legal position of quality of the water supply

strabow

I have a question. As i dont have the resourses required to test all my quirky theories in a court ill ask opinion here.
As of now i am not a customer of irish water as i have my own supply and a biocycle tank.
However if i move to a property which has a public supply and i am required to pay for it directly am i not to expect a certain quality, as a paying customer. Hence if my kitchen appliances become damaged due to limescale would i have a case to sue for replacement costs. Or if i was required to buy a water softener and the monthly supply of salt would i have a case to claim a refund of such plus running costs. Also medical implications, ie kidney stones, risk is increased in hard water areas so who is paying my hospital bill?
Just a random thought about how consumer law might apply.

MarkAnthony

Like most things there is an offer, acceptance and consideration.

Irish water will offer you X product, you can accept it or not. If you chose to accept it it will need to fulfil the basic obligations under the various statutes that apply (probably not consumer law per se) but nothing more.

I don't think you'd have much of a case for the items stated above.

FreudianSlippers

S.I. No. 122 of 2014
————————
EUROPEAN UNION (DRINKING WATER) REGULATIONS 2014

Duties of suppliers
4. (1) Subject to any departure granted under Regulation 11, a water supplier
shall ensure that the water is wholesome and clean and meets the requirements
of these Regulations.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), water shall be regarded as wholesome
and clean if—

(a) it is free from any micro-organisms and parasites and from any substances
which in numbers or concentrations, constitute a potential
danger to human health, and
(b) it meets the quality standards specified in Tables A and B in Part 1
of the Schedule.

Tables A and B contain no measurement requirements for calcium carbonate in water. However, even if there were, you would need to prove that the inclusion of levels of calcium carbonate over the prescribed level (which again, there isn't such a level) arose from pipes under the control of UÉ and not from pipes on your property.

EDIT: I suppose if you had a genuine health issue and needed a water softener, you'd need to make that application to the HSÉ as you would for other such financial support.

Johnboy1951

(a) it is free from any micro-organisms and parasites and from any substances which in numbers or concentrations, constitute a potential danger to human health,

That (to me) lends itself to an interpretation that any substance, regardless of concentration present, which could be injurious to health (should high concentrations be present for instance), would render the water 'not wholesome'.

Little CuChulainn

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

That (to me) lends itself to an interpretation that any substance, regardless of concentration present, which could be injurious to health (should high concentrations be present for instance), would render the water 'not wholesome'.

Hard water does not fall under this though. It's perfectly safe to drink.

Grolschevik

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Hard water does not fall under this though. It's perfectly safe to drink.

Maybe he's suggesting that fluoride might fall foul of this provision.

Little CuChulainn

Grolschevik wrote: »

Maybe he's suggesting that fluoride might fall foul of this provision.

I'd say you'd have a job and a half convincing a judge of that.

Grolschevik

I agree that it's implausible, but the form of words "which ... in sufficient concentrations" may leave it open to argument.

Edit: doesn't say "sufficient". Unable to simultaneously write and see past posts, and misremembered.

Johnboy1951

Grolschevik wrote: »

I agree that it's implausible, but the form of words "which ... in sufficient concentrations" may leave it open to argument.

Edit: doesn't say "sufficient". Unable to simultaneously write and see past posts, and misremembered.

Thanks, yes I was commenting on the form of words used.

234

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Thanks, yes I was commenting on the form of words used.

I agree with you on a literal interpretation. The SI seems to say that the presence of any substance, no matter how small, if it were present in any larger quantity (even if completely unrealistic) it would constitute danger to health, then there is still a breach.

However, the fact that water contains a small amount of calcium chloride, and if this was present in quantities vastly in excess of what would ever actually occur, there would be a danger to health, is a rather implausible interpretation and not one a court is likely to take.

Johnboy1951

234 wrote: »

I agree with you on a literal interpretation. The SI seems to say that the presence of any substance, no matter how small, if it were present in any larger quantity (even if completely unrealistic) it would constitute danger to health, then there is still a breach.

However, the fact that water contains a small amount of calcium chloride, and if this was present in quantities vastly in excess of what would ever actually occur, there would be a danger to health, is a rather implausible interpretation and not one a court is likely to take.

To me, what you have written is the only interpretation one could reasonably make from the wording.

Does the court not have to accept the wording as is, or can it essentially 'misinterpret' the words to mean what the court believes was the original intent?

I have no idea what the original intent was ..... I might guess, but I don't know.

Uncle Ben

strabow wrote: »

I have a question. As i dont have the resourses required to test all my quirky theories in a court ill ask opinion here.
As of now i am not a customer of irish water as i have my own supply and a biocycle tank.
However if i move to a property which has a public supply and i am required to pay for it directly am i not to expect a certain quality, as a paying customer. Hence if my kitchen appliances become damaged due to limescale would i have a case to sue for replacement costs. Or if i was required to buy a water softener and the monthly supply of salt would i have a case to claim a refund of such plus running costs. Also medical implications, ie kidney stones, risk is increased in hard water areas so who is paying my hospital bill?
Just a random thought about how consumer law might apply.

The more apt question in your situation is are the Govt, gonna place extraction charges on private well owners.
The rep from IW was on with Pat Kenny last Friday and she was asked what would happen to people with their own wells. Her reply was that people should first register with IW so as to qualify for the conservation grant of €100.
She then went onto state that although they would not be IW customers they could be levied with the soon to be introduced govt extraction charge. As it was near the end of the show Kenny did not pursue this.
If I had a private well, I would be asking the question why should I register with IW?After all, I won't be liable to pay or to receive a bill from IW. Furthermore the conservation grant is being paid out by Dept. of Social Protection.
I would suggest you ask your local FG or Labour TD what position are private well owners in, in relation to IW. I will hazard a guess that you will be left waiting.

Peregrinus

The definition of "wholesome and clean" quoted in post #3 comes from the European Union (Drinking Water) Regulations 2014. Those Regulations are the implementation in Ireland of the Council Directive 98/83/EC on the quality of water intended for human consumption, and the quoted language comes directly from Art. 4 para. 1 of the English text of the Directive.

However the French text is interesting. It says that waters intended for human consumption are "salubres et propres" if they . . .

". . . ne contiennent pas un nombre ou une concentration de micro-organismes, de parasites ou de toutes autres substances constituant un danger potentiel pour la santé des personnes."

Which, with my schoolboy French, seems to me to mean that water is safe and clean if it does not not contain a number or concentration of micro-organisms, parasites or other substances constituting a potential danger to human health.

If I'm right, that's materially different from what the English text says. Under the English text, you fail the test if you have any micro-organisms, etc, which could be dangerous, if present in numbers or concentrations. Under the French text, there's only a problem if you have micro-organisms, etc present in numbers or concentrations which could present a danger.

I don't know, but I assume that the French (and other?) texts of the Directive are admissible as an aid to the interpretation of the Regulations. Anyone have a clearer idea about this than I do?

Victor

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't know, but I assume that the French (and other?) texts of the Directive are admissible as an aid to the interpretation of the Regulations. Anyone have a clearer idea about this than I do?

If I'm correct, in EU law, the French text is considered the binding text, as French has fewer ambiguities than English.

FreudianSlippers

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

That (to me) lends itself to an interpretation that any substance, regardless of concentration present, which could be injurious to health (should high concentrations be present for instance), would render the water 'not wholesome'.

Vitally, there is an "and" after that; (a) and (b). Therefore, the reasonable reading of it (and I'm agreeing that it is poorly drafted) would be that if the substance in question is present in the table(s), then that quantity is deemed safe for human consumption.

FreudianSlippers

Peregrinus wrote: »

The definition of "wholesome and clean" quoted in post #3 comes from the European Union (Drinking Water) Regulations 2014. Those Regulations are the implementation in Ireland of the Council Directive 98/83/EC on the quality of water intended for human consumption, and the quoted language comes directly from Art. 4 para. 1 of the English text of the Directive.

However the French text is interesting. It says that waters intended for human consumption are "salubres et propres" if they . . .

". . . ne contiennent pas un nombre ou une concentration de micro-organismes, de parasites ou de toutes autres substances constituant un danger potentiel pour la santé des personnes."

Which, with my schoolboy French, seems to me to mean that water is safe and clean if it does not not contain a number or concentration of micro-organisms, parasites or other substances constituting a potential danger to human health.

If I'm right, that's materially different from what the English text says. Under the English text, you fail the test if you have any micro-organisms, etc, which could be dangerous, if present in numbers or concentrations. Under the French text, there's only a problem if you have micro-organisms, etc present in numbers or concentrations which could present a danger.

I don't know, but I assume that the French (and other?) texts of the Directive are admissible as an aid to the interpretation of the Regulations. Anyone have a clearer idea about this than I do?

You have to ask the national court to make a reference to the ECJ. It really depends on which language it was initially drafted.

Johnboy1951

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Vitally, there is an "and" after that; (a) and (b). Therefore, the reasonable reading of it (and I'm agreeing that it is poorly drafted) would be that if the substance in question is present in the table(s), then that quantity is deemed safe for human consumption.

Taking the two parts I read them thus .....

water is wholesome if it does not contain any substance (in any quantity) which could be injurious to health

and

if the water also meets the standards specified in Tables A and B in Part 1 of the Schedule.

So failing either test would mean the water could not be regarded as wholesome.


The French quote would appear to be what one would expect .... no concentrations of anything injurious to health but below that the water would be 'wholesome'.

******

I want to make a bit of a leap here ... for the sake of discussion.

On the assumption that the Irish Regulation is as flawed as it appears to be (to me) because of the wording, could (potentially) a case be taken in the Irish courts, based on this regulation, against Irish Water for supplying water contaminated with some substance such as lead or other?

If such a case could be taken would the Irish Regulation be the basis for a decision of the Irish court or would, for instance the French wording, be taken because the Irish Regulation is apparently badly translated?

FreudianSlippers

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

If such a case could be taken would the Irish Regulation be the basis for a decision of the Irish court or would, for instance the French wording, be taken because the Irish Regulation is apparently badly translated?

Neither - in such a circumstance the Court would be obliged to refer the question to the ECJ to decide

FreudianSlippers

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Taking the two parts I read them thus .....

water is wholesome if it does not contain any substance (in any quantity) which could be injurious to health

and

if the water also meets the standards specified in Tables A and B in Part 1 of the Schedule.

So failing either test would mean the water could not be regarded as wholesome.


The French quote would appear to be what one would expect .... no concentrations of anything injurious to health but below that the water would be 'wholesome'.

******

I want to make a bit of a leap here ... for the sake of discussion.

On the assumption that the Irish Regulation is as flawed as it appears to be (to me) because of the wording, could (potentially) a case be taken in the Irish courts, based on this regulation, against Irish Water for supplying water contaminated with some substance such as lead or other?

I agree that, as it is drafted, failure to meet (a) and (b) means the water is not up to standard - my point was simply that the onus would be on you to prove (a) and, if the substance was limited in (b), you'd have a hell of a hard time convincing the Court (IMO) that the substance was harmful below that amount/concentration.