Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Water charges for excessive usage

Options
1373840424385

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 15,126 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    K.Flyer wrote: »
    Here's the thing, look at all that money that was spent setting up I.W., consultants and meter installation, not to mention the very generous bonuses and severance payoffs.
    Where did all this money come from, taxpayers off course, all of us.
    So the service we got for our money was, from the outset, shoddy and inept. Money wasted.
    If they had rolled all that money into the creaking infrastructure first, then at least we would have seen a service worth paying for, not some gilt edged quango jobs for the boys.


    Were we not promised that by Maryanne`s blue eyed boy Enda Kenny.:confused:


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,472 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar


    charlie14 wrote: »
    It would certainly have made it handy for privatising with a few old friends waiting in the wings

    Wearing a bit thin there, buddy.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,126 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Wearing a bit thin there, buddy.


    Truth never runs thin buddy


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,472 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar


    charlie14 wrote: »
    Truth never runs thin buddy

    Rhetoric runs thick as sludge, dude, bores the hell outa folk.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,126 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Rhetoric runs thick as sludge, dude, bores the hell outa folk.


    Nothing to do with rhetoric dude. Just simple facts.

    The application to Eurostat to get Irish Water "off the books" stated that privatisation was the ultimate aim.


    If you wish to ignore that, and the facts bore you, that is perfectly up to you.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 19,472 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar


    charlie14 wrote: »
    Nothing to do with rhetoric dude. Just simple facts.

    The application to Eurostat to get Irish Water "off the books" stated that privatisation was the ultimate aim.


    If you wish to ignore that, and the facts bore you, that is perfectly up to you.

    Who were these “few old friends waiting in the wings’” and can you back that up?

    Or are you just horsing out pub talk.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,126 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    Who were these “few old friends waiting in the wings’” and can you back that up?

    Or are you just horsing out pub talk.


    Don`t attempt the old 3 wise monkey act Brendan.
    Whatever about not wanting to hear or say no evil about Irish Water you are not blind.



    A few "old friends" were well looked after where Irish Water were concerned. An on-going inquiry I believe where one is concerned even.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 418 ✭✭high_king


    Benedict wrote: »
    Well, you may think it is simple but IW are betting all their chips on the gamble that users will believe that they'll know exactly what non-metered homes are using and bill them accordingly.

    What half wit would think Irish water can prove how many liters an metered connection is using to a standard acceptable to any court while failing on their responsibility to fit a meter ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,472 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar


    charlie14 wrote: »
    Don`t attempt the old 3 wise monkey act Brendan.
    Whatever about not wanting to hear or say no evil about Irish Water you are not blind.



    A few "old friends" were well looked after where Irish Water were concerned. An on-going inquiry I believe where one is concerned even.

    On going inquiry..... jaysus..... four years later.

    Is this a record.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,126 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    On going inquiry..... jaysus..... four years later.

    Is this a record.


    Not at all. Not even close.

    A long way to go before it gets near the Moriarty Inquiry.
    15 years from the awarding of a mobile phone licence until the final report.


    Just sheer coincidence how a certain old friend just keeps popping up in these inquiries where State contracts are involved


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Wearing a bit thin there, buddy.
    Rhetoric runs thick as sludge, dude, bores the hell outa folk.



    And posting middle Ireland stiffed X 10,000 times in a month doesn't.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,472 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar


    And posting middle Ireland stiffed X 10,000 times in a month doesn't.

    Overdoing the hyperbole a wee bit John.

    Lookit, the bullhorn brigade seem to have latched onto climate change as their ‘ magnum opus’ for the future yet these were the lot who resisted the water strategy to the nth degree.

    Kind of makes one wonder about their commitment to any climate measures which might impact on their support base.

    Same old story, we want world class this and world class that, but we won’t put our hands in OUR pockets.

    Game is up.


  • Registered Users Posts: 684 ✭✭✭Benedict


    Copied & pasted just now from "Money Guide Ireland" site:

    "The government says that homes will still continue to be metered and meters will still be read at least every quarter so that any home using excessive amounts of water can be identified.
    It is not clear how unmetered homes can be charged for any excessive use – because their usage will just not be known. But if an unmetered property is suspected of excessive use – a meter will be installed. If this is not possible then a flow monitoring device will be fitted. If excess usage is found- then they will be charged €500 a year."

    That's the current position - not 2 years ago, it's right now!

    So IW are still praying that the public will actually buy into the fantasy that those without meters will be subject to the quota in the same way that metered homes are - and they will be billed if they breach it.

    They really need to stop treating the Irish public like total idiots.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,641 ✭✭✭Beta Ray Bill


    Miles and miles of pipes have been replaced here in Tipperary. But, shur, why let facts get in the way of a good old rant.

    People get the service they pay for. Or in this case, don’t pay for.

    It costs approx €1.3m per kilometer to replace big bore mains pipes.
    They could have replaced near 50km of mains pipes for the money wasted in setting up Irish water.
    blanch152 wrote: »
    Water charges would have enabled Irish Water to borrow hundreds of millions to fix the infrastructure.

    Yeah great idea, lets borrow money...
    Lets spend it on stuff we'll never use and consultants.

    Like Irish water contract out workers from councils as far as I am aware to do the work, they don't even have their own engineers as far as I am aware (I could be wrong)

    We are taxed very heavily in Ireland has far as personal taxation goes.
    There were no tax increases in the budget this year as the government knows that there is a large volume of people that will just stop working if they tax anymore.
    So the new way of squeezing people is to make them pay for services that were once free and paid for via general taxation: Household charge, refuse collection, water, etc.
    Nearly sure a congestion charge for dubs is on the way

    The question needs to be asked though, where is the money going?

    Our infrastructure is creaking across the board:
    Rails
    Roads
    Bus
    Cycle infra
    Water
    Communications
    Health
    etc

    It's in a very bad way.


  • Registered Users Posts: 684 ✭✭✭Benedict


    Is there any difference between a meter and a "flow monitoring device"?

    Surely they are basically the same thing?


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Benedict wrote: »
    Copied & pasted just now from "Money Guide Ireland" site:

    "The government says that homes will still continue to be metered and meters will still be read at least every quarter so that any home using excessive amounts of water can be identified.
    It is not clear how unmetered homes can be charged for any excessive use – because their usage will just not be known. But if an unmetered property is suspected of excessive use – a meter will be installed. If this is not possible then a flow monitoring device will be fitted. If excess usage is found- then they will be charged €500 a year."

    That's the current position - not 2 years ago, it's right now!

    So IW are still praying that the public will actually buy into the fantasy that those without meters will be subject to the quota in the same way that metered homes are - and they will be billed if they breach it.

    They really need to stop treating the Irish public like total idiots.

    Do you have an actual link to that, because on research your copied and pasted posts either don’t exist or are years old.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    Overdoing the hyperbole a wee bit John.

    Lookit, the bullhorn brigade seem to have latched onto climate change as their ‘ magnum opus’ for the future yet these were the lot who resisted the water strategy to the nth degree.

    Kind of makes one wonder about their commitment to any climate measures which might impact on their support base.

    Same old story, we want world class this and world class that, but we won’t put our hands in OUR pockets.

    Game is up.

    Let's address something now, many of us had been posting on the cackhanded way Irish water and the charging regime was rolled out from the beginning, the metering deal (still under investigation) to a long term buddy of the FG party, the consulting fees, laughing yoga, the bonus systems in place even when the report cards might say "must try harder", there was psnumbers needed, then they weren't, charges wouldn't be capped then they were (which made the meters a cart before the horse) - there was wastage, corruption and blatant disregard for the hard working taxpayers, and their money.

    There was also the massive distrust and resentment that developed between Gardai and citizens in some areas, not least when members of the impartial force were brought in to court to swear under oath, things that didn't happen as they claimed it did, resulting in the unprecedented steps of a judge instructing a jury to disregard their statements, as video evidence contradicted it.

    Billion squandered, and two boil notice warnings in Dublin/Meath/Kildare in as many weeks, after a billion squandered.

    The final insult arrived when an "EC" set up by the govt ultimately said, after taking a long hard look at things, that the best way forward for charges was via general taxation, or - to put it another way, via the method it had been funded already, before fg and labour tried to carve up our water services to be sold off to private entities.

    And btw, it was middle Ireland who called an end to the madness, the people who took to the streets and ignored the quangos letters and demands.

    I like how you now have become part of the 'no way we won't pay' brigade Bren, five years later and the pendulum finally swung. :D


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,126 ✭✭✭Snow Garden


    charlie14 wrote: »
    It would certainly have made it handy for privatising with a few old friends waiting in the wings

    It would have really helped if the countless hundreds of millions wasted on metering had been used to fix the infrastructure.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,641 ✭✭✭Beta Ray Bill



    Privatisation of public services is a seriously bad idea.

    It's easy to find many examples of where it went terribly. Go head, Irish Water, Trains in the UK all spring to mind without even thinking about it.
    Even when taking things from Private to Public things went better (M50 Barrier free tolling)

    Very hard to find examples of where major improvements were made after privatisation (Luas is mostly private I suppose, but it was always private, despite CIE kicking and screaming).

    Private = Profit Driven
    Public = Service Driven


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,565 ✭✭✭K.Flyer


    Like Irish water contract out workers from councils as far as I am aware to do the work, they don't even have their own engineers as far as I am aware (I could be wrong)

    Not wrong, council lads still do the work.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    K.Flyer wrote: »
    Not wrong, council lads still do the work.

    It wasn’t council lads who replaced the pipes here. They wouldn’t start so early or finish so late!


  • Registered Users Posts: 684 ✭✭✭Benedict


    It all comes back to the "unfairness issue". They can bring in quotas and fines and make threats 'till the cows come home. But the plan to regulate one half of users while the other half can do as they please is fatally flawed and cannot work so their next step should be to stop pretending that the rules and penalties will apply equally to metered and non-metered homes. Because the dogs in the streets know that this is not the case.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,565 ✭✭✭K.Flyer


    It wasn’t council lads who replaced the pipes here. They wouldn’t start so early or finish so late!

    On large scale infrastructure installations you will find its tendered out to civil engineering companies.
    The tender is in, price is fixed, the quicker they get done the better their profit.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Benedict wrote: »
    It all comes back to the "unfairness issue". They can bring in quotas and fines and make threats 'till the cows come home. But the plan to regulate one half of users while the other half can do as they please is fatally flawed and cannot work so their next step should be to stop pretending that the rules and penalties will apply equally to metered and non-metered homes. Because the dogs in the streets know that this is not the case.

    There is no unfairness issue only in your mind. If I lived in an unmetered area, do you think that I’d pay for my neighbors wastefulness? No Siree. I’d have a meter in immediately. People aren’t fools. They’re not going to pay someone else’s utility bills.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,565 ✭✭✭K.Flyer


    Benedict wrote: »
    Is there any difference between a meter and a "flow monitoring device"?

    Surely they are basically the same thing?

    Yes and no.
    A meter can be just that, measures volume and nothing more.
    Monitoring devices can be more technical with circuitry giving data on flow rates, peak usage times, p.h. levels as well as volume etc.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,641 ✭✭✭Beta Ray Bill


    There is no unfairness issue only in your mind. If I lived in an unmetered area, do you think that I’d pay for my neighbors wastefulness? No Siree. I’d have a meter in immediately. People aren’t fools. They’re not going to pay someone else’s utility bills.

    I doubt very much they'll be able to blanket charge one area based on a few people wasting water.

    And even at that, proving that you aren't wasting water by having a meter installed doesn't prove that your neighbor (who is refusing to have a meter installed) is wasting water.


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,861 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    charlie14 wrote: »
    It would certainly have made it handy for privatising with a few old friends waiting in the wings
    .
    Wearing a bit thin there, buddy.
    charlie14 wrote: »
    Nothing to do with rhetoric dude. Just simple facts.

    The application to Eurostat to get Irish Water "off the books" stated that privatisation was the ultimate aim.


    If you wish to ignore that, and the facts bore you, that is perfectly up to you.
    Who were these “few old friends waiting in the wings’” and can you back that up?

    Or are you just horsing out pub talk.


    Ah Brendan. Time to quit when you're behind. You've gone from denying privatisation was the ultimate goal, to trying to move the goalposts as to who would benefit when your original question was answered (and as charlie points out, we all know who benefitted during the initial rollout so you're just digging deeper).

    It's OK to acknowledge when you're wrong you know. People even respect you for it.

    Maybe stick to the "Middle Ireland won't be stiffed again" line.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,126 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    There is no unfairness issue only in your mind. If I lived in an unmetered area, do you think that I’d pay for my neighbors wastefulness? No Siree. I’d have a meter in immediately. People aren’t fools. They’re not going to pay someone else’s utility bills.


    Genuine question.
    If you were unmetered why would you want a meter installed because you suspect some neighbour is exceeding their allocation :confused:



    In an area of hundreds if not thousands of unmetered households what exactly do you think your single meter is going to achieve :confused:


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,888 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    charlie14 wrote: »
    Nothing to do with rhetoric dude. Just simple facts.

    The application to Eurostat to get Irish Water "off the books" stated that privatisation was the ultimate aim.


    If you wish to ignore that, and the facts bore you, that is perfectly up to you.

    The bit in bold is one of the most persistent of the many lies told by the anti-water charges campaign.

    The reference to privatisation was in an EU letter seeking clarification of certain points in the government's submission. Privatisation was not in the application to Eurostat and in the response to the EU query, it was made clear that it wasn't the ultimate aim.

    Still, doesn't prevent people posting up urban legends.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 684 ✭✭✭Benedict


    K.Flyer wrote: »
    Yes and no.
    A meter can be just that, measures volume and nothing more.
    Monitoring devices can be more technical with circuitry giving data on flow rates, peak usage times, p.h. levels as well as volume etc.


    I assume that the volume is all that IW would be interested in? But you say that other info would be logged also with a "flow meter"? Such as flow rate?
    So it would tell them not just that you've used 100 liters yesterday but the rate at which the water was coming through the pipe.

    Surely this would be much more expensive - and all to gather info that would be no use to them?


Advertisement