Advertisement
We've partnered up with Nixers.com to offer a space where you can talk directly to Peter from Nixers.com and get an exclusive Boards.ie discount code for a free job listing. If you are recruiting or know anyone else who is please check out the forum here.
If you have a new account but can't post, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help to verify your email address. Thanks :)

Water charges for excessive usage

  • 17-07-2019 6:40pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 31,721 ✭✭✭✭ is_that_so


    IW have been given approval by the Commission for Regulation of Utilities to start charging people for using excessive amounts of water, above the 213,000L annual limit set by legislation. By the looks of it people will have plenty of time to conform and then there'll be a charge of €1.85 for each 1,000 litres above that limit. A sensible move in my view as there are an estimated 80,000 households going over the limit.

    https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2019/0717/1063532-irish-water/


«13456785

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 31,721 ✭✭✭✭ is_that_so


    Sure but it does look more like a conservation measure, which would also save some money.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,954 ✭✭✭ Paulzx


    Slight problem though. The people who didn't make a fuss about getting their water meter installed can now have their water usage individually monitored.

    On the other hand the people who intimidated contractors, defied court orders, abused and heckled Gardai and made sure that water meters were not installed in their areas will be unable to have their usage checked.

    How is that going to work?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,446 ✭✭✭ skimpydoo


    Paulzx wrote: »
    Slight problem though. The people who didn't make a fuss about getting their water meter installed can now have their water usage individually monitored.

    On the other hand the people who intimidated contractors, defied court orders, abused and heckled Gardai and made sure that water meters were not installed in their areas will be unable to have their usage checked.

    How is that going to work?

    I live in an apartment and they could not install meters. What will happen to me and people in my scenario?


  • Registered Users Posts: 31,721 ✭✭✭✭ is_that_so


    skimpydoo wrote: »
    I live in an apartment and they could not install meters. What will happen to me and people in my scenario?
    Not terribly clear from the article but I'd say it would be hard to breach the limit in an apartment.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,502 ✭✭✭✭ odyssey06


    The RTE article seems to imply it is all about leaks, but it seems a low threshold if the intention is to catch leaks... surely a leak would be way more than 1.7 times the average limit?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭ Glass fused light


    Re post 4
    Sneek attacks with jcb's hired to dig random holes in random areas.
    brown food die will be droped in to mains and the crews will be on standby for the horrified calls from householders.
    Lads call up tell the householders its the pipe work conection that needs replacement and they can do them a deal.
    On the quiet like.
    The meter box will allow the householder proof that the Goverment has caused the runns and the payout will be ephic.
    But they have to keep it on the down low.

    ....
    Sucess for IW


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,480 ✭✭✭✭ Galwayguy35


    This was being discussed on Matt Coopers show earlier on, yer wan from IW was asked about unmetered houses and she waffled on about meter reading being taken as an average in estates but in reality they have no way of knowing how much water is used without a meter.

    And who arrives on after only Paul Murphy, he must be nearly creaming himself that his favourite subject is back in the news.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,987 ✭✭✭✭ kneemos


    How far did they get with the meter installations?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,520 ✭✭✭ Bobblehats


    Was only thinking about it two days ago saying to myself they won’t let that lie.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,987 ✭✭✭✭ kneemos


    This was being discussed on Matt Coopers show earlier on, yer wan from IW was asked about unmetered houses and she waffled on about meter reading being taken as an average in estates but in reality they have no way of knowing how much water is used without a meter.

    And who arrives on after only Paul Murphy, he must be nearly creaming himself that his favourite subject is back in the news.


    Surely he can fall back on some of his other innovative and progressive policies?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,446 ✭✭✭ skimpydoo


    is_that_so wrote: »
    Not terribly clear from the article but I'd say it would be hard to breach the limit in an apartment.
    In theory, I could run a mini laundrette from my apartment ;).


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,746 ✭✭✭✭ astrofool


    55% with meters, the rest they can estimate, and then pin it down to individual dwellings afterwards after surveying the pipes directly.

    Not sure how anyone can complain with paying a relative pittance after going so far over the average amount. Potable water doesn't fall from the sky!


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭ branie2


    If it has to be done, it has to be done


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,343 ✭✭✭ Wildly Boaring


    Yeah it's actually handy enough sort the leak location in an estate.

    Flowmeter going into estate will tell if estate is an issue.

    If noone at all is metered you'd stick in couple cheap mechanical flowmeter in estate to narrow down.

    Out with the listening gear and see which t running with no stop.

    Then install a meter at IW end of the single service connection not at the boundary box. Voila.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,733 ✭✭✭ BarryD2


    A very gentle start to head things in the right direction.


  • Registered Users Posts: 991 ✭✭✭ TuringBot47


    I thought I read that they were going to base the "household" usage on an average of something like 2.5 people ?

    So homes with 2 adults and 2 kids etc are going to have a naturally "excessive" usage compared to a national average ?

    Then they slowly bring down the "excessive" usage level and more people fall into the water changes net. Stealth water taxes.

    I would hope the usage level is based on occupancy levels.


  • Administrators Posts: 33,521 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭ dudara


    Moved from AH > CA


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,941 ✭✭✭✭ kippy


    We should all be paying directly for water anyway over and above a set limit based on habitation level and special circumstances.
    This is a great step - however meters should be installed at every premises in order to fairly police this.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,502 ✭✭✭✭ odyssey06


    kippy wrote: »
    We should all be paying directly for water anyway over and above a set limit based on habitation level and special circumstances.
    This is a great step - however meters should be installed at every premises in order to fairly police this.

    I think that argument was fought and lost a few years ago, politically it is dead for a generation.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,941 ✭✭✭✭ kippy


    odyssey06 wrote: »
    I think that argument was fought and lost a few years ago, politically it is dead for a generation.

    I think you need to re-read my post.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,281 ✭✭✭✭ TheValeyard


    kneemos wrote: »
    How far did they get with the meter installations?

    How many have been damaged, broken or removed?

    Fcuk Putin. Glory to Ukraine!



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,608 ✭✭✭ gctest50


    No meter*? you pay** the excess

    Simples


    * = unless it's more or less impossible to fit one

    ** = deduct at source - dole, wages


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 416 ✭✭ Tommy Kelly


    If there is no leaks on your property, no toilet cisterns or water storage tanks etc constantly filling due to the fact a ball cock that costs around 7 euro needs replacing, no leaking taps well then it would be impossible to use more than the set daily allowance.

    Leaks will be detected by a constant flow of water 24/7 passing through the meter.

    Leaks on external mains pipe, that's between the Boundary Box / Meter & where the pipe enters your house will be repaired for free.

    Anyone that refuses to address leaks / water wastage on their property deserves to be charged for excessive usage IMO.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭ heyjude


    Its just the start of the process of reintroducing universal water charges by stealth. The intention to push through water charges within Fine Gael hasn't gone away, they just let the fuss die down, then devised a way of reintroducing them on the quiet.

    They've reasoned that nobody could oppose charging those who waste water, which has morphed into those that use excessive amounts of water, then once they've got that foot in the door, the definition of excessive water use will be gradually reduced, until it covers most households, at which point they will reason that as most people are paying, then everyone should be charged. By the time the full process has played out, years will have passed and the opportunity for mass opposition will have passed as the charges will already have passed the point of no return.

    Remember at one point they said that nobody would be charged until all water meters had been installed, but greed/impatience got the better of them. They've told so many lies at this stage, I've little confidence that any charges will be limited to excessive users, remember the local property tax was supposed to pay for "local services" too.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,095 ✭✭✭ Fuaranach


    It's a start.

    It would be nice if:

    1) People could pay for the water service which they use, according to how much they use so that they are financially penalised for wasting this finite resource. Responsibility and respect. Basic stuff.

    2) Fine Gael could have set this up without trying to look after all their cliques of parasitic "consultants" and companies in the private sector with the intention of creating an enormously inefficient behemoth called Irish Water - which we were contemptuously expected to fund.

    3) The entire establishment of Irish Water hadn't a massive stench of 'use taxpayers money to establish it and then privatise it later so the "lads" (see point 2 above) can make a killing again.'

    The scrotes in underclass areas who want something for nothing were well matched here by the scrotes in the professional and business classes who were eager to leech at the trough of all the "free money" which they were hoping Irish Water would give them.


    I've always been more than willing to pay for a healthy, modern and efficiently run publicly owned water service. Most people I know would be of the same mind. It's unacceptable that our society is unable to have a safe, modern water system due to the above two interest groups.


  • Registered Users Posts: 349 ✭✭ deathtocaptcha


    NO CONSENT, NO CONTRACT

    If you share this text on Facebook, the Irish government legally cannot charge you for water under The Water Act of 1568, section 7:G :pac:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 416 ✭✭ Tommy Kelly


    NO CONSENT, NO CONTRACT

    If you share this text on Facebook, the Irish government legally cannot charge you for water under The Water Act of 1568, section 7:G :pac:

    Aren't farmers & business people etc paying for water.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,530 ✭✭✭ Delta2113


    "The scrotes in underclass areas" - this is very offensive.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,148 ✭✭✭✭ Brendan Bendar


    The Legal Eagles are all horned up on this one, I’m reliably informed.

    Only one loser here...the compliant....JQ Taxpayer.

    Murphy’s flagging career has gotten a new boost.

    Let’s hope the Govt has this one erm...watertight.....but I wouldn’t hold my breath.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭ branie2


    Pun intended?


Advertisement