Water charges for excessive usage

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

I call Gerry Adams, Gerry, so does that mean I like him as much as Maria. I call Leo, Varadkar, so does that mean I rate him as highly as Murphy.

Yet on a thread of all things water charges related you had no idea that Dinny referred to Denis O`Brien and then accused others of hypocritical posts.

charlie14

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Why should metered homes have any concerns as a matter of interest?

Simple enough answer to that one Brendan.



Because if Irish Water are daft enough to send out bills for exceeding the quota, those homes will be the only ones getting them.

Brendan Bendar

charlie14 wrote: »

Simple enough answer to that one Brendan.



Because if Irish Water are daft enough to send out bills for exceeding the quota, those homes will be the only ones getting them.

Thanks for that Cha, handy for starting the fire , ta ta.

X111111111111

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Why should metered homes have any concerns as a matter of interest?

Middle Ireland will not be hoodwinked by any flim flam from any Govt.

A fair legal system for all or no system, it’s that simple.

There is No Way any metered home can legally be charged for water usage while others can use what ever amount they like.

It will be challenged ab initio and rejected.

Just won’t happen, make no mistake about that.

Even a Govt as inept and accident prone as this one, understands that, and if they don’t they soon will.

Middle Ireland will do what they've always done keep their heads down, keep working, pay the water charges and keep voting FFG. They get everything they deserve.

McMurphy

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Why should metered homes have any concerns as a matter of interest?

Middle Ireland will not be hoodwinked by any flim flam from any Govt.

A fair legal system for all or no system, it’s that simple.

There is No Way any metered home can legally be charged for water usage while others can use what ever amount they like.

It will be challenged ab initio and rejected.

Just won’t happen, make no mistake about that.

Even a Govt as inept and accident prone as this one, understands that, and if they don’t they soon will.

Funny you should say that Brenner, because I seem to recall fg and labour planning to send bills to everyone on the public supply, metered or not from day one.

Are you suggesting the plan was legally flawed from the start ?

Brendan Bendar

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Funny you should say that Brenner, because I seem to recall fg and labour planning to send bills to everyone on the public supply, metered or not from day one.

Are you suggesting the plan was legally flawed from the start ?

Can not recall that John, what would they have been billed for, can you recall?

Was it a kind of standard charge or something. Must check my records on that John.

The issue I’m grappling with right now,John, is the idea of billing folk with meters for over use whilst ignoring those without.

I’m suggesting that that might well be subject to legal challenge.

McMurphy

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Can not recall that John, what would they have been billed for, can you recall?

Was it a kind of standard charge or something. Must check my records on that John.

The issue I’m grappling with right now,John, is the idea of billing folk with meters for over use whilst ignoring those without.

I’m suggesting that that might well be subject to legal challenge.

Unmetered bill
If your premises doesn’t have a meter you receive unmetered bills. Our Understand your bill page contains information about unmetered bills. Visit our Business charges page for information on unmetered water charges. We bill all customers based on previous usage.

From Irish Water website https://www.water.ie/for-business/billing-explained/

And let's not forget those in apartments who were never going to be metered.

Brendan Bendar

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

From Irish Water website https://www.water.ie/for-business/billing-explained/

And let's not forget those in apartments who were never going to be metered.

Thanks a tousend John, now that seems to be business premises related.

I was more referring to today’s situation and to domestic dwellings only.

I was suggesting that in that situation as has been said it would be difficult to square the circle regards charging metered and unmetered dwellings.

The Brenner would not be ponying up a plugged nickel, if Fintan two estates away was untouched just because he jumped into a hole and started taking pictures.

I think we can all agree that that one is going nowhere.

McMurphy

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Thanks a tousend John, now that seems to be business premises related.

I was more referring to today’s situation and to domestic dwellings only.

I was suggesting that in that situation as has been said it would be difficult to square the circle regards charging metered and unmetered dwellings.

The Brenner would not be ponying up a plugged nickel, if Fintan two estates away was untouched just because he jumped into a hole and started taking pictures.

I think we can all agree that that one is going nowhere.

Sorry Bren, you're bang on, that link was indeed business related, but it was the exact same thing for private dwellings back in the day, specifically (and an easy one to show) apartments that Irish water said would never be metered.

I'll get a link for residential premises in a bit for you,

Brendan Bendar

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Sorry Bren, you're bang on, that link was indeed business related, but it was the exact same thing for private dwellings back in the day, specifically (and an easy one to show) apartments that Irish water said would never be metered.

I'll get a link for residential premises in a bit for you,

No worries John, don’t use too much of your valuable time.

It’s really from now on is the issue.

There was a huge delivery cock up with the set up, that’s a given.

Bit similar to the asylum seekers accommodation, you gotta bring the taxpaying public along with you,the people with skin in the game.

I think this Govt, given the cumulative cock ups they ‘masterminded’ need to take a good rest in early May.

Benedict

If the only homes with no meter were the homes which actively prevented installation, then IW could punish them by billing them for the maximum excessive use charge. What has really prevented that from happening is that many homes were willing to accept meters but IW took their ball and walked off the pitch and they never came back. Also, what about all the apartments who could argue that they never refused and would love a meter.

IW have really placed themselves firmly behind the black-ball.

charlie14

Benedict wrote: »

If the only homes with no meter were the homes which actively prevented installation, then IW could punish them by billing them for the maximum excessive use charge. What has really prevented that from happening is that many homes were willing to accept meters but IW took their ball and walked off the pitch and they never came back. Also, what about all the apartments who could argue that they never refused and would love a meter.

IW have really placed themselves firmly behind the black-ball.

I doubt Dinny`s lads would have been run off their feet with demands from households and apartments for water meters that came with an excess usage allocation of 30,000 liters.

Benedict

charlie14 wrote: »

I doubt Dinny`s lads would have been run off their feet with demands from households and apartments for water meters that came with an excess usage allocation of 30,000 liters.

Yes, but if everyone had been offered a meter, then IW could say to them look, you refused a meter so we are entitled to assume you're using the maximum amount and it's your own fault. But the way it is now, No 157 Anywhere Road can say "Hey! I never refused a meter you just never gave me one"


They really have snookered themselves!

ELM327

I don't understand why this couldnt have been like any other utility,
No billing until every and all installation had a meter. Then bill for actual use.

Benedict

ELM327 wrote: »

I don't understand why this couldnt have been like any other utility,
No billing until every and all installation had a meter. Then bill for actual use.

Quitting installations was a critical error for IW to make because it has meant that a vast number of homes have been left without a meter through no fault of their own. So not only do they escape excess usage charges - but it's through no fault of their own so they can't be penalised.


It's really difficult to see how IW can fix this situation without beginning all over again.

ELM327

Benedict wrote: »

Quitting installations was a critical error for IW to make because it has meant that a vast number of homes have been left without a meter through no fault of their own. So not only do they escape excess usage charges - but it's through no fault of their own so they can't be penalised.


It's really difficult to see how IW can fix this situation without beginning all over again.

While I was against Irish Water as an institution, I'm actually in favour of water charges, I can't believe we don't have them.
But now it's a political hot potato it won't be touched for 10-15 years minimum.


If we can install water meters at every installation and the option is meter or no water (same as gas, electricity etc) then you'll find the rentamob won't be able to protest as much.

Brendan Bendar

ELM327 wrote: »

I don't understand why this couldnt have been like any other utility,
No billing until every and all installation had a meter. Then bill for actual use.

Again if memory serves me correctly that was kind of the original plan.

Big Phil threatened non compliant users the he would ‘turn it to a trickle’

and that raised hackles everywhere.

What happened after that was a litany of errors and cock ups and ensured that IW as is said is now firmly behind the 8 ball.

The whole operation was handled very badly.

McMurphy

ELM327 wrote: »

While I was against Irish Water as an institution, I'm actually in favour of water charges, I can't believe we don't have them.
But now it's a political hot potato it won't be touched for 10-15 years minimum.


If we can install water meters at every installation and the option is meter or no water (same as gas, electricity etc) then you'll find the rentamob won't be able to protest as much.

There's that word again.

The problem you have with trying to label people who wouldn't entertain the ham fisted attempt at the shambles they tried to force on them as "rentamobs" - many, many of the people who wouldn't entertain it were actual middle Ireland, people who FG relied on their votes.

Ask Noonan if you don't believe me, he couldn't get their refunds to them quick enough.

ELM327

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

There's that word again.

The problem you have with trying to label people who wouldn't entertain the ham fisted attempt at the shambles they tried to force on them as "rentamobs" - many, many of the people who wouldn't entertain it were actual middle Ireland, people who FG relied on their votes.

Ask Noonan if you don't believe me, he couldn't get their refunds to them quick enough.

rentamob is a derogatory term used to people who seem to have nothing better to do than attend every protest going.


I was actually against IW and didnt pay.

Benedict

IW has stated that they will begin sending out letters in the 3rd quarter of 2019 (now history) to warn them if they were using excess amounts. My reading of the threat is that if these water-abusers do not mend their ways, they will ultimately be charged for the excess used in 2019 - but if they mend their ways, the bill will be torn up.

Does that mean that anyone who hasn't had a warning letter is not using too much and can carry on as before?

I doubt very much if anyone has received a letter - but I don't know this of course.

Making idle threats would only make the whole thing look even more dumb (if that's possible).

ELM327

Benedict wrote: »

IW has stated that they will begin sending out letters in the 3rd quarter of 2019 (now history) to warn them if they were using excess amounts. My reading of the threat is that if these water-abusers do not mend their ways, they will ultimately be charged for the excess used in 2019 - but if they mend their ways, the bill will be torn up.

Does that mean that anyone who hasn't had a warning letter is not using too much and can carry on as before?

I doubt very much if anyone has received a letter - but I don't know this of course.

Making idle threats would only make the whole thing look even more dumb (if that's possible).

I think they wouldnt dare challenge people with charges, especially not until anyone who wants a meter has one

charlie14

Benedict wrote: »

Yes, but if everyone had been offered a meter, then IW could say to them look, you refused a meter so we are entitled to assume you're using the maximum amount and it's your own fault. But the way it is now, No 157 Anywhere Road can say "Hey! I never refused a meter you just never gave me one"


They really have snookered themselves!

I cannot see where it would make any difference as regards the number of non-metered households that Irish Water cannot now bill for exceeding their allocation.
In fact it would have more than likely increased the number if households had been given a choice.


Around 50% refused to "engage" with Irish Water, so safe to assume they did not want a meter. Plus I very much doubt of all of those metered if asked would have been happy to have one, so had they gone with that plan then the amount of households metered would now be significantly lower imo.

Benedict

charlie14 wrote: »

I cannot see where it would make any difference as regards the number of non-metered households that Irish Water cannot now bill for exceeding their allocation.
In fact it would have more than likely increased the number if households had been given a choice.


Around 50% refused to "engage" with Irish Water, so safe to assume they did not want a meter. Plus I very much doubt of all of those metered if asked would have been happy to have one, so had they gone with that plan then the amount of households metered would now be significantly lower imo.

But if they had been told you're getting a meter but if you refuse and obstruct the installation, then we'll charge you X amount so it would be worth your while to take a meter. Then most homes would have accepted a meter. But instead, they just stopped installations. For example new builds don't have a meter and there is nobody living there 'till they're sold.


Nobody knows why they stopped installations.

charlie14

Benedict wrote: »

But if they had been told you're getting a meter but if you refuse and obstruct the installation, then we'll charge you X amount so it would be worth your while to take a meter. Then most homes would have accepted a meter. But instead, they just stopped installations. For example new builds don't have a meter and there is nobody living there 'till they're sold.


Nobody knows why they stopped installations.

That would not have decreased the numbers refusing to have anything to do with Irish Water and charging people for refusing to do so, (even if they had a way of doing so), would have created even more negative feelings than Hogan`s "trickle".
Can you imagine the social disorder surrounding court cases prosecuting those that refused. It would have been mayhem.


They stopped installations because the public showed at the polling booth they didn`t want metering by decimating Labour and leaving FG needing a confidence and supply agreement from a party that opposed the fiasco.

Benedict

charlie14 wrote: »

That would not have decreased the numbers refusing to have anything to do with Irish Water and charging people for refusing to do so, (even if they had a way of doing so), would have created even more negative feelings than Hogan`s "trickle".
Can you imagine the social disorder surrounding court cases prosecuting those that refused. It would have been mayhem.


They stopped installations because the public showed at the polling booth they didn`t want metering by decimating Labour and leaving FG needing a confidence and supply agreement from a party that opposed the fiasco.

I don't think you're correct there. If the installers had arrived at every front door and put in a meter unless they were prevented, and those who prevented them were fined, that would be a fair system. If the public perceived the system as fair, then most would pay. They might not like it (who likes bills?) but they'd pay.


It's the gross unfairness of the current plan that's getting people's backs up.

Brendan Bendar

charlie14 wrote: »

That would not have decreased the numbers refusing to have anything to do with Irish Water and charging people for refusing to do so, (even if they had a way of doing so), would have created even more negative feelings than Hogan`s "trickle".
Can you imagine the social disorder surrounding court cases prosecuting those that refused. It would have been mayhem.


They stopped installations because the public showed at the polling booth they didn`t want metering by decimating Labour and leaving FG needing a confidence and supply agreement from a party that opposed the fiasco.

Hmmmm... while you may have an element of truth in that statement,Cha, I think you are a wee bit off kilter by implying that water charges played that big a part at the polling booths.

Yes, they were a factor but not really not that big I would suggest.

I have seen the main ‘activists’ operating at several points quite diverse in my area, and there was a lot of the same faces at the same engagement point, far removed from their home base.

Quite entitled to protest legally of course, but my experience looking at those involved in ‘picket lines’ and listening to their output ,and watching their activities,would lead me to believe that political action against certain parties at the polling booths,was not big on their agenda.

Labour perhaps, but generally from what I saw most of the ‘meter action protesters’ at the frontline on the footpaths didn’t seem to me to be over familiar with polling booths.

Just my observation...could be wrong

charlie14

Benedict wrote: »

I don't think you're correct there. If the installers had arrived at every front door and put in a meter unless they were prevented, and those who prevented them were fined, that would be a fair system. If the public perceived the system as fair, then most would pay. They might not like it (who likes bills?) but they'd pay.


It's the gross unfairness of the current plan that's getting people's backs up.

People didn`t see much about the original set up as fair. That is what ultimately killed it.
They were hardly going to change their minds on its fairness by being compelled to either accept a meter or end up in court for not paying a fine.
Dumb and all as FG were, at least they had enough cop on not to make a bad situation worse by prosecuting households for not paying water charges.

To prosecute people for not accepting meters would have been a whole other world of dumb for even them.

charlie14

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Hmmmm... while you may have an element of truth in that statement,Cha, I think you are a wee bit off kilter by implying that water charges played that big a part at the polling booths.

Yes, they were a factor but not really not that big I would suggest.

I have seen the main ‘activists’ operating at several points quite diverse in my area, and there was a lot of the same faces at the same engagement point, far removed from their home base.

Quite entitled to protest legally of course, but my experience looking at those involved in ‘picket lines’ and listening to their output ,and watching their activities,would lead me to believe that political action against certain parties at the polling booths,was not big on their agenda.

Labour perhaps, but generally from what I saw most of the ‘meter action protesters’ at the frontline on the footpaths didn’t seem to me to be over familiar with polling booths.

Just my observation...could be wrong

The usual people protesting is something pro supporters were always at pains to point out.
Problem with that is they always failed to note the people who were marching in the protests. FG did not but still got it wrong.


They saw their own voters out, middle Ireland if you like, and panicked making a bad situation worse by coming up with the ludicrous "conservation grant" that was not even a kissing cousin too conservation.


We could debate what effect water charges had at the polling both, but fair to assume that much of the damage inflicted on Labour was due to their lies on water charges in the run up to the 2011 GE.
I would not find it a particularly long stretch to believe that the FG lies prior to GE 2011 also cost them votes that left them in a minority government.

Brendan Bendar

charlie14 wrote: »

The usual people protesting is something pro supporters were always at pains to point out.
Problem with that is they always failed to note the people who were marching in the protests. FG did not but still got it wrong.


They saw their own voters out, middle Ireland if you like, and panicked making a bad situation worse by coming up with the ludicrous "conservation grant" that was not even a kissing cousin too conservation.


We could debate what effect water charges had at the polling both, but fair to assume that much of the damage inflicted on Labour was due to their lies on water charges in the run up to the 2011 GE.
I would not find it a particularly long stretch to believe that the FG lies prior to GE 2011 also cost them votes that left them in a minority government.

“Lies” there's that auld hoary well used terminology from the PBP manual.

Where did stuff spring from, Cha.

Plumbthedepths

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

“Lies” there's that auld hoary well used terminology from the PBP manual.

Where did stuff spring from, Cha.

https://www.labour.ie/emmetstagg/news/127231783317196123.html
This prehaps?