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
Septic tank charges
Options
Comments
-
why do i have to pay 10 euro a tonne to dump my poop into the sewage works (plus licencing cost etc etc for the operator) whilst if i'm on a main then its free0
-
I expect that it just reflects the probably that it's substantially cheaper and more convenient to serve people attached to the main.ednwireland wrote: »why do i have to pay 10 euro a tonne to dump my poop into the sewage works (plus licencing cost etc etc for the operator) whilst if i'm on a main then its free0 -
GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »I expect that it just reflects the probably that it's substantially cheaper and more convenient to serve people attached to the main.
what guff me taking a slurry tankof sewage to the sewage works is cheaper than continously processing and laying pipes - give me a break. i'm outta here0 -
No, what this guy is referring to is secondary treatment of the sludge that accumulates after a few years in the tank.
So it is delivered to the treatment plant at the owners expense, and primary treatment of the waste (separation and treatment of liquid fraction) is already completed.
If you compare to the expense of maintaining mains sewers, plus the added cost of the primary treatment, you will see that, at the treatment plant, delivered sludge would be a minor expense to deal with.
The real answer to the question is that once upon a time people in towns paid a flat rate charge to cover all their services, called rates.
People outside towns covered their own misc expenses as they arose.
Then one day rates were abolished by central government, and since then any kind of services the local authorities could charge for have increased in price.
No politician is going to support the introduction of municipal service charges, although they seem quite happy to slap on random levies and registration fees. The IMF have specified water charges and a property tax be introduced, but not specific waste treatment service charges. But the EU directive mentions the "polluter pays principle" which seems to imply them.0 -
Just to be clear, I've no particular problem with local authorities raising more, or even all, of their own financing for services on whatever basis is agreed locally. But that's not going to alleviate the problem for rural dwellers (if we accept, and I'm sure we do, that septic tanks are mostly a rural issue), as they will be concentrated in the local authority areas least able to raise their own revenues....delivered sludge would be a minor expense to deal with.
The real answer to the question is that once upon a time people in towns paid a flat rate charge to cover all their services, called rates.0 -
Advertisement
-
Which problem is that? We already established that the rural householders are the only ones paying their way, in terms of sewage waste, currently.GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »that's not going to alleviate the problem for rural dwellers (if we accept, and I'm sure we do, that septic tanks are mostly a rural issue), as they will be concentrated in the local authority areas least able to raise their own revenues.0 -
Which problem is that? We already established that the rural householders are the only ones paying their way, in terms of sewage waste, currently.
Urban dwellers have paid a fairly high premium in recent years in the form of development levies adding to the cost of housing, have they not? This includes "terms of sewage"
Still waiting for examples of your townland future ghettos.0 -
Urban dwellers have paid a fairly high premium in recent years in the form of development levies adding to the cost of housing, have they not? This includes "terms of sewage"
Still waiting for examples of your townland future ghettos.
Whilst I dont have a crystal ball, its apparent from past experience that housing estates built without any social amenities such as parks, playgrounds, shops, community centres etc are going to present problems in the future due to a complete lack of the glue that helps to helps foster communities in a non tangible way.
All too often, even if a few perfunctory facilities were included in the plans, the houses, the valuable commodity, were built first, and the token amenities were either never finished, or appeared to be constructed to very basic standards.
We are well aware of areas in Limerick and Dublin for example, I neednt name them.
Many areas of urban Ireland, provincial towns included, have become in the space of a couple of generations virtually no go areas, or at the very least locales which one will avoid if at all possible.
These areas in my opinion, are only going to multiply in the coming years, perhaps thats a subject for a different thread completely..
Those decrying the rural "lifestyle" "and all that goes with it" could perhaps enlighten me as to what exactly they mean.
I have had the benefit of both lifestyles, and know which one has provided the better quality of life for me.0 -
Whilst I dont have a crystal ball, its apparent from past experience that housing estates built without any social amenities such as parks, playgrounds, shops, community centres etc are going to present problems in the future due to a complete lack of the glue that helps to helps foster communities in a non tangible way.
As opposed to miles of bungalows along busy N roads with no parks, playgrounds, shops, community centres and the like.
Where a car is mandatory and shopping involves driving for an hour.0 -
We haven’t, really. Isn’t that the point at issue? Many rural householders may need to upgrade their existing systems; Going Forward, for one, seems to acknowledge this is a strong possibility.Which problem is that? We already established that the rural householders are the only ones paying their way, in terms of sewage waste, currently.
Also, I think it’s fair to point out that the cities raise substantial sums in commercial rates. So, yes, urban householders don’t face any direct charges. But urban commercial users do. And, as a rule, it is mostly rural local authorities, like Leitrim, that need to get the biggest digout from the Local Government Fund. For the sake for argument, if Dublin was allowed to retain all its motor tax receipts, the city would probably be self-financing.
Now, I don’t particularly want to let the thread spin into another urban/rural bunfight. But I do think that the full context needs to be acknowledged. When they run out of arguments, there’s a tendancy for some to just take a blind swipe at the urban. Speaking of which.
You are making massive, unwarranted, assumptions about life in the new estates. Tbh, I sometimes wonder if it’s fear of community and social interaction that drives people into building a bungalow in some random field, as if showering in water contaminated by your neighbour’s septic tank promotes bonding at some particularly deep level.Going Forward wrote: »…. a complete lack of the glue that helps to helps foster communities in a non tangible way.
0 -
Advertisement
-
Developers/owners of one-off houses also pay the development levies.Urban dwellers have paid a fairly high premium in recent years in the form of development levies adding to the cost of housing, have they not? This includes "terms of sewage"GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »We haven’t, really. Isn’t that the point at issue? Many rural householders may need to upgrade their existing systems; Going Forward, for one, seems to acknowledge this is a strong possibility.
Will you admit that rural householders have paid all their own costs up-front so far, and in addition, the one off development levy payments since they were introduced?
And that urban dwellers have paid nothing, except, indirectly, the development levies which might go in some small way towards building their mains infastructure for street lighting, sewer pipes etc.
Now your argument seems to shift towards the probability that some rural dwellers will find that their systems need upgrading, the possibility that some will be unwilling or unable to pay for that, and then the assumption that someone else (urban dwellers) will end up paying for them.
Is that your argument? If so, its just conjecture. Those would be political decisions, and they have not been made AFAIK.
Also, I think it’s fair to point out that the cities raise substantial sums in commercial rates....urban householders don’t face any direct charges. But urban commercial users do
Not this old excuse again. You might as well say that you don't want to pay any income tax because there's a rich guy living down the road who pays plenty already.
If a factory sets up in a rural area, do you think they take on the household maintenance bills of everyone living in the locality?
Its actually a big problem that SME businesses are being squeezed so hard in towns, because the town councils have to compensate for the domestic users of services. When they are forced out of business, nobody gains.
We're not talking about road tax. If you pay road tax in Dublin you are free to drive through the roads of Leitrim. A Leitrim person paying road tax can drive in Dublin. In other words, we all pay to have a network.So, yes, . if Dublin was allowed to retain all its motor tax receipts, the city would probably be self-financing.0 -
We're not talking about road tax. If you pay road tax in Dublin you are free to drive through the roads of Leitrim. A Leitrim person paying road tax can drive in Dublin. In other words, we all pay to have a network.
If you live at the end of a half mile driveway do you feel that paying road tax should mean the local CC should tarmac your drive?0 -
I don't see what I can add to what I've already said. The present situation is we're facing one of the predicted problems caused by having a huge proportion of housing scattered about the countryside for no good reason.Will you admit that rural householders have paid all their own costs up-front so far, and in addition, the one off development levy payments since they were introduced?
I haven't shifted any argument, in particular. I've just alerted you to the views of Going Forward. Feel free to direct any comments you have at his post.Now your argument seems to shift towards the probability that some rural dwellers will find that their systems need upgrading, the possibility that some will be unwilling or unable to pay for that, and then the assumption that someone else (urban dwellers) will end up paying for them.
Well, no, as I'm not making a case against local authorities raising their finances by charges or whatever means they find appropriate. I'm pointing out that this won't help the bulk of rural-dwelling domestic septic tank owners, as they tend to live in the local authorities least capable of raising their own funds.Not this old excuse again. You might as well say that you don't want to pay any income tax because there's a rich guy living down the road who pays plenty already.
But motor tax is, in practice, just a form of local government finance. I think the most that was said, when the Local Government Fund was first established, was that the motor tax proceeds would be used 'primarily' for local roads. But certainly not exclusively.We're not talking about road tax. If you pay road tax in Dublin you are free to drive through the roads of Leitrim. A Leitrim person paying road tax can drive in Dublin. In other words, we all pay to have a network.
Now, I'm not suggesting there's anything magic about motor tax. I'm simply observing that there's probably already enough financed raised within the local government system in Dublin to fund the city. That's just a necessary comment on the context; and it's not me saying that urban householders shouldn't pay charges. It's just to bring balance to the discussion; many urban householders live in areas where local government is able to raise substantial funding, so the need for charging is less critical.
I'm not making any extreme statements in that, so please don't respond as if I have with something like "Oh, so you're saying commercial ratepayers should carry all the costs." No, I'm not. I'm saying exactly what I've just said.0 -
Not if its private.If you live at the end of a half mile driveway do you feel that paying road tax should mean the local CC should tarmac your drive?
With respect, you're a bit vague about what you are saying, but most of your posts seem to imply that septic tanks are, in and of themselves, "a bad thing" and have cost, or will end up costing, everyone else money. But no evidence for either of these assumptions has been demonstrated.GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »I don't see what I can add to what I've already said. The present situation is we're facing one of the predicted problems caused by having a huge proportion of housing scattered about the countryside for no good reason.
Roads are completely different, because cars are mobile, unlike sewage systems.
Without every road being tolled, you cannot say exactly which bits of road you use, or which bits you will never use.
IMO it would be better to follow the "polluter pays" principle and scrap road tax altogether, levying the fuel instead. But that's a debate for another day.0 -
Not if its private.
So the network that you have paid for has to end somewhere then. Choosing to live isolated from your neighbours has a consequence, if you do not expect your driveway tarmaced, why should your shite be cosseted along miles of personal sewer at taxpayers expense?
Maintain your own drive and waste treatment then.
Does that not make sense?0 -
But, as I've said, I'm not really the guy you need to challenge on that. Why not challenge Going Forward, who says he feels opposition is fueled by people who fear their tanks are not compliant, and who want to bury the problem. Here, I'll link the post for youWith respect, you're a bit vague about what you are saying, but most of your posts seem to imply that septic tanks are, in and of themselves, "a bad thing" and have cost, or will end up costing, everyone else money. But no evidence for either of these assumptions has been demonstrated.
Get back to us when you're both on the same page.Going Forward wrote: »<...> homeowners may well [typo corrected] have septic tank systems which through no fault of their own may not be compliant and will need to be rectified, and they will be left footing the bill for any work which may be required-work which they originally paid for in good faith.<...>
The main resistance to registering in my opinion is mainly down to a fear of being told that a system will now require work which the owner cannot afford, and the perception that the fee is another stealth tax.<...>.
You're not actually addressing anything I've said - I pointed out the that the motor tax is not exclusively a tax for roads. Proceeds collected by each local authority are paid into a national fund, from which it is redistributed to local authorities (along with some Central Government money) for local services. When this fund, the Local Government Fund, was established all that was said was the motor tax receipts paid into it would be "primarily" used for local roads; but (and I'm just repeating what I've already explained) "primarily" doesn#t mean exclusively.Roads are completely different, because cars are mobile, unlike sewage systems.
I'm not saying using motor tax money in this way is good, bad or indifferent. I'm just saying it isn't used exclusively for local roads and, for that matter, never has been.0 -
GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »But, as I've said, I'm not really the guy you need to challenge on that. Why not challenge Going Forward, who says he feels opposition is fueled by people who fear their tanks are not compliant, and who want to bury the problem. Here, I'll link the post for youGet back to us when you're both on the same page.You're not actually addressing anything I've said - I pointed out the that the motor tax is not exclusively a tax for roads. Proceeds collected by each local authority are paid into a national fund, from which it is redistributed to local authorities (along with some Central Government money) for local services. When this fund, the Local Government Fund, was established all that was said was the motor tax receipts paid into it would be "primarily" used for local roads; but (and I'm just repeating what I've already explained) "primarily" doesn#t mean exclusively.
I'm not saying using motor tax money in this way is good, bad or indifferent. I'm just saying it isn't used exclusively for local roads and, for that matter, never has been.
Rural homeowners did not contrive to arrive at some sort of magic formula for waste treatment, amounting to throwing a tank into the ground.
The local and national authorities prescribed the national standards required, upon which, planning applications and ultimately mortgage requirements were satisfied.
In the space of a few short years, the same authorities now seem to suspect that either their own guidelines or those who professionally endorsed them, may have been to a standard which is not acceptable.
I do not have a string of letters after my name, so I paid for professional advice, which I have every right to expect was correct.
I dont think comments such as washing in someone else's waste water are smart either!0 -
Grand and, if it turns out you have a problem, I'm sure you'll pursue it as far as you can with whomever you paid.Going Forward wrote: »I do not have a string of letters after my name, so I paid for professional advice, which I have every right to expect was correct.
My point is just to bring out the aspect that you courageously acknowledged - which is many people suspect they have a problem that will cost them money to rectify, and therefore don't want an inspection system to reveal this to be so. For as long as they can avoid confirmation that there's a problem, they can probably even convince themselves that they are not deliberately creating pollution.
Well, I don't think washing in someone else's waste water is smart; yet, for many, this seems to be the reality.Going Forward wrote: »I dont think comments such as washing in someone else's waste water are smart either!0 -
There should be some sort of a grant set up to help people who need work done.
I built my house in 2008 and it was good enough for the council then, but if something need to be done on inspection this time I simply can't afford it.0 -
i have paid my charges, and i do empty the tank every yr, but if they find something wrong, they can be fixing the thing, but i doubt they will, as it is cleared out once a yr, and the access to tnk is kept trimmed0
-
Advertisement
-
Funded by whom?Galwayguy35 wrote: »There should be some sort of a grant set up to help people who need work done.0 -
GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »Funded by whom?
I can see this is an urban/rural divide issue and people in towns don't seem to realise that people who built their own houses are skint as well.
Everyone seems to be on the same page about the PT but this one is different.
Noone is saying that substandard tanks shouldn't be fixed but people don't have to money to do it.
I obey the law, I paid the HHC, will pay the PT and registered for the septic tank charge but I just have no money left over after all the bills are paid.
I don't know who will fund it but I know who can't do it an that would be me.0 -
But if you can't point to a funding source, you are saying they shouldn't be fixed.Galwayguy35 wrote: »Noone is saying that substandard tanks shouldn't be fixed but people don't have to money to do it.
As for people being skint, most households don't have a mortgage. There's something like 1.5 million households; only something like 300,000 are in negative equity. And being in negative equity doesn't necessarily mean skint.
However, do I take it that no-one is really contesting that there is an issue. We've over 400,000 domestic septic tanks, installed in a culture where no-one was too bothered about whether they were correctly installed or whether the site was especially suitable.
People wanting to build were, largely, facilitated with support from local public representatives if any obstruction was encountered, so the idea that some external authority was ensuring that rules, or even commonsense, was adhered to can be safely discounted.
I'd at least like to know the size of the bill. And we won't know that until the inspections start.0 -
GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »But if you can't point to a funding source, you are saying they shouldn't be fixed.
As for people being skint, most households don't have a mortgage. There's something like 1.5 million households; only something like 300,000 are in negative equity. And being in negative equity doesn't necessarily mean skint.
However, do I take it that no-one is really contesting that there is an issue. We've over 400,000 domestic septic tanks, installed in a culture where no-one was too bothered about whether they were correctly installed or whether the site was especially suitable.
People wanting to build were, largely, facilitated with support from local public representatives if any obstruction was encountered, so the idea that some external authority was ensuring that rules, or even commonsense, was adhered to can be safely discounted.
I'd at least like to know the size of the bill. And we won't know that until the inspections start.
How do you know that most people don't have a mortgage?
The average mortgage is 25-35 years so I would hazzard a guess that most people are still paying off loans.
There are many people who had to pay huge money for a site before they even built. They assumed everything was ok but now have the worry that more work will need to be done and don't have the money to pay for it.
So if being in negative equity doesn't necessarily mean being skint then why are urban dwellers saying that they can't afford to live as they paid 250 k for a flat that is worth the price of a good car now?
Lastly no I'm not saying they shouldn't be fixed, I'm not in the Government so I don't know what way funding goes but I think some of the money they recently handed over to the bondholders would have helped out a bit.0 -
But, sure, if there's only five years left, it's hardly an issue. There's about 80,000 mortgages in arrears out of over 1.4 million households.Galwayguy35 wrote: »How do you know that most people don't have a mortgage?
The average mortgage is 25-35 years so I would hazzard a guess that most people are still paying off loans.
I've no idea, as such a statement makes no sense.Galwayguy35 wrote: »So if being in negative equity doesn't necessarily mean being skint then why are urban dwellers saying that they can't afford to live as they paid 250 k for a flat that is worth the price of a good car now?
Even if Government had money, there's no reason to devote it to this purpose.Galwayguy35 wrote: »Lastly no I'm not saying they shouldn't be fixed, I'm not in the Government so I don't know what way funding goes but I think some of the money they recently handed over to the bondholders would have helped out a bit.0 -
GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »But, sure, if there's only five years left, it's hardly an issue. There's about 80,000 mortgages in arrears out of over 1.4 million households.I've no idea, as such a statement makes no sense.Even if Government had money, there's no reason to devote it to this purpose.
You said just because a person is in negative equity it doesn't mean that they are skint, I pointed out an example of a person who paid huge money in a city for a one bed flat that is worth quarter the price now of what it was.
Would you say this person isn't skint?
Yeah there's no reason for the Government to help out it's citizens who might need help, I assume you are applying the same logic to the people of Priory Hall who were protesting today looking for help, or is it a different rule for city dwellers.0 -
I remember similar views being put forward when the NCT car test was first introduced. People saying they would be put off the road, and they couldn't afford a new car etc..Galwayguy35 wrote: »I obey the law, I paid the HHC, will pay the PT and registered for the septic tank charge but I just have no money left over after all the bills are paid.
I don't know who will fund it but I know who can't do it an that would be me.
But in the end, it was alright. Most people passed, and those cars that didn't, deserved to be put out of commission.
Don't hold your breath waiting :pac:GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »I'd at least like to know the size of the bill. And we won't know that until the inspections start.
The registration process is primarily to head off a EU legal action against us, and secondarily to harvest a few quid from people.
Actual inspections could lead to costs, which the govt is not looking for.0 -
Would you say an apartment dweller is likely to have an independent septic tank?Galwayguy35 wrote: »You said just because a person is in negative equity it doesn't mean that they are skint, I pointed out an example of a person who paid huge money in a city for a one bed flat that is worth quarter the price now of what it was.
Would you say this person isn't skint?
As to whether someone in negative equity is skint, that depends on their income. If they can still repay the debt, they're not skint. 300,000 households in negative equity; only 80,000 mortgages in arrears - which are not necessarily in negative equity. People who are skint - as in people who approach MABS - are very commonly people who do not live in mortgaged accommodation.
Absolutely. You need to disinguish two things. If a familly is left homeless and without the ability to provide for education and health care, the State does have supports available. But that's not the same as the State absolving all debts - the "where's my NAMA" type argument.Galwayguy35 wrote: »Yeah there's no reason for the Government to help out it's citizens who might need help, I assume you are applying the same logic to the people of Priory Hall who were protesting today looking for help, or is it a different rule for city dwellers.0 -
I think you raise a valid point - I doubt that the EU wlll be down taking water samples. Once they are told a system is in place, they probably will just go away.Don't hold your breath waiting :pac:
The registration process is primarily to head off a EU legal action against us, and secondarily to harvest a few quid from people.
Actual inspections could lead to costs, which the govt is not looking for.0 -
Advertisement
-
GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »Funded by whom?
To help answer that question, you just have to ask should the residents of Priory Hall pay for the remedial work required on their apartments due to poor workmanship?
The answer then must be that in a case where a (relatively recent, c. 10year old) septic tank system has not been altered by the homeowner, they will not be expected to pay for any remedial work required.
That should take the weight off some peoples' minds.0
Advertisement