted User wrote: »

If the Government has made such a bags of it, why not privatise it?

So the cronies can benefit even more from taxpayers investment and the people of Ireland. lol

BailMeOut

Deleted User wrote: »

So, what's the problem. Privatise and get the job done!

hey if I was the boss it would be done and everyone would pay for water. If you cannot pay then create some mechanism in social welfare to discount cost.

nhunter100

oscarBravo wrote:

You might want to do some research into the concept of "contract law".

Does contract law apply if one party did not sign up?

nhunter100

Deleted User wrote:

So, what's the problem. Privatise and get the job done!

A large section of the population would have a problem with that.I know FG supporters wouldn't but as evidenced by the election not everyone supports FG.

BailMeOut

Arkady wrote: »

So the cronies can benefit even more from taxpayers investment and the people of Ireland. lol

no, a private who does a very good job maintaining national infrastructure and makes profit from their good work.

What are the alternatives? We let the local CoCo make a mess of it again?

Turkish1

oscarBravo wrote: »

.You might want to do some research into the concept of "contract law".

I'm open to correction but for there to be a contract does it not require two parties to enter into it (offer and acceptance)? I would have to thought that by not registering with Irish Water that there is no legally enforceable contract?

Or was there something in the legislation that bypassed this requirement?

Edit: if a person signed up and received the water conservation grant of €100 then they would have entered a contract and be in breach by not paying.

nhunter100

BailMeOut wrote:

What are the alternatives? We let the local CoCo make a mess of it again?

Councils never made a mess, government withheld funding.FG cut funding for water provision upon entering government.

Arkady

BailMeOut wrote: »

no, a private who does a very good job maintaining national infrastructure and makes profit from their good work.

What are the alternatives? We let the local CoCo make a mess of it again?

You mean Irish style like Eircon, Quinn, and Anglo . . .lol

And the County Councils done a lot better than Irish Water with a lot less. Now Irish water, the vehicle that was supposed to deliver privatization, has double the staff, double the Government funding, charges private sector rates, cronie contracts left right and center, and has made a complete an utter balls of it.

weldoninhio

oscarBravo wrote: »

You might want to do some research into the concept of "contract law".

For a contract you need two parties who agree. Without a signed IW form or proof of acceptance via a distance contract there is no way an Irish water bill to someone who didn't register etc would stand up to any scrutiny. There has to be an offer and acceptance.

weldoninhio

weldoninhio wrote: »

For a contract you need two parties who agree. Without a signed IW form or proof of acceptance via a distance contract there is no way an Irish water bill to someone who didn't register etc would stand up to any scrutiny. There has to be an offer and acceptance.

That has been done to death. It is an act of the Oireachtas which doesn't need an actual contract.

Mr.Micro

nhunter100 wrote: »

Councils never made a mess, government withheld funding.FG cut funding for water provision upon entering government.

Really. Cryptosporidium outbreaks. Boil water notices. All that bottled water that people buy because the local water is unsafe or bad.

Mr.Micro

Deleted User wrote: »

That has been done to death. It is an act of the Oireachtas which doesn't need an actual contract.

Exactly, as in the law.

nhunter100

Mr.Micro wrote:

Really. Cryptosporidium outbreaks. Boil water notices. All that bottled water that people buy because the local water is unsafe or bad.

You miss the bit about withheld funding?

henryporter

nhunter100 wrote: »

You miss the bit about withheld funding?

Any evidence of where funding was withheld or is that just a bit made up to support the scroungers stance?

nhunter100

henryporter wrote:

Any evidence of where funding was withheld or is that just a bit made up to support the scroungers stance?

Try Google. ; )

Jack Killian

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That has been done to death. It is an act of the Oireachtas which doesn't need an actual contract.

Would a similar Act of the Oireachtas make existing contracts null and void ?

I mean, if contracts are irrelevant then surely it goes both ways ?

Jack Killian

Turkish1 wrote: »

I'm open to correction but for there to be a contract does it not require two parties to enter into it (offer and acceptance)? I would have to thought that by not registering with Irish Water that there is no legally enforceable contract?

Or was there something in the legislation that bypassed this requirement?

Edit: if a person signed up and received the water conservation grant of €100 then they would have entered a contract and be in breach by not paying.

Water Conservation Grant has nothing to do with an Irish Water contract. The idiots implemented the bribe in such a way as to try to con Eurostat re it not being "funding via the back door" and in doing so wrote the law in such a way that the two are completely unrelated, despite AK47's attempts to correlate the two.

henryporter

nhunter100 wrote: »

Try Google. ; )

Did that before asking you - not much showing up for "Government withholds funding from Local Authorities" in relation to water. In fact, as I recall, the Government never threatened to withhold money from LA's until the Property Tax was brought in and that was in relation poor administration - ergo your argument is Straw man

Mr.Micro

nhunter100 wrote: »

You miss the bit about withheld funding?

I am sure there has always been adequate funding.


So an archaic system of 26 + local authorities doing there own thing with water supply, one not knowing what the other is doing, as opposed to one body for the whole country. That is so 21st century.

Jack Killian

ads20101 wrote: »

I'm not naive to think this was thought of as another stream of revenue, but the truth of the matter we are one of the few western european countries that did not have a specific national division to manage our essential water supply.

This is not something that was missed by the european union who has been putting more than a spot of pressure on several previous governments.

There are many reasons to regulate our water supply nationally, but the main one has to be the massive rate of waste of the clean water system.

If they had as much interest in our illegal VRT and gave us a level playing field then they might have a leg to stand on. As it is they only get involved these days when they want to screw the taxpayer.

Jack Killian

oscarBravo wrote: »

If it's not a tax, then it's a utility bill, and all those who refused to pay it are freeloaders stealing water.

They've paid their LPT which was given to IW.

No freeloading or stealing going on whatsoever.

oscarBravo

weldoninhio wrote: »

There has to be an offer and acceptance.

There's a lot of focus on offer and acceptance, but everyone's conveniently skipping over the third requirement of contract law: there has to be a consideration.

If you're going to argue that there's no contract, therefore you don't have to pay, isn't the logical corollary that since there's no consideration, they don't have to supply?

oscarBravo

Jack Killian wrote: »

They've paid their LPT which was given to IW.

No freeloading or stealing going on whatsoever.

I was going to respond to this until I saw you describe VRT as "illegal". There's not much point arguing with someone who makes up their own facts.

nhunter100

Mr.Micro wrote:

So an archaic system of 26 + local authorities doing there own thing with water supply, one not knowing what the other is doing, as opposed to one body for the whole country. That is so 21st century.

So sitting up a billing company was the answer.

Mr.Micro

nhunter100 wrote: »

So sitting up a billing company was the answer.

Yes it is the answer. Efficient, cost effective in the long run and clean reliable water. Protesters are not interested in the benefits, they just do not want to pay or be accountable,IMO.

nhunter100

Mr.Micro wrote:

Yes it is the answer. Efficient, cost effective in the long run and clean reliable water. Protesters are not interested in the benefits, they just do not want to pay or be accountable,IMO.

Thanks for the laugh. You dismiss the protests as just not wanting to pay. Good display of ignorance.

henryporter

nhunter100 wrote: »

So sitting up a billing company was the answer.

A bit more than a billing company TBH - the smart meters they installed managed to pick up on a 0.1lt per second leak in my house which turned out to be a toilet cistern. If they can pick up on that they can pick up on the gombeens who think that because water is free they can let it piss away.

nhunter100

henryporter wrote:

A bit more than a billing company TBH - the smart meters they installed managed to pick up on a 0.1lt per second leak in my house which turned out to be a toilet cistern. If they can pick up on that they can pick up on the gombeens who think that because water is free they can let it piss away.

Not sure who told you, but water was never free.

Mr.Micro

nhunter100 wrote: »

Thanks for the laugh. You dismiss the protests as just not wanting to pay. Good display of ignorance.

It boils down, excuse the pun, to accountability and money, nothing else.

Going Forward

micosoft wrote: »

Effectively FF are proposing to legalise tax evasion on the principle that any tax could at any point in the future be cancelled without recourse for those who have paid said charge and no penalties for those who have not.

Nice blending of words.

It's not a tax, if it had been, there wouldn't have been compliance issues.

Acceptance issues maybe, but not compliance.

trishasaffron

Why is the title worded about families? Do individuals who pay charges not count? Typical manipulative retrogressive thinking....if you don't fit the family agenda in Ireland you don't count.

nhunter100

Mr.Micro wrote:

It boils down, excuse the pun, to accountability and money, nothing else.

No that's just your opinion, doesn't mean you're right.Opinions are like assholes everyone has one.

henryporter

nhunter100 wrote: »

Not sure who told you, but water was never free.

Not to anyone in a GWS anyways - the charade of central taxation and funding that got kicked to touch by the Troika made everyone else believe they were paying for water when in fact they were paying for whatever the Government of the day wanted us to believe we were paying for...

henryporter

nhunter100 wrote: »

No that's just your opinion, doesn't mean you're right.Opinions are like assholes everyone has one.

... and some stink more than others!

Arkady

henryporter wrote: »

A bit more than a billing company TBH - the smart meters they installed managed to pick up on a 0.1lt per second leak in my house which turned out to be a toilet cistern. If they can pick up on that they can pick up on the gombeens who think that because water is free they can let it piss away.

and yet 50% of treated water continues to leak through supply mains in bulk quantities, long before it gets to any consumers house or meter, far more than the amount of water that ever leaked in any consumers premises.

nhunter100

henryporter wrote:

... and some stink more than others!

From personal experience, I take it? ; )

Mr.Micro

nhunter100 wrote: »

No that's just your opinion, doesn't mean you're right.Opinions are like assholes everyone has one.

No need to be so rude. You are the one who appears to not like others opinions.

xz

The problem lies in the fact that IW was a rushed entity, money was wasted on consultants, money was wasted on meters, despite the offer of free ones, bonuses were paid out before money was brought in, staffing levels are huge......... And for what?...... A few months back there was a burst pipe on my estate outside a house, the water was flowing down the road, I went to work, upon returning from work, the pipe was being repaired, not by IW, but by the Council...... We pay our LPT, we were forced to, which annoys me, as owning the deeds to my own home counts for nothing, I'm still paying to own my own home, that money was used to set up IW and begin charging us.... Wouldn't a more prudent approach have been to improve the infrastructure out of LPT monies first before demanding payment for a sub standard service (as a whole nationwide)...... Or better still, set up the infrastructure and cover the costs from LPT....... I'm actually fed up of people defending IW yet claiming those that didn't pay as scroungers or spongers , they are not, all WE did was get to a point where we said enough is enough, we're not bending over anymore

henryporter

Arkady wrote: »

and yet 50% of treated water continues to leak through supply mains in bulk quantities, long before it gets to any consumers house or meter, far more than the amount of water that ever leaked in any consumers premises.

So pay some money to get it fixed then!

Arkady

xz wrote: »

The problem lies in the fact that IW was a rushed entity, money was wasted on consultants, money was wasted on meters, despite the offer of free ones, bonuses were paid out before money was brought in, staffing levels are huge......... And for what?...... A few months back there was a burst pipe on my estate outside a house, the water was flowing down the road, I went to work, upon returning from work, the pipe was being repaired, not by IW, but by the Council...... We pay our LPT, we were forced to, which annoys me, as owning the deeds to my own home counts for nothing, I'm still paying to own my own home, that money was used to set up IW and begin charging us.... Wouldn't a more prudent approach have been to improve the infrastructure out of LPT monies first before demanding payment for a sub standard service (as a whole nationwide)...... Or better still, set up the infrastructure and cover the costs from LPT....... I'm actually fed up of people defending IW yet claiming those that didn't pay as scroungers or spongers , they are not, all WE did was get to a point where we said enough is enough, we're not bending over anymore

You're obviously an extreme left wing nutjob.

nhunter100

Mr.Micro wrote:

No need to be so rude. You are the one who appears to not like others opinions.

No problem with your opinion, just making an observation. As in everyone has one.No need to be so precious.

xz

Quite the assumption, or accusation?

That would be like me claiming by that statement you're either a Fine Gael party member, or an IW employee