Water charges for excessive usage

Plumbthedepths

Wonder those anyone know the difference between a referendum and a plebiscite. I ask because an ardent supporter of the charges regime claimed on the IW threads that there was no difference.

charlie14

Deleted User wrote: »

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

So we have the lads from the council moved over to Irish Water in numbers we have been told are surplus to requirements plus Irish Water`s on staff added on top and we are paying private contractors to do the work.
Only in the world of Irish Water does that make any economic sense.


A lad who is in charge of the public water system on one of the off shore islands recently told me that the County Council had a JCB on the island doing some work. He needed some water related excavation done. Phones Irish Water explained the story and said "If ye have a word with the council the JCB they have here can do it in a few hours"

Was told, no leave it we will do it ourselves. Two weeks later four lads from Irish Water arrived with shovels and spent three days doing the job.


Irish Water efficiency and value for money in a nutshell.

charlie14

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Wonder those anyone know the difference between a referendum and a plebiscite. I ask because an ardent supporter of the charges regime claimed on the IW threads that there was no difference.

A referendum is binding a plebiscite is not. It is only advisory.

There is no obligation on a government to act on the result of a plebiscite.

Plumbthedepths

charlie14 wrote: »

A referendum is binding a plebiscite is not. It is only advisory.

There is no obligation on a government to act on the result of a plebiscite.

Thought that too, just that the poster in question liked to present themselves as very knowledgeable of the constitution. Wouldn't be the first time someone was defrocked as a spoofer.

K.Flyer

Benedict wrote: »

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?

Just to clarify one thing, Both devices need access to a section of water pipe to achieve results.
To answer your question, Yes, I.W. are really only interested in volume usage / leaks. I was just showing the typical differences between the two terms.

Snow Garden

blanch152 wrote: »

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.

Hold on blanch...the Fine Gael minister who helped set up Irish Water thought privatisation was the ultimate goal. He said as much in the Dail (see my earlier post).

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/odowd-my-proposal-to-ban-irish-water-privatisation-was-deleted-654080.html

The minister who set up Irish Water has said there are "forces" within the Department of the Environment who want to privatise the water network.

Fergus O'Dowd said there was good reason to be concerned about the possibility of Irish Water being sold to private hands.

The Fine Gael TD made his comments in the Dáil in the early hours of the morning, as TDs debated the Water Services Bill.

"We have reason to be concerned," he said. "I am convinced there are other forces at work here - not necessarily political forces - that are active and they do have an influence."

He said he wanted a ban on privatisation to be included in previous legislation, but that proposal was deleted.

Why are you pro-FGers blind to this stuff?? Are you calling O'Dowd a liar?

charlie14

charlie14 wrote: »

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



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

It would show whether or not I was exceeding the quota thereby ensuring that I only pay for my own wastefullness

Benedict

K.Flyer wrote: »

Just to clarify one thing, Both devices need access to a section of water pipe to achieve results.
To answer your question, Yes, I.W. are really only interested in volume usage / leaks. I was just showing the typical differences between the two terms.

IW have said that if you are a "suspect" without a meter, they will offer you a meter and if that is not possible, they'll put a "flow measuring device" at your home.


A meter would cost you over 3k - so it sound like the FLD would cost a lot more because it is much more high-tech (even measuring Ph.)


Anyway, if you said no to a meter, you'd hardly allow them to put in a FMD.

charlie14

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Thought that too, just that the poster in question liked to present themselves as very knowledgeable of the constitution. Wouldn't be the first time someone was defrocked as a spoofer.

From being on the original mega threads I can stab a good guess at who that may be.
Still turns up here time to time. Still tends to run away when presented with facts.

Plumbthedepths

charlie14 wrote: »

From being on the original mega threads I can stab a good guess at who that may be.
Still turns up here time to time. Still tends to run away when presented with facts.

I know he does and he behaves in the same manner on other threads. Yeah facts are not his friend, anyway sorry for going off topic.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

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.

Back to this are we.
The C.S.O. on behalf of the then Government applied to Eurostat to take Irish Water off the books.


In reply to that letter Eurostat had a query :


"From an initial reading of letter, I have a query about the sentence on privatisation at the end of the third paragraph on page 3.
While privatisation of Irish Water is ultimately envisaged,......."

The C.S.O. responded asking for the sentence to be removed.

The bit in bold is what was in the Irish submission to Eurostat. No urban legend, lies or anything other that a very uncomfortable truth for those that would like it, (similar to the then Irish government from the C.S.O. reply). just disappear from view.

K.Flyer

Benedict wrote: »

IW have said that if you are a "suspect" without a meter, they will offer you a meter and if that is not possible, they'll put a "flow measuring device" at your home.


A meter would cost you over 3k - so it sound like the FLD would cost a lot more because it is much more high-tech (even measuring Ph.)


Anyway, if you said no to a meter, you'd hardly allow them to put in a FMD.

This is something I said in earlier posts, the cost of one-off metering is well in excess of their proposed fines, irrespective of which device they use. So far as I am aware, they cannot fit anything on your property without your permission, so the only option for them is to dig up the path.

Brendan Bendar

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

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.

I’m afraid you have misunderestimated me John.

I won’t be paying unless and until the billing regime is fair and equitable.

Unlike yourself, and I do accept that an almighty bollox was made of IW,but I haven’t the blind faith in the Local Authorities to produce anything either on time or in an efficient cost effective manner.

John, I have seen way too much of those semi states, councils, public service and other state bodies to have any faith in them,and to trust them to reform the water system here.

How was it allowed to get so outdated and dilapidated in the first place John.

Who was in charge then.

You see folk who champion ‘general taxation’ as the bullhorn leaders blared out were well aware that this would impact only very slightly on their core support base.

It was when the unit came to outside Their Door :eek:jaaaysus what’s this lads, that the trouble began.

Don’t think that the Brenner didn’t know what was going on John, no sign of any Pauline conversion here, bro.

charlie14

Deleted User wrote: »

It would show whether or not I was exceeding the quota thereby ensuring that I only pay for my own wastefullness

My own fault.



I should know you well enough by now not to expect anything other than waffle along the lines of " everyone ask Irish Water for a meter" when asking what relevance you getting a meter had to a neighbour perhaps over using in an unmetered area.

charlie14

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

I’m afraid you have misunderestimated me John.

I won’t be paying unless and until the billing regime is fair and equitable.

Unlike yourself, and I do accept that an almighty bollox was made of IW,but I haven’t the blind faith in the Local Authorities to produce anything either on time or in an efficient cost effective manner.

John, I have seen way too much of those semi states, councils, public service and other state bodies to have any faith in them,and to trust them to reform the water system here.

How was it allowed to get so outdated and dilapidated in the first place John.

Who was in charge then.

You see folk who champion ‘general taxation’ as the bullhorn leaders blared out were well aware that this would impact only very slightly on their core support base.

It was when the unit came to outside Their Door :eek:jaaaysus what’s this lads, that the trouble began.

Don’t think that the Brenner didn’t know what was going on John, no sign of any Pauline conversion here, bro.

If it`s a fair, equitable and efficient service you are looking for then you are going to have to look for an entity other than this Irish Water metering fiasco waste of money.
It has shown itself time after time to not have even a nodding acquaintance with any of those criteria.

Benedict

K.Flyer wrote: »

This is something I said in earlier posts, the cost of one-off metering is well in excess of their proposed fines, irrespective of which device they use. So far as I am aware, they cannot fit anything on your property without your permission, so the only option for them is to dig up the path.

I appreciate that of course, I'm just underlining the fact that IW announcing that if you're a "suspect" and still refuse a meter they saddle you with a FMD.


(Remember they can't find suspects and they don't do installations no more.)

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

The fools are those who believed that water infrastructure could be fixed without water charges and without an independent entity that could borrow on its own terms.

600,000 are under a boil water notice at the moment, what percentage of those were those fools?

I'm feeling like applying for a restraining order.

Complaining about something that played second fiddle to jobs for our own, laughing yoga, Denis O'Brien and water meters is pointless.
More than IW would generate was going to be needed spent on the quango. You know this.
Repairing water infrastructure might have been a side effect of the quango.

Benedict

If the public have to be asked to pay water charges then so be it. But for goodness sake don't set up a system which saddles one half of the community with quotas and fines and gives the other half a free pass.

As if that isn't bad enough, they decide to pretend that the non-metered half will not be getting a free pass when everyone knows (including IW) that that is not true.

Brendan Bendar

Benedict wrote: »

If the public have to be asked to pay water charges then so be it. But for goodness sake don't set up a system which saddles one half of the community with quotas and fines and gives the other half a free pass.

As if that isn't bad enough, they decide to pretend that the non-metered half will not be getting a free pass when everyone knows (including IW) that that is not true.

Meter one..... meter all.

One pays....all pay

Level playing field.. no two tier system

Won’t be stiffed twice.

is_that_so

Just going to drop this in here. It has some pertinent information about IW and the general state of play with the network and LAs.
https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/richard-curran-water-debate-comes-to-the-boil-as-ageing-network-creaks-38668580.html

Brendan Bendar

is_that_so wrote: »

Just going to drop this in here. It has some pertinent information about IW and the general state of play with the network and LAs.
https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/richard-curran-water-debate-comes-to-the-boil-as-ageing-network-creaks-38668580.html

Excellent post and article.

Confirms everything both myself and a few others have been saying over this long thread.

This is only the start of Dublin’s water problems, I feel.

But of course the ‘bullhorn brigade’ will try to shift the blame away from themselves.

Topgear on Dave

Benedict wrote: »

If the public have to be asked to pay water charges then so be it. But for goodness sake don't set up a system which saddles one half of the community with quotas and fines and gives the other half a free pass.

It's been like this for years for rural people.

gormdubhgorm

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

It's been like this for years for rural people.

I have lots of country relations so I realise this.
But when I mentioned that some rural people have water tax, to the 'no water tax Dublin brigade' I was met with stoney silence.

gormdubhgorm

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I have lots of country relations so I realise this.
But when I mentioned that some rural people have water tax, to the 'no water tax Dublin brigade' I was met with stoney silence.

As a lifelong country dweller, I’m well used to having to pay to have my septic tank serviced. Some family members have their own water supply or are part of a group water scheme. You know, one of those schemes set up by people looking after themselves. It’s one of the deals that goes with country living. It’s only in recent years that we have a bin collection. Before that we had to take our rubbish to the tip.

Benedict

is_that_so wrote: »

Just going to drop this in here. It has some pertinent information about IW and the general state of play with the network and LAs.
https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/richard-curran-water-debate-comes-to-the-boil-as-ageing-network-creaks-38668580.html

Read this paragraph from Curran's article:
"But back to this week's water problems and how seriously we should take them. The first thing to bear in mind is domestic water users do not pay specifically for their water in Dublin (only excessive use), but businesses do."


Like so many others, Mr. Curran talks about "domestic water users" paying for "only excessive use".


Mr. Curran? If you're reading this please note that you really should be aware (and I'm surprised you're not aware) that "domestic water users" with no meter don't even pay for excessive use.

McMurphy

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

It's been like this for years for rural people.

Probably why they're entitled to an annual subsistence payment from the state.

Johnny Dogs

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Probably why they're entitled to an annual subsistence payment from the state.

Tell me more about this payment and where I can claim it?

Plumbthedepths

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Tell me more about this payment and where I can claim it?

Group water schemes get a state grant, private well owners can also avail of grants. You were a big contributor on the megathreads where said grants were mentioned multiple times and it's only now you are aware of them because of Johnny? lol.

Plumbthedepths

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Group water schemes get a state grant, private well owners can also avail of grants. You were a big contributor on the megathreads where said grants were mentioned multiple times and it's only now you are aware of them because of Johnny? lol.

I don’t think any grants were available at the time they drilled their wells, some 50odd years plus ago.
Grants are available for new systems, but only if your house is over a certain age. So, if you’re building a new house, you aren’t eligible.
There were no grants available when I had a septic tank installed 40 years ago.
The poster seemed to be inferring that rural dwellers get annual grants. We don’t.

Plumbthedepths

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don’t think any grants were available at the time they drilled their wells, some 50odd years plus ago.
Grants are available for new systems, but only if your house is over a certain age. So, if you’re building a new house, you aren’t eligible.
There were no grants available when I had a septic tank installed 40 years ago.
The poster seemed to be inferring that rural dwellers get annual grants. We don’t.

Rural dwellers linked to a group scheme are benefitting from grants in place and other rural dwellers can avail of grants linked to Wells. So in effect he was correct you want specifics you should ask.
As an aside had the charges been universally accepted those on a group scheme would have enjoyed prehaps the cheapest charges in the state.