Water charges for excessive usage

charlie14

charlie14 wrote: »

Which can be achieved by district metering for a lot less than wasting yet another Billion euro on individual household water meters.

Thanks for that. I knew that it was possible.

Fanny Wank

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Think i'm done indulging in stupid analogies, they were stupider than I thought they'd be.

Ah right, no explanation on why they're different or why an expiration date is relevant

Look water charges are like all taxes/charges. I'd rather not pay them than pay them. But to obfuscate by saying it's somehow different rather than just saying you'd rather not pay them is ridiculous

joseywhales

Not everyone utilises a passport or processed water, that is why they are optional extras that can be charged for.

Fanny Wank

joseywhales wrote: »

Not everyone utilises a passport or processed water, that is why they are optional extras that can be charged for.

Not everyone utilises other state services but I can't opt out of paying for them

end of the road

Fanny **** wrote: »

How is it stupid?

Water: can't pay a charge for that, I already pay for it (taxes)

Why doesn't it apply to passports, birth certs, drivers licences etc?

Serious question? I genuinely don't see the difference

My son's birth certificate (that I was charged for) doesn't have an expiration date (though I'm not in anyway seeing how an expiration date is relevant)

those are documents individual to each person which, while needed for various things, one won't die without them.
water on the other hand is a vital human right, and one will die without it.

Fanny Wank

end of the road wrote: »

those are documents individual to each person which, while needed for various things, one won't die without them.
water on the other hand is a vital human right, and one will die without it.

One will die without food but I don't see protests that Tesco had the cheek to charge me for my groceries today

While water falls from the sky it does not fall treated and ready for human consumption

charlie14

Deleted User wrote: »

Thanks for that. I knew that it was possible.

It was possible without wasting any money on water meters, dodgy deals, dodgy appointments or Irish Water in the first place.

Plumbthedepths

Fanny **** wrote: »

One will die without food but I don't see protests that Tesco had the cheek to charge me for my groceries today

While water falls from the sky it does not fall treated and ready for human consumption

Irish Water
Colvill house
24/26 Talbot At
Dublin 1.
There's the address if you want to send them a few quid.
If you're disappointed the charges were defeated contact your local FG TD they and the rest of their party are the reason water charges are toxic for at least another generation.

joseywhales

Fanny **** wrote: »

Not everyone utilises other state services but I can't opt out of paying for them

though i wish i could and at least I can opt out of paying for water by having my own source

Fanny Wank

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Irish Water
Colvill house
24/26 Talbot At
Dublin 1.
There's the address if you want to send them a few quid.
If you're disappointed the charges were defeated contact your local FG TD they and the rest of their party are the reason water charges are toxic for at least another generation.

Grand so, when you're ready to answer simple questions I'll engage again

Plumbthedepths

Fanny **** wrote: »

Grand so, when you're ready to answer simple questions I'll engage again

No problem answering genuine questions, yours weren't.
Don't feel I'm disappointed that you don't want to engage. My comment about tax wasn't directed at you but you took it upon yourself to reply with an idiotic reponse
Anyway as I said there's the address if you want to pay.
Have a good one. ;-)

FutureTeashock

astrofool wrote: »

55% with meters, the rest they can estimate, and then pin it down to individual dwellings afterwards after surveying the pipes directly.

Not sure how anyone can complain with paying a relative pittance after going so far over the average amount. Potable water doesn't fall from the sky!

Hmmm



"Most rain is perfectly safe to drink and may be even cleaner than the public water supply."

https://www.thoughtco.com/can-you-drink-rain-water-609422

charlie14

Fanny **** wrote: »

One will die without food but I don't see protests that Tesco had the cheek to charge me for my groceries today

While water falls from the sky it does not fall treated and ready for human consumption

Neither do public libraries, public parks, street lighting, subsidised public transport, subsidised childcare etc.

We pay for those, same as water and waste water services,same as we always have, from general taxation.
In fact we not only pay through general taxation for water and waste water services, we now also contribute through the household charge.

Benedict

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

You clearly can't answer the question which was asked. Better just to say so.

Plumthedepths is right M84,, you can't answer the simple question of how will IW know you have used too much and by how much if you don't have a meter?
IW themselves don't know, nobody knows, you don't know.


The fact is that IW will not be able to go into an estate and say "Hey you in No 157, you've used an extra 50 liters, here's the bill" if No 157 doesn't have a meter.


Please M84 just admit you don't know the answer. Please?



Tell the truth and shame the devil.

charlie14

Benedict wrote: »

Plumthedepths is right M84,, you can't answer the simple question of how will IW know you have used too much and by how much if you don't have a meter?
IW themselves don't know, nobody knows, you don't know.


The fact is that IW will not be able to go into an estate and say "Hey you in No 157, you've used an extra 50 liters, here's the bill" if No 157 doesn't have a meter.


Please M84 just admit you don't know the answer. Please?



Tell the truth and shame the devil.

Just an aside, but Irish Water have no idea how much water, if any, that the vast majority of apartments are using over their allocation.


Other than that are you seriously proposing that another Billion euro is wasted to add to the Billion already wasted to find individual households that exceed their allocation when 50% of treated water is being lost through mains leaks ?


The law of diminishing returns come to mind if you are.

end of the road

Fanny **** wrote: »

One will die without food but I don't see protests that Tesco had the cheek to charge me for my groceries today

While water falls from the sky it does not fall treated and ready for human consumption

because generally food is cheap, and there are a whole load of ways to get it, unlike treated public water.

joseywhales

dig a hole or collect it from the sky, there is no lack of available water that you can treat yourself.

FutureTeashock

joseywhales wrote: »

dig a hole or collect it from the sky, there is no lack of available water that you can treat yourself.

You'd actually be better off doing this than drinking the contaminated shoite that is publicly "treated" water.

end of the road

joseywhales wrote: »

dig a hole or collect it from the sky, there is no lack of available water that you can treat yourself.

i have a well, so water charges wouldn't effect me personally.
however, i'm thinking of the squeezed and the vunnerable of society who cannot afford any more stealth charges.

K.Flyer

[Deleted User] wrote: »

By process of elimination. Do you think that people are going to be willing to pay for the water being wasted by their neighbours?? I know that I certainly wouldn't.

Let me tell you something. I.W.'s "process of elimination" is fallible and not precisely quantifiable in any sizable Un-Metered housing development. Therefore, without a meter on the suspected property, they will have great difficulty quantifying with accuracy any excessive usage.
In order for them to have an accurate assessment of usage for an individual property they must install a meter, the cost of which is well in excess of the potential fines.
Without a meter any good barrister will show them the door in court.
It is those who have meters that they will chase down while a great percentage of homes can use as much as they want.

charlie14

K.Flyer wrote: »

Let me tell you something. I.W.'s "process of elimination" is fallible and not precisely quantifiable in any sizable Un-Metered housing development. Therefore, without a meter on the suspected property, they will have great difficulty quantifying with accuracy any excessive usage.
In order for them to have an accurate assessment of usage for an individual property they must install a meter, the cost of which is well in excess of the potential fines.
Without a meter any good barrister will show them the door in court.
It is those who have meters that they will chase down while a great percentage of homes can use as much as they want.

Par for the course so.
Nothing about I.W.was ever quantifiable

Benedict

charlie14 wrote: »

Just an aside, but Irish Water have no idea how much water, if any, that the vast majority of apartments are using over their allocation.


Other than that are you seriously proposing that another Billion euro is wasted to add to the Billion already wasted to find individual households that exceed their allocation when 50% of treated water is being lost through mains leaks ?


The law of diminishing returns come to mind if you are.

No, I am not suggesting that at all.


IW have accepted that apartments won't be charged so even without any other consideration, that makes the whole thing a complete joke. As someone on this thread pointed out, a mini-laundrette could be set up in an apartment with no charge - while the poor eejit in a house down the road has to bring a stop-watch into the shower.


And make no mistake - IW are hell bent on pushing ahead with this.


What I am suggesting is that IW tear up this farcical plan and start again perhaps reconsidering paying for water from tax - with a concession for those who are not IW customers.


Some people actually still believe that IW can nail a particular home for excessive use - even without a meter. The "process of elimination" is a particularly daft idea. In order to make that work, you'd have to know the usage of every other house on the estate so as to eliminate them.


If IW could do that, why bother with meters?

Just remember that there are areas consisting of tens of thousands of homes and not a single meter between them. You'd have some fun in those areas with the "process of elimination"

Brendan Bendar

end of the road wrote: »

because generally food is cheap, and there are a whole load of ways to get it, unlike treated public water.

One would not think that with the number of folk walking about with water bottles, and the amount on super market shelves.

end of the road

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

One would not think that with the number of folk walking about with water bottles, and the amount on super market shelves.

i take your point but that isn't treated public water to the best of my knowledge.
buying water bottles to get around IW would add up quite quickly also so that wouldn't be sustainable i would imagine.

charlie14

Benedict wrote: »

No, I am not suggesting that at all.


IW have accepted that apartments won't be charged so even without any other consideration, that makes the whole thing a complete joke. As someone on this thread pointed out, a mini-laundrette could be set up in an apartment with no charge - while the poor eejit in a house down the road has to bring a stop-watch into the shower.


And make no mistake - IW are hell bent on pushing ahead with this.


What I am suggesting is that IW tear up this farcical plan and start again perhaps reconsidering paying for water from tax - with a concession for those who are not IW customers.


Some people actually still believe that IW can nail a particular home for excessive use - even without a meter. The "process of elimination" is a particularly daft idea. In order to make that work, you'd have to know the usage of every other house on the estate so as to eliminate them.


If IW could do that, why bother with meters?

Just remember that there are areas consisting of tens of thousands of homes and not a single meter between them. You'd have some fun in those areas with the "process of elimination"

Apologies I obviously totally misinterpreted your post.


Totally agree that this whole individual household excessive use debate is nothing other than a farcical smokescreen being promoted by IW and their supporters on here.



It is so blatantly obvious that it nothing other than a laughable attempt to throw good money after bad on a FG wet dream of metering by wasting yet another Billion of taxpayers money.


Apartments in the main cannot be metered for starters, and even if they could by throwing yet even more good money after bad, it makes it even more of a farce when you take into account the massive expense to supposedly conserve a piddling amount of water in comparison to the 50% of treated water that is leaking on a daily basis from the mains.
In simple terms it is the equivalent of using a sledgehammer to crack a peanut.



Agreed, this whole "process of elimination" is again nothing but more pie in the sky on the same level of sledgehammer and peanut. In theory with district metering it is possible but the associated costs of time, effort and calculations required in relation to the possible savings are financial fantasy land. District metering is a very useful and relatively inexpensive way of detecting major mains leaks.



If IW and their supporters are really interested in conserving water, which this latest farcical attempt is being sold as, then that is where their efforts and money should be directed towards rather than their still wet dream of yet more metering which is in reality what this is really all about.

BarryD2

As regards apartments, where there’s a will there is s way. We’re not IW customers and have had to pay both to provide, run and maintain our own water supply and sewage disposal. Metering for household and commercial use makes complete sense for those lucky to be on public supplies. It’s only a matter of time.

Benedict

IW have said only days ago that "people" using excessive amount will get warning very soon and if they don't mend their ways, they'll be billed. What they NEVER say is "people with meters".

the 45% without meters is rising by the month as new homes are built (all without meters). Soon, metered homes will be in the minority.

IW are living in a fantasy world if they think these "people" (with meters) will cough up - although some will I suppose.

There is one area near Dublin with over 70,000 homes and not one has a meter. So they are laughing at the rest of us.

charlie14

BarryD2 wrote: »

As regards apartments, where there’s a will there is s way. We’re not IW customers and have had to pay both to provide, run and maintain our own water supply and sewage disposal. Metering for household and commercial use makes complete sense for those lucky to be on public supplies. It’s only a matter of time.

Theoretically there probably is a way and I`m sure IW and their supporters would have no problem wasting another Billion euro of taxpayers money on metering the remaining households plus the extra countless Millions it would require to meter apartments.
Their problem is that to do that requires political backing and that is not going to come anytime soon.


FG may pay a bit of lip-service to the idea now and then just to keep some of their voters onside.Lip-service which is nothing more than a bit of bravado to cover their reluctance to admit they made a complete horse`s rear end of the whole fiasco from beginning to end. Even though they know that themselves. Knew it from af far back as the protest marches when they saw their own supporters marching and came up with their "conservation grant" to heap more farce on top of a farce that cost them at the polling stations come GE day.


No party will go anywhere near this issue for a generation.
Even by then if they even dream about it will be told by voters "look over there, there is a Billion euros of taxpayers money worth of your precious meters buried that are now obsolete that never returned a red cent."

charlie14

Benedict wrote: »

IW have said only days ago that "people" using excessive amount will get warning very soon and if they don't mend their ways, they'll be billed. What they NEVER say is "people with meters".

the 45% without meters is rising by the month as new homes are built (all without meters). Soon, metered homes will be in the minority.

IW are living in a fantasy world if they think these "people" (with meters) will cough up - although some will I suppose.

There is one area near Dublin with over 70,000 homes and not one has a meter. So they are laughing at the rest of us.

Probably one of the main reasons why any future attempts at water metering are dead. "Fool me once...................."

Brendan Bendar

charlie14 wrote: »

Probably one of the main reasons why any future attempts at water metering are dead. "Fool me once...................."

Middle Ireland was stiffed once

Will not be stiffed again...... will. not. happen.


R e l a x