Water charges for excessive usage

Benedict

Somebody needs to write a sit-com called "IW"


We are now being told that those without meters will have to pay for excessive use. Apparently, they measure the entire usage of an estate and divide it by the number of houses. Then subtract the houses with meters. They will then patrol the estate to establish "suspects". How they will do this, nobody knows. Having established who is a suspect, they will "offer" to install a meter in the hope that the home-owner has had a change of mind from when they first prevented installation. If the owner refuses the kind offer, they will send in a team (in disguise) with hand-held monitors, who will remain down the man-hole until the quota has been breached. IW can then send a bill to the house. If they want a bigger bill, they simply request the team to remain in the manhole for longer. They will then have to establish that the excessive use is not from a leak - before they move onto the next "suspect" on the estate. (Or perhaps they will have more SWAT teams on standby.)


If nothing else, this could help reduce unemployment figures!

K.Flyer

Benedict wrote: »

We are now being told that those without meters will have to pay for excessive use. Apparently, they measure the entire usage of an estate and divide it by the number of houses. Then subtract the houses with meters. They will then patrol the estate to establish "suspects". How they will do this, nobody knows. Having established who is a suspect, they will "offer" to install a meter in the hope that the home-owner has had a change of mind from when they first prevented installation. If the owner refuses the kind offer, they will send in a team (in disguise) with hand-held monitors, who will remain down the man-hole until the quota has been breached. IW can then send a bill to the house. If they want a bigger bill, they simply request the team to remain in the manhole for longer. They will then have to establish that the excessive use is not from a leak - before they move onto the next "suspect" on the estate. (Or perhaps they will have more SWAT teams on standby.)

Do you have a link to this??
Huge amount of estates, especially anything over 20 years old, do not have group meters.
They cannot pinpoint one house out of many houses without meters and accurately quantify volume of water without a meter directly on that line.
The best they can do is to say that there is s leak on the supply to a particular house, but unless there is a group meter for that road / street, they would find it very difficult to quantify volume for a prosecution.
If there is only a group meter and they can detect a leak at a house by sounding the pipe, they can work out certain calculations for loss.
But I would think that it would still be a weak case for a court prosecution as you still may find it difficult to prove accurately the volume lost through that individuals line without long term monitoring.
A meter on the individual line is the only way to accurately measure excessive water usage. And currently the anticipated fines are a lot less than digging up the path to fit an individual meter.

Benedict

K.Flyer wrote: »

Do you have a link to this??
Huge amount of estates, especially anything over 20 years old, do not have group meters.
They cannot pinpoint one house out of many houses without meters and accurately quantify volume of water without a meter directly on that line.
The best they can do is to say that there is s leak on the supply to a particular house, but unless there is a group meter for that road / street, they would find it very difficult to quantify volume for a prosecution.
If there is only a group meter and they can detect a leak at a house by sounding the pipe, they can work out certain calculations for loss.
But I would think that it would still be a weak case for a court prosecution as you still may find it difficult to prove accurately the volume lost through that individuals line without long term monitoring.
A meter on the individual line is the only way to accurately measure excessive water usage. And currently the anticipated fines are a lot less than digging up the path to fit an individual meter.

Yes, that is exactly the point. If you don't have a meter, there is no realistic possibility of IW knowing for sure how much you have used and therefore you can use as much as you like.
IW are aware that there is growing unease about the their plan to fine metered homes if they go over the quota while those with no meters can use what they like without being fined so they are pretending that they can also fine those with no meters also.
Everybody knows perfectly well that those with no meters will not be fined and there's no point in pretending that they will be. Therefore the entire plan is a farce.
Would you pay a fine for using a bit too much while the houses 'round the corner were free to use what they liked with no fine?

See below a quote from Money Guide Ireland 2019.


"The charge per litre is going to be €3.70 per 1000 litres.
So , a household using 50,000 litres of water over the annual threshold would be billed €185 in water charges for the year.
There is a maximum charge of €500 a year.

The government says that homes will still continue to be metered and meters will still be read at least every quarter so that any home using excessive amounts of water can be identified.
It is not clear how unmetered homes can be charged for any excessive use because their usage will just not be known. But if an unmetered property is suspected of excessive use – a meter will be installed. If this is not possible then a flow monitoring device will be fitted. If excess usage is found- then they will be charged €500 a year."

James Brown

We ought to remember the bigger environmental issue of mains leaks. Any household overages would pale in comparison, but of course, there's no money in mains leaks. Water is only a valuable resource if it's a monetary value.

odyssey06

Matt Barrett wrote: »

We ought to remember the bigger environmental issue of mains leaks. Any household overages would pale in comparison, but of course, there's no money in mains leaks. Water is only a valuable resource if it's a monetary value.

Also, councils should be going after 'domestic' households that are actually fronts for businesses ... using ridiculous amounts of water for dog grooming, car cleaning etc.
I don't think they need meters for that. They know who they are and the councils should either be shutting them down or metering them commercially.

Snow Garden

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I'll explain the irony of your comment.

Water maintenance and supply was/is funded through general taxation. However, the service was let go so crappy, (see where this is going?) rather than tackling it they created a quango with crony appointments and a still under investigation Sitserv deal.

IW is FG/Lab's answer to how to deal with...are you ready?.....a crappy public service our taxes pay for.

It's 'the fix' people have issue with, not improving poor service.



It's both for me. It is funded by tax, therefore we already pay. The issue is it was under funded for decades and left on the back burner. It needed more attention and resources. Raise taxes or preferably learn how to manage money, (see inappropriate Noonan and children's hospital over run).
The quango used water supply as the cover for crony appointments and sweet deals for friends, the environment talk was blarney. So I wouldn't pay a cent to IW personally, given the option.

Great post. 100% correct.

Benedict

In Dec. 2009, Brian Lenihan's budget speech included his intention to introduce water charges. That was nearly 10 years ago and they still haven't figured out how to do it in a democratic and fair way which will not give rise to civil disobedience.

The plan to apply a strict quota to one half of the IW customers but not the other is guaranteed to fail.

They need to tear up this stupid plan and start again.

James Brown

Benedict wrote: »

In Dec. 2009, Brian Lenihan's budget speech included his intention to introduce water charges. That was nearly 10 years ago and they still haven't figured out how to do it in a democratic and fair way which will not give rise to civil disobedience.

The plan to apply a strict quota to one half of the IW customers but not the other is guaranteed to fail.

They need to tear up this stupid plan and start again.

Why do you think they let the infrastructure fester for so long? No interest. They are trying to devise a money spinner that people will swallow. That's the trouble.

When they were setting up IW, the consultants fees etc. I didn't hear anything about where the money would come from, was there some magic money tree from the usual clowns. Noonan's department even gave a sweet deal away on the metering.

Benedict

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Why do you think they let the infrastructure fester for so long? No interest. They are trying to devise a money spinner that people will swallow. That's the trouble.

When they were setting up IW, the consultants fees etc. I didn't hear anything about where the money would come from, was there some magic money tree from the usual clowns. Noonan's department even gave a sweet deal away on the metering.

IW claim that if a household without a meter is "suspected" of over-use, a meter will be installed. If this is not possible a "flow monitoring device" will be installed.
It is worth noting that a meter IS a flow-monitoring device!

branie2

Did the "protesters" at the meter installations know that meters could detect leaks?

K.Flyer

Benedict wrote: »

IW claim that if a household without a meter is "suspected" of over-use, a meter will be installed. If this is not possible a "flow monitoring device" will be installed.
It is worth noting that a meter IS a flow-monitoring device!

Where would they plan to locate this flow monitoring device without accessing pipework.
Again, they have to dig a hole if there is no access to a pipe and this cost so far outweighs the value of the fines.
I can't even get them to dig a hole where you can clearly hear the mains water is leaking before their meter on a footpath.

Benedict

There is something in the region of 900,000 IW customers without meters (and this figure is growing with each new home built). So does anybody know exactly how they will identify these "suspects"? In order to establish that there is at least one suspect lurking in an estate, they will have to know all the details relating to the metered homes (if there are any). For example, if a lot of water is being used, maybe it is being used by a metered homes who will have to pay.

Even if they do identify a suspect (who may be innocent), it will not be possible to establish the usage of that suspect without installing a meter (or "flow-monitoring device" which is the same thing) and if they were prevented before, what makes them think they can install it now?

And by the way, just to add a bit more farce to this comedy, IW have ceased installing meters anyway!

It just gets more and more hilarious!

Brendan Bendar

Lookit, it’s like this.... Middle Ireland won’t be stiffed again.

McMurphy

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Lookit, it’s like this.... Middle Ireland won’t be stiffed again.

Middle Ireland didn't take the bait last time either brenner, middle Ireland knew when they were about to be shafted and sent them packing.

True bill.

Benedict

Despite all the silly talk about IW inspectors tracking down "suspects" and sitting in manholes with "flow-measuring devices", we know that IW customers without a meter will not be subject to a usage quota.

So does IW actually believe that the Irish public will tolerate a situation where Customer A has to use a stop-watch in the shower or pay a fine while Customer B has his lawn sprinkler going 12 hours a day with no charge?

Brendan Bendar

Benedict wrote: »

Despite all the silly talk about IW inspectors tracking down "suspects" and sitting in manholes with "flow-measuring devices", we know that IW customers without a meter will not be subject to a usage quota.

So does IW actually believe that the Irish public will tolerate a situation where Customer A has to use a stop-watch in the shower or pay a fine while Customer B has his lawn sprinkler going 12 hours a day with no charge?

Hope they don’t Mr B, cause they are on another loser if they do.

Meter one, meter all.

Otherwise not a runner, nah.

Benedict

I'm just trying to imagine how it might work. So IW figure that Estate X is using rather a lot of water. A meeting is called. A SWAT team is assigned to Estate X to find "suspects". They notice that No 44 has a very clean car and the family also look unusually clean. (Also, the grass is really green.) So what's next for the SWAT team? Of course! Install a meter. But IW don't install meters anymore so that's out. So use a "flow-monitoring-device" (fmd). Yes, but an fmd IS a meter. So that's out. Ehhhh? Hmmmm? Why not just accuse the family and see what happens?


They might just admit it? But then without a meter, how would they know they've used too much?

_Kaiser_

I've noticed in the last few weeks that IW have been significantly ramping up their advertising on radio, extolling the work they're doing etc... they're definitely lining up for another run at the charges I think.

InTheShadows

They'll be making a major mistake if they do.

Benedict

A lot of us wouldn't have a problem with paying for excessive use of water if (and it's a big if), the playing field was level.

But it's far from level!
For example, about 45% of IW customers won't pay a cent for excessive use.
No apartment will pay. So a 250 square meter luxury apartment in D4 with 3 en suites (each with a power shower) can use as much as they like for free while a 100 square meter terrace house with one bathroom will have a quota imposed?
Sure anyone who pays a fine for exceeding the quota under those rules is only an eejit!

Overheal

Surely no meter should mean no water. Anything less and you have a very broken deployment and enforcement method.

McMurphy

Overheal wrote: »

Surely no meter should mean no water. Anything less and you have a very broken deployment and enforcement method.

Pretty much sums up the entire Irish Water debacle from its inception.

Benedict

Overheal wrote: »

Surely no meter should mean no water. Anything less and you have a very broken deployment and enforcement method.

Not merely does no meter mean you have water but it means that unlike metered homes, you have as much as you want with no quota applied.


Having no meter is a big plus - that's why some people are disabling them.


I overheard someone sometime ago saying "Now wasn't I right to stop them installing a meter outside my house?"

Make no mistake, having no meter is great - it means you don't need to use a stop-watch while having a shower.

branie2

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I've noticed in the last few weeks that IW have been significantly ramping up their advertising on radio, extolling the work they're doing etc... they're definitely lining up for another run at the charges I think.

I've seen the ads.

Benedict

The thing is that even law-abiding citizens feel like fools when they do what they're told if those who are breaking the law go unpunished. People who obey the "quota" rule need to see that those who flout it are punished. And despite what IW are saying, everyone knows that those who disobey the "quota" rule will not - and cannot - be punished so could IW please stop pretending that they will be punished.

The current plan CANNOT work!

GreeBo

This thread confuses me.

The logic seems to be:
1) only some people have meters
2) people with meters will be charged
3) people without meters will/can not be charged
4) its unfair to charge only those with meters
5) its impossible to charge without meters
6) preventing more meters is a good thing


I'm with it up until 6) and then I'm confused.

micosoft

skimpydoo wrote: »

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

If there is a leak in an apartment its'
1. Fairly obvious. Unlike a leak in the grounds of a house that can be left for years.
2. A management company looks after the fabric of the building and will address leaks.

So tbh this entire "what about apartments" is a non-question. Nothing will happen because you won't have the leak in the first place or it will have been addressed by your management company.

micosoft

GreeBo wrote: »

This thread confuses me.

The logic seems to be:
1) only some people have meters
2) people with meters will be charged
3) people without meters will/can not be charged
4) its unfair to charge only those with meters
5) its impossible to charge without meters
6) preventing more meters is a good thing


I'm with it up until 6) and then I'm confused.

Exactly. Or think they are genius's for thinking up exceptional scenarios to "make reasons" other than a refusal to pay for a service they receive leading to an underfunded water service.

Brendan Bendar

Lads .....calm down.... don’t try to over analyse it.

Here’s the deal

It won’t get past the get go unless everyone has metered proof of usage.

Imagine this.

ESB. Big fight against meter installation, huge kickback, we pay for it in general taxation schite.

Huge refusal to allow meters to be installed.

Answer.

Shure we will just punish the folk with meters and hope no one notices while those with none waft around the house in their jocks all winter!!!

Would ya ever…………………………………

James Brown

GreeBo wrote: »

This thread confuses me.

The logic seems to be:
1) only some people have meters
2) people with meters will be charged
3) people without meters will/can not be charged
4) its unfair to charge only those with meters
5) its impossible to charge without meters
6) preventing more meters is a good thing


I'm with it up until 6) and then I'm confused.

You're missing:

Crony set up of IW.
Crony sweet metering deal.
Those on welfare will not be paying meters or not.

Many believe metering was a road to privatisation because FF/FG don't do anything unless they can monitise it for the private market.
So when all the above is combined you've various people not wanting anything to do with it for a number of reasons.

If FG/Lab had of been genuinely just looking to improve water infrastructure they could have gone about that first, exactly like they promised, but they got too greedy too fast and couldn't wait to get the metering in, which IMO was the main reason for the whole IW quango.