Some will pay - others won't have to!

Benedict

Can you tell me what steps will be taken to ensure that those who prevented meter installation will not be in a position to use excessive amounts of water free of charge while those who allowed the installation will have to pay?

I have made numerous attempts to extract a credible answer from Irish Water to this question and at one stage, even had my phone-call terminated abruptly.

This question has been asked to IW officials on media shows and the answers appeared to be deliberately unclear and very vague and indicated that IW have no intention of "going after" the non-metered domestic houses but do not want to say so.

If this question is not addressed properly, there will inevitably be civil disobedience when in comes to demanding payment from some while others enjoy an amnesty.

Irish Water: Agata

Hi Benedict,

Thank you for your query.

We are currently seeking clarification on the above. We will be in touch with the update as soon as possible.

Regards,
Agata

Benedict

Many thanks Agata for your holding reply.

I understand that you are seeking clarification on the matter I have raised and I look forward to hearing from you when you have clarification.

Benedict

Hello again Agata,

It is now four days since you informed me that you were seeking clarification and none has been forthcoming.

I wonder why!

At this point in time, it is my belief (and the belief of others I have spoken to) that if Mr. Anyone, 15 Somewhere Road has prevented the installation of a water meter, his consumption is not - and will not - be measured. He will, therefore, be at liberty to use excessive water free of charge while his neighbour who has not prevented installation will be told to pay.

IW may feel that their targets will have softened. Many of the militant protestors will be happy with their amnesty and their voices will not be heard. So those householders who will be targeted for excessive use will tend to be compliant law-abiding citizens who will pay up under threat of prosecution. The targets will be both softer and fewer than before.

But law-abiding customers are not fools and if there is a clear unfairness issue, there will, yet again, be widespread refusal to pay.

Irish Water: Mairead

Hi Benedict,

Irish Water will implement government policy as directed and sees the policy on charging for excess usage as primarily a policy that will enable us to assist customers to conserve water and fix leaks.

It is worth noting that the primary impact of customer side leaks is usually reduced pressure and service levels to neighbouring properties. While repairing these leaks does make a contribution to reducing demand for water, the primary benefit is often that other customers in the area are enabled to get a better service.

Leaks in and around properties can also have a detrimental impact on the property itself, in extreme cases leading to undermining structures and subsidence. Therefore, the efficient tracing and rectification of household leaks has benefits to the householder involved, to other householders impacted and to the utility, which benefits in reducing water resource needs and costs.

For those who are unmetered, Irish Water will investigate excess flows using ordinary leak detection techniques, as part of our leakage reduction programme. There will be situations of shared services where additional work may be needed to locate and address the source of the excess use. A domestic meter is not essential to the identification of a private side leak, but does assist in isolating and quantifying the leak and confirming the repair.

Thanks,
Mairead

Benedict

Thank you for your reply.

IW can, of course, investigate general areas of excess flow.  But IW will not be in a position to pin responsibility for excessive flows to any specific property (and to quantify amount of water) without hard data relating to that property's usage and without a meter, that data will not be available.

There are entire estates without a single meter installed so the notion that excess flow can be pinned to a specific meter-less home in such an estate and with precise amounts identified is simply not credible and cannot happen.

As things currently stand, the plan appears to be as follows:

1. If Mr X has refused to allow metered installation at his home and he exceeds the usage threshold,  he WILL NOT be charged for the excessive usage.

2. If Mr Y has allowed the metered installation at his home and he exceeds the usage threshold, he WILL be charged for the excessive usage.

Benedict

It was suggested in the Irish Times on 21st Dec. '17 that 7% of homes using excessive water will face charges.
This statement gives the wrong impression. It should have said that 7% of homes WITH METERS will face charges.

Those users who have prevented meter installation can use excessive amounts without risk of being charged.

dense

Benedict wrote: »

It was suggested in the Irish Times on 21st Dec. '17 that 7% of homes using excessive water will face charges.
This statement gives the wrong impression. It should have said that 7% of homes WITH METERS will face charges.

Those users who have prevented meter installation can use excessive amounts without risk of being charged.

Have you considered raising that legitimate point with the Editor?

CeilingFly

Looks like a dog has a bone he doesn't want to let go of.

Move on.

Benedict

That's all very well CeilingFly.  But when there's unfairness, people do tend to get like dogs with bones.
The impression is being given that it's all sorted out. If you use too much, you get a bill. If you don't use too much, you don't get a bill. But if you've prevented meter installation you can have ten power-showers a day (and then water the lawn) ALL FREE. If the eejit down the road does a fraction of that he gets a bill and ends up in court if he doesn't pay it!

This is supposed to be a democracy!

Benedict

dense wrote: »

Benedict wrote: »

It was suggested in the Irish Times on 21st Dec. '17 that 7% of homes using excessive water will face charges.
This statement gives the wrong impression. It should have said that 7% of homes WITH METERS will face charges.

Those users who have prevented meter installation can use excessive amounts without risk of being charged.

Have you considered raising that legitimate point with the Editor?

Thank you for your observation.

In fact I only recently came across the Irish Times piece so realistically it would have been too late to raise the matter with them.

In fairness, IW may feel that their backs are to the wall right now and that introducing this unfair system is their only hope. Their trump cards are that the number of people being billed for excessive usage will be small and will tend to be from law-abiding families who won't want their names in the paper. The people likely to make a lot of noise will not get bills (because they don't have meters) so their voices won't be heard.

The FACT of the matter is if No 1 Anywhere Avenue has a meter, he'll have to pay for excessive usage while if No 2 prevented the installation, he won't. And for some reason this extraordinary situation appears to be ignored by the media in general.

dense

Benedict wrote: »

Thank you for your observation.

In fact I only recently came across the Irish Times piece so realistically it would have been too late to raise the matter with them.

In fairness, IW may feel that their backs are to the wall right now and that introducing this unfair system is their only hope. Their trumps cards are that the number of people being billed for excessive usage will be small and will tend to be from law-abiding families who won't want their names in the paper. The people likely to make a lot of noise will not get bills (because they don't have meters) so their voices won't be heard.

The FACT of the matter is if No 1 Anywhere Avenue has a meter, he'll have to pay for excessive usage while if No 2 prevented the installation, he won't. And for some reason this fact appears to be ignored by the media in general.

I'd say Joe Duffy would love to get his teeth into it.

Have you tried reaching out to Joe?

Benedict

I imagine it's a bit early yet for Joe to get involved. But it is difficult to see how this situation will be tolerated by those who are billed next year for excessive usage when the public becomes aware that vast numbers of homes can use as much water as they please without paying a cent because they have refused to allow their homes to be metered.

Just imagine what would happen, for example, if No 1 Anywhere Avenue was told he would have to pay for his bin collection while No 2 was told he could have ten bins (or more) collected and the tax payer would have to cover the cost?

Would No 1 just pay up and say nothing?

I don't think so!

dense

Benedict wrote: »

I imagine it's a bit early yet for Joe to get involved. But it is difficult to see how this situation will be tolerated by those who are billed next year for excessive usage when the public becomes aware that vast numbers of homes can use as much water as they please without paying a cent because they have refused to allow their homes to be metered.

Just imagine what would happen, for example, if No 1 Anywhere Avenue was told he would have to pay for his bin collection while No 2 was told he could have ten bins (or more) collected and the tax payer would have to cover the cost?

Would No 1 just pay up and say nothing?

I don't think so!

With Joe, there's a lot of prepping required to get him/his team interested.

It's not as "off the cuff" as it is presented.

I would start off with a polite short email, with the basic point, now would be a good time actually what with water issues, and indicate that you will be in contact shortly by phone to see if they'll permit you to speak about it on air.

That gives them an opportunity to give you an "audition" to see if you can make your point relatively quickly and coherently, over the phone.

Should get a debate going?

It is a national issue and investment is required.

The vast majority of mature adults should have no problem chipping in something for the upkeep but I think trust was lost/public skepticism set in with the overnight behemoth Irish water became and there was a genuine fear water would end up costing like another utility and as much as electricity. -Separate issue.

Benedict

I think it is likely that somebody will phone Joe Duffy if IW do not address the obvious unfairness of the current plan.

In the meantime, IW can talk all they want about their ability to detect a home with a leak and detection techniques and moral responsibility to your neighbours etc. etc. But at the end of the day, those without a meter will be able to use excessive amounts free of charge while those with a meter will be billed if they do so.

So if you stood outside your house and prevented the installation, you'll be able to use the power-shower and the lawn sprinkler to your heart's content and all free of charge (and don't forget to wash the car twice a week). If you allowed the installation, you'd better start watching how much water you use or you'll be getting a bill. (And you'd better forget about the lawn sprinkler)

Benedict

No responses?

Okay folks! When you're having to uninstall your power-shower because you can't afford the water and the guy 'round the corner has the lawn-sprinkler going all day for free because he's got no meter, then maybe you'll wake up and smell the coffee.

It's your money.