Fire Charges whos liable?

S28382

Hi folks i just have a quick question.

If a person sees a fire and its not on their property and they ring the fire brigade are they liable for the charges? The GF father tells me that the person who makes the call can be charged for the payment. I hardly think that is true seen as the fire is nothing to do with them.

bravestar

S28382 wrote: »

Hi folks i just have a quick question.

If a person sees a fire and its not on their property and they ring the fire brigade are they liable for the charges? The GF father tells me that the person who makes the call can be charged for the payment. I hardly think that is true seen as the fire is nothing to do with them.

The GF's father is talking out his arse. If you see a fire, be a good citizen and ring it in. You might be saving someones life.

S28382

bravestar wrote: »

The GF's father is talking out his arse. If you see a fire, be a good citizen and ring it in. You might be saving someones life.

Yeah i was thinking that myself it seems really stupid that ringing in a fire that has nothing to do with you can make you liable for charges.

Tigger

We are currently in dispute of charges levied for calling the fire dept
Not our property

S28382

Tigger wrote: »

We are currently in dispute of charges levied for calling the fire dept
Not our property

So they are being cheeky enough to stick you for the charge even tho it has nothing to do with you? That's mental that they can try that.

johnnyrotten

The property owner pays the charge if it applies
Not the Caller

Tigger

Tigger wrote: »

We are currently in dispute of charges levied for calling the fire dept
Not our property

In what circumstances though? Rented property?

meathstevie

It's one thing when a ramshackle shed in the back of a field is on fire but if you ever see any building that may be occupied by people on fire do not even think about the charges RING IT IN.

Even if some cheeky beancounter in some county council office tries to get payment out of you afterwards you can still politely tell them to get lost since you had no material interest in the building and you rang because you were afraid someone was in acute danger.

Put it this way; would you decide not to ring 999 when you saw someone trapped in a crashed car with smoke coming from under the bonnet because some twat may send you a letter asking for money later ?

S28382

Id definitely ring if there was a fire. Like i said my GF father was of the belief that who rings pays and i figured it was bull as it illogical to get billed for something that has nothing to do with the caller in the first place.

david2002

S28382 wrote: »

Id definitely ring if there was a fire. Like i said my GF father was of the belief that who rings pays and i figured it was bull as it illogical to get billed for something that has nothing to do with the caller in the first place.

I'm a member of a club. We received a bill for a Fire Brigade Invoice for a Fire Brigade callout to our club at 2:30AM. Our fire alarm had not gone off and no club official had phoned the emergency services.

A third party who cannot be identified to us, but is known to the Fire Brigade phoned emergency services either in good faith or otherwise.

The local Council have confirmed to us that as we (the club) received the service we are liable for the charge.

Cannot believe it ... But it is supported by some Act or other . . . The Senate must have missed this bill going through

:mad:

civdef

You could try not paying it? Sounds like there's not a very strong case for a bill.

meathstevie

david2002 wrote: »

I'm a member of a club. We received a bill for a Fire Brigade Invoice for a Fire Brigade callout to our club at 2:30AM. Our fire alarm had not gone off and no club official had phoned the emergency services.

A third party who cannot be identified to us, but is known to the Fire Brigade phoned emergency services either in good faith or otherwise.

The local Council have confirmed to us that as we (the club) received the service we are liable for the charge.

Cannot believe it ... But it is supported by some Act or other . . . The Senate must have missed this bill going through

:mad:

You could argue you haven't received a service at all. The fire service responded to a dud call that may or may not have been made in good faith. The only thing the fire service has actually done is having a look to find out if they had a job to do or not.

If it can be established that the call was made as a deliberate hoax the council can make a complaint to the Gardai and try to recover the costs for sending out the fire service from the caller, chances of which are slim to none if the number was an unregistered prepaid mobile phone.

Blackbolt191

This is an urban myth that has proliferated the country. The bill goes to the person/persons who receive the benefit of the service not the person who calls in the emergency.