Water charges for excessive usage

MonkieSocks

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110717612&postcount=15

odyssey06

MonkieSocks wrote: »

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110717612&postcount=15

So... a meter then?

K.Flyer

odyssey06 wrote: »

So... a meter then?

It will always be a meter, portable, temporary or otherwise

astrofool

K.Flyer wrote: »

It will always be a meter, portable, temporary or otherwise

Shh, I can hear the friction from the brain cells overheating.

Boggles

astrofool wrote: »

So, your question is, how does a company with a specialty in measuring water going through a pipe, measure water going through a pipe?

Sure, it's easier if there's a meter, but there's multiple other ways to measure water going through a pipe without a meter.

Or do you think, that we as a society, don't have the technological means to measure water going through arbitrary pipes, bearing in mind we're marking 50 years since putting man on the moon, which, coincidentally, was one of the most advanced feats of plumbing engineering in getting all the various liquids (and gases) used on the mission to the correct place safely, in a measurable fashion.

But sure, no meter, impossible to measure, the protesters "win".

If it's that simple, begs the question why they spent all that money replacing and installing new meters.

astrofool

Boggles wrote: »

If it's that simple, begs the question why they spent all that money replacing and installing new meters.

Because the easiest way is by using installed water meters, this does not mean that installing a water meter is the only way to do it....

Glass fused light

Same as the electricty if each service user has a meter the company can measure production and therefore usage and water loss via pipes plus where someone is taping a main.
A meter takes the guess work out from both sides

Benedict

Okay, as we know there are entire estates of many hundreds of houses where no meters have been installed. (There may well be business and apartment blocks within the estate - but let's not even go there).
So IW decide "We suspect there is too much water being used here. Got to investigate further".
What is the next step? Put a meter at the entrance and exit of the estate. This shows too much water being used for the number of residences.


So would anyone like to say what the next step is please?


Of course there are machines to measure water flow. (They're called meters.)
If a meter is not installed in the houses IW "suspect", then a plumber would need to be present 24/7/365 with a hand-held meter. (Just because you use a lot on the Monday doesn't mean you do the same on other days.)


The truth is that if you don't have a meter installed, you'll be able to forget about usage and fines and the rest of us will have to pick up the bill. This system is clearly discriminatory and will not last 5 minutes if challenged in the courts.


And it will be challenged.

So if anyone knows how IW intend to make non-metered houses pay fines, then please share with us.

Because I certainly don't know how they can succeed - and neither do they!

Boggles

astrofool wrote: »

Because the easiest way is by using installed water meters, this does not mean that installing a water meter is the only way to do it....

So tell us.

How do you accurately measure annual usage of 100's of 1000's of houses without a permanent meter?

Brendan Bendar

Benedict wrote: »

Okay, as we know there are entire estates of many hundreds of houses where no meters have been installed. (There may well be business and apartment blocks within the estate - but let's not even go there).
So IW decide "We suspect there is too much water being used here. Got to investigate further".
What is the next step? Put a meter at the entrance and exit of the estate. This shows too much water being used for the number of residences.


So would anyone like to say what the next step is please?


Of course there are machines to measure water flow. (They're called meters.)
If a meter is not installed in the houses IW "suspect", then a plumber would need to be present 24/7/365 with a hand-held meter. (Just because you use a lot on the Monday doesn't mean you do the same on other days.)


The truth is that if you don't have a meter installed, you'll be able to forget about usage and fines and the rest of us will have to pick up the bill. This system is clearly discriminatory and will not last 5 minutes if challenged in the courts.


And it will be challenged.

So if anyone knows how IW intend to make non-metered houses pay fines, then please share with us.

Because I certainly don't know how they can succeed - and neither do they!

Hands up here.....

Next step.... no one pays till everybody pays.

Court challenge.


Brenner will not pay one brown cent under the current debacle, no sir.

Brendan Bendar

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/committees/32/future-funding-of-domestic-water-services/


Might be of interest here.

James Brown

FG blew any chance of IW or metering being taken seriously when they gave the contract to Denis O'Brien and that how Noonan went about it is still under investigation doesn't help.

Plumbthedepths

Boggles wrote:

How do you accurately measure annual usage of 100's of 1000's of houses without a permanent meter?

Some lad from NASA is going to sort it. ;-)

Boggles

Matt Barrett wrote: »

FG blew any chance of IW or metering being taken seriously when they gave the contract to Denis O'Brien and that how Noonan went about it is still under investigation doesn't help.

FG had no interest in comprehensive Water Metering, conservation or quality.

There goal was to package it into a billing system and sell it off.

Get 50 odd percent of the properties metered, you don't need the rest.

From the link above on the report of the Committee on Future Funding.

The Joint Committee on the Future Funding of Domestic Water Services (‘the Committee’) supports the concept of a referendum on the issue of water services continuing in public ownership and believes that public ownership should be enshrined in the Constitution as an extra measure of protection against any privatisation.

Now this could have been done all ready, but FG decided that a referendum on Blasphemy was more important.

:pac:

Benedict

I hope IW are reading this blog - for their own sake that is. It could save them wasting their time introducing a legally flawed system which cannot succeed. When they demanded money before, a lot of people paid up but a lot of people didn't. They ended up dropping the demands for money and giving the money back to those who had already paid. This cost them (us?) a fortune and in fact they are still searching for some people who moved home so as to give them their money back.

IW is aware that customers are unhappy about the fact that only about half of customers will have a quota imposed with the threat of fines if they exceed it. So they are pretending they will find out if anyone without a meter is using too much and fine them too. Anyone who has been reading this blog now knows this is untrue and quite ridiculous. The truth is that almost half of IW customers will never have a quota imposed or fines to pay and this percentage is growing all the time as new unmetered houses and apartments continue to be built.

astrofool

Boggles wrote: »

So tell us.

How do you accurately measure annual usage of 100's of 1000's of houses without a permanent meter?

Benedict pretty much has it, you can measure at the estate/apartment block/part of estate level using standard flow meters, narrow it down to a few houses, then monitor the few houses that have excessive flow for a few days, once the likely culprit is identified, they can be informed and further action taken (including proving that it wasn't them, but this can all be done using temporary flow meters). It's more work than just using an installed meter, but not really that hard to do or implement.

You seem to imply that there is some magic spell that has happened because some people didn't get meter's installed, and they've beaten the system because they get to waste a valuable resource, without getting too far off topic, it's the same kind of circular arguments being used around anti-vax and other debates "Oh, but if they can do that, why did they have to install meters?!" "They all loved Denis O'Brien, he caused the mess" "How dare they charge me money for something that falls from the sky, sure isn't it free, all taxpayers should pay it, and let the non-taxpayers get it for free" "Why don't we not charge anyone until there is no leaks in the system, but we won't raise money to fix the leaks until they've fixed the leaks".

I mean, people know these things, but they're so entrenched in a "gubberment is bad" mindset, that they can't understand that measuring water flow is a pretty easy thing to do, if a bit labour intensive.

Benedict

astrofool wrote: »

Benedict pretty much has it, you can measure at the estate/apartment block/part of estate level using standard flow meters, narrow it down to a few houses, then monitor the few houses that have excessive flow for a few days, once the likely culprit is identified, they can be informed and further action taken (including proving that it wasn't them, but this can all be done using temporary flow meters). It's more work than just using an installed meter, but not really that hard to do or implement.

You seem to imply that there is some magic spell that has happened because some people didn't get meter's installed, and they've beaten the system because they get to waste a valuable resource, without getting too far off topic, it's the same kind of circular arguments being used around anti-vax and other debates "Oh, but if they can do that, why did they have to install meters?!" "They all loved Denis O'Brien, he caused the mess" "How dare they charge me money for something that falls from the sky, sure isn't it free, all taxpayers should pay it, and let the non-taxpayers get it for free" "Why don't we not charge anyone until there is no leaks in the system, but we won't raise money to fix the leaks until they've fixed the leaks".

I mean, people know these things, but they're so entrenched in a "gubberment is bad" mindset, that they can't understand that measuring water flow is a pretty easy thing to do, if a bit labour intensive.

First of all, apartments are exempt - so let's forget them.
Now, how do you narrow it down to just a few houses? Let's take that one for starters? Can you explain? The truth is you can't. And even if you did, how do you convince a protestor to accept a temporary meter? And if the flow is heavy for a few days, it doesn't mean the annual quota has been breached.
There would need to be a meter permanently there.
You're not thinking this through.
The fact is, unmetered houses will be free of quota and fines. End of story.

odyssey06

astrofool wrote: »

Benedict pretty much has it, you can measure at the estate/apartment block/part of estate level using standard flow meters, narrow it down to a few houses, then monitor the few houses that have excessive flow for a few days, once the likely culprit is identified, they can be informed and further action taken (including proving that it wasn't them, but this can all be done using temporary flow meters). It's more work than just using an installed meter, but not really that hard to do or implement...
I mean, people know these things, but they're so entrenched in a "gubberment is bad" mindset, that they can't understand that measuring water flow is a pretty easy thing to do, if a bit labour intensive.

Except the gubberment have provided no basis for what you are proposing as excessive water is based on an annual allowance. Measuring a few days proves nothing.

And, it'll be pretty bleedin obvious to people in the area that there are guys in the area monitoring the water use.

Are you going to leave the guys with the flow meters all year? Labour intensive is an understatement!

The only people you're going to catch with your plan is people whose leak is so bad they exceed their annual allowance in a few days.

Brendan Bendar

I said it once..I’ll say it again.

Everybody pays, or nobody pays......its that simple.


Are you listening Mrs Gubberminnt.

James Brown

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

I said it once..I’ll say it again.

Everybody pays, or nobody pays......its that simple.


Are you listening Mrs Gubberminnt.

Jaysus Bren. You're like a Twink TV special. Old gags from long ago, canned laughter and nobody knows why she persists.

'spent docket' 'middle ireland'

K.Flyer

astrofool wrote: »

Benedict pretty much has it, you can measure at the estate/apartment block/part of estate level using standard flow meters, narrow it down to a few houses, then monitor the few houses that have excessive flow for a few days, once the likely culprit is identified, they can be informed and further action taken (including proving that it wasn't them, but this can all be done using temporary flow meters). It's more work than just using an installed meter, but not really that hard to do or implement.

Digging up roads and footpaths to install some temporary water meters around the estate??
Have you any notion for a minute the Cost involved in doing that for just one road, one estate, never mind country wide vs. the return in revenue?
Then add in the wasted hours having to deal with protesters again.

Nope, that's not going to work, your plan is seriously flawed and it's certainly the stupidest way of doing it.

You are talking through your hat.

astrofool

K.Flyer wrote: »

Digging up roads and footpaths to install some temporary water meters around the estate??
Have you any notion for a minute the Cost involved in doing that for just one road, one estate, never mind country wide vs. the return in revenue?
Then add in the wasted hours having to deal with protesters again.

Nope, that's not going to work, your plan is seriously flawed and it's certainly the stupidest way of doing it.

You are talking through your hat.

It's not my plan, it's what will happen, most houses already have a stopcock outside providing pipe access, and estates have numerous access points to the pipes for maintenance that can be monitored. Most of this can happen as part of routine maintenance, so the protesters/jobless will need to be following around the IW vans to check when they might be monitoring water flows.

It's beggars belief that people don't believe it's possible for a pipe to be monitored for flow rates, I mean, how do they think IW figure out where and when leaks occur?

One things for certain, the replies indicate how little people understand about how their water works, and probably explains their gullibility to be taken in by Paul Murphy, Mary-Lou and friends.

odyssey06

astrofool wrote: »

It's beggars belief that people don't believe it's possible for a pipe to be monitored for flow rates, I mean, how do they think IW figure out where and when leaks occur?

What beggars belief is to propose as a technical solution IW can rollout country-wide to underpin the charges for excessive use, which are based on exceeding 1.7 times the average household use on an annual basis.

Does it comply with the legislation? No, because it measures daily use.
Does it catch excess (eg twice the annual average) use as opposed to leaks? No.
Is it scale-able given that there are hundreds of thousands of un-metered properties? No.
Is it applicable to apartments and houses where there is a single external pipe feeding into private properties and multiple customers? No.

Is it practicable as a solution? No.

K.Flyer

astrofool wrote: »

It's not my plan, it's what will happen.

Have you got a reference to where I.W. state that they are going to be digging up roads and footpaths to install "temporary meters"

It's beggars belief that people don't believe it's possible for a pipe to be monitored for flow rates, I mean, how do they think IW figure out where and when leaks occur?

They have a much more simplified way of doing it, and it doesn't involve digging up footpaths and roads to install "temporary meters".

One things for certain, the replies indicate how little people understand about how their water works, and probably explains their gullibility to be taken in by Paul Murphy, Mary-Lou and friends.

On the other hand, there are some of us who know and understand perfectly well the processes involved in how water makes it to our tap.

astrofool

K.Flyer wrote: »

Have you got a reference to where I.W. state that they are going to be digging up roads and footpaths to install "temporary meters"

They have a much more simplified way of doing it, and it doesn't involve digging up footpaths and roads to install "temporary meters".

On the other hand, there are some of us who know and understand perfectly well the processes involved in how water makes it to our tap.

Have you got a reference to say how they won't do it? Of course not, it's a stupid question.

It's spinning, I'm not particularly saying how IW will do it, I'm saying that measuring flow through a pipe is possible using numerous methods, any of which IW can use, they may use many or one way of doing it, but they can do it, is the point, whether it's worth their while, or whether magic fairies will stop them from doing so is beside the point, pipe, flow, many ways of measuring.

Boggles

astrofool wrote: »

Benedict pretty much has it, you can measure at the estate/apartment block/part of estate level using standard flow meters, narrow it down to a few houses, then monitor the few houses that have excessive flow for a few days, once the likely culprit is identified, they can be informed and further action taken (including proving that it wasn't them, but this can all be done using temporary flow meters). It's more work than just using an installed meter, but not really that hard to do or implement.

You seem to imply that there is some magic spell that has happened because some people didn't get meter's installed, and they've beaten the system because they get to waste a valuable resource, without getting too far off topic, it's the same kind of circular arguments being used around anti-vax and other debates "Oh, but if they can do that, why did they have to install meters?!" "They all loved Denis O'Brien, he caused the mess" "How dare they charge me money for something that falls from the sky, sure isn't it free, all taxpayers should pay it, and let the non-taxpayers get it for free" "Why don't we not charge anyone until there is no leaks in the system, but we won't raise money to fix the leaks until they've fixed the leaks".

I mean, people know these things, but they're so entrenched in a "gubberment is bad" mindset, that they can't understand that measuring water flow is a pretty easy thing to do, if a bit labour intensive.

Absolute nonsense.

astrofool

Boggles wrote: »

Absolute nonsense.

Outrageously preposterous.

Snow Garden

Sure didn't Irish Water contractors cause loads more leaks putting in the damn meters.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/cork-county-council-fix-375-leaks-at-new-water-meters-and-replace-80-faulty-meter-boxes-442858.html

Cork County Council had to fix 375 leaks at newly installed water meters last year and get an additional 80 meter boxes replaced, because they were faulty.

The news has led to claims some Irish Water contractors installing the meters and connections to them were guilty of “shoddy” workmanship.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/water-meter-installation-damages-1-in-50-pipes-621776.html

Dublin City Council has reportedly spent €136,000 fixing leaks caused by the installation of water meters.
According to a report in the Irish Times, contractors working for Irish Water have damaged pipes outside one in every 50 homes.

Irish Water is a money pit.

Snow Garden

Snow Garden

Denis O’Brien, Ireland’s second most famous tax exile, bought Siteserv, a company that specialises in installing water meters, from the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation (a state-owned zombie bank) shortly before winning three separate contracts – each worth €62m – to install water meters on behalf of the state. Before the deal, Siteserv owed the IBRC (i.e. the Irish citizenry) €144m. O’Brien purchased the company for a mere €45m, while the state writing off the €100m difference – even though his offer wasn’t the highest bid received.

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/01/30/thicker-than-uisce/