Water charges for excessive usage

Benedict

Benedict wrote: »

Yes, charges will be capped at E500 per annum - at least that is the current figure. That is what "people" will be charged if they significantly breach their quota. There is no guarantee that the cap will remain at E500 or that the quota will remain as it is now.
The real issue here is that the quota will only apply to around 50% of IW users. If you have a meter, you'll have to watch your usage while the family next door without a meter can use what they like with no quota applied.
Seriously Maryanne, are you happy with that situation? Do you think it's fair?

I’m happy that steps will be taken to conserve water. I would have thought that in the current climate change days that so would everyone?

The allowance is very generous. It should only be exceeded if one has a leak on their property.

Those of us with septic tanks are already used to paying for its maintenance.

Benedict

On The Hard Shoulder (Newstalk Radio) yesterday, Michael Brennan, author of a book about the water issue, referred to something Leo V said to him when he was launching the book. According to MB, Leo referred to the possibility of reducing the "threshold slowly" so as bit by bit even moderate users would be paying for excessive usage. The phrase "boiling the frog slowly" was used - it's there to be listened to.

At no time did anyone mention that only 50% of the users would be charged.

So if you're one of the "frogs" with a meter, you'll be "boiled slowly".

Make no mistake you metered folk, this is what is planned!

Those of you with no meters? Well, lucky you!

Brendan Bendar

Benedict wrote: »

On The Hard Shoulder (Newstalk Radio) yesterday, Michael Brennan, author of a book about the water issue, referred to something Leo V said to him when he was launching the book. According to MB, Leo referred to the possibility of reducing the "threshold slowly" so as bit by bit even moderate users would be paying for excessive usage. The phrase "boiling the frog slowly" was used - it's there to be listened to.

At no time did anyone mention that only 50% of the users would be charged.

So if you're one of the "frogs" with a meter, you'll be "boiled slowly".

Make no mistake you metered folk, this is what is planned!

Those of you with no meters? Well, lucky you!

Won’t happen,a chara, Middle Ireland won’t be stiffed twice.

R e l a x.......gonna be OK

Plumbthedepths

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Won’t happen,a chara, Middle Ireland won’t be stiffed twice.

R e l a x.......gonna be OK

You keep telling yourself that, see how that works out for you.

Brendan Bendar

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

You keep telling yourself that, see how that works out for you.

Yes I do, and it’s gonna be ok

Plumbthedepths

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Yes I do, and it’s gonna be ok

I sincerely doubt it. FG got a bloody nose from a large section of the population they will not let that go. You will pay no matter what you say here. So I will leave you and your heroic battle on behalf of middle Ireland.

Benedict

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Yes I do, and it’s gonna be ok

Do you mind my asking - do you have a meter?

Spanish Eyes

I agree this won't fly. Those who obeyed the law first time around and allowed meters to be installed are the very people who will be shafted by this. There will be a fight back from such people. Will make a nice change from the profile of the last shower who objected to meters and charges.

I can't get my head around this. Those with meters will be charged, whereas it will be impossible to establish excessive usage in those who do not have a meter. Impossible, and a court challenge will be taken on discrimination or whatever grounds, to be decided!

One solution is to offer a choice to those without a meter A. an annual E500 flat fee which would equal the cap for excessive usage by those with a meter. B. Or have a meter installed free of charge. Can you see the outcry already? Yet it's perfectly fine to charge those WITH a meter the excessive use charge.

No, unless those without a meter have the choice of a fixed annual fee or a meter, it won't happen. There may be trouble ahead..... from a different cohort to the last Water Protest supporters.

Just my ten cents.

Plumbthedepths

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I agree this won't fly. Those who obeyed the law first time around and allowed meters to be installed are the very people who will be shafted by this. There will be a fight back from such people. Will make a nice change from the profile of the last shower who objected to meters and charges.

I can't get my head around this. Those with meters will be charged, whereas it will be impossible to establish excessive usage in those who do not have a meter. Impossible, and a court challenge will be taken on discrimination or whatever grounds, to be decided!

One solution is to offer a choice to those without a meter A. an annual E500 flat fee which would equal the cap for excessive usage by those with a meter. B. Or have a meter installed free of charge. Can you see the outcry already? Yet it's perfectly fine to charge those WITH a meter the excessive use charge.

No, unless those without a meter have the choice of a fixed annual fee or a meter, it won't happen. There may be trouble ahead..... from a different cohort to the last Water Protest supporters.

Just my ten cents.

The last shower? You are aware that FG only changed the original charges they had envisaged when they saw thousands of ordinary voters take to the streets. I have worked since I was a teen and I called bull on the cash grab FG tried as did many of the people I work with. As an aside I'm living in my current home 15 years and have put in many methods of water conservation without the necessity of a bribe to sign up to a scam.

Shelflife

They made such a haemes of the original rollout that it should become a standard on how not to do things in the future.

That’s when they should have adopted the slow frog boil tactic.

An initial very low cost per litre, very low with higher charges the more you use. Then slowly increase the cost.

Flats and apartments , Bill the mgmt company after that it’s not their problem.

If you don’t pay then you get cut off. Simple enough to have a scheme where those who can’t pay get assistance and those who won’t pay get cut off.

The key here was to have the initial cost very low.

Spanish Eyes

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

The last shower? You are aware that FG only changed the original charges they had envisaged when they saw thousands of ordinary voters take to the streets. I have worked since I was a teen and I called bull on the cash grab FG tried as did many of the people I work with. As an aside I'm living in my current home 15 years and have put in many methods of water conservation without the necessity of a bribe to sign up to a scam.

Look, I don't care about that now, the protests from the anti water charge cohort are over. We have now moved on to excessive use charges which cannot be fairly charged to all. But will suit those who do not have a meter.

I threw out a possible solution.

Brendan Bendar

Benedict wrote: »

Do you mind my asking - do you have a meter?

Yes.

Plumbthedepths

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Look, I don't care about that now, the protests from the anti water charge cohort are over. We have now moved on to excessive use charges which cannot be fairly charged to all. But will suit those who do not have a meter.

I threw out a possible solution.

You threw out a piece of nonsense, how do you deal a premise that cannot be metered ? Even if they wish to be metered your suggestion is to penalise them. Hardly fair since it's not the fault of the occupier that their home can't be metered.

Plumbthedepths

Shelflife wrote: »

They made such a haemes of the original rollout that it should become a standard on how not to do things in the future.

That’s when they should have adopted the slow frog boil tactic.

An initial very low cost per litre, very low with higher charges the more you use. Then slowly increase the cost.

Flats and apartments , Bill the mgmt company after that it’s not their problem.

If you don’t pay then you get cut off. Simple enough to have a scheme where those who can’t pay get assistance and those who won’t pay get cut off.

The key here was to have the initial cost very low.

Anyone in Political life that suggests cutting off water will have a very short political career. Even Phil Hogan wasn't that stupid.

Shelflife

That’s why it should have been a token amount per qtr, €5 or whatever then slowly increase it.

Benedict

Deleted User wrote: »

I’m happy that steps will be taken to conserve water. I would have thought that in the current climate change days that so would everyone?

The allowance is very generous. It should only be exceeded if one has a leak on their property.

Those of us with septic tanks are already used to paying for its maintenance.

But what about fairness? If everyone breaching the quota got a fine, then ok. But that's not how it will be. IW are not even bothering to install meters in homes being built right now because their attitude is, those who already have meters are the targets and we'll leave it at that.
What if you were told you have to get your septic tank cleaned out regularly but the house next door doesn't have to? Would say just say "OK"?

_Kaiser_

Benedict wrote: »

But what about fairness? If everyone breaching the quota got a fine, then ok. But that's not how it will be. IW are not even bothering to install meters in homes being built right now because their attitude is, those who already have meters are the targets and we'll leave it at that.
What if you were told you have to get your septic tank cleaned out regularly but the house next door doesn't have to? Would say just say "OK"?

One of the big arguments used first time out by people with their septic tanks, wells or private schemes is that they have to pay for water anyway so why shouldn't everyone else?

What this ignores of course is that the reason they're paying is because they're living in a location that's not economically viable to provide mains services too. Same reason as top-end fibre broadband isn't available to isolated one-offs down a laneway somewhere.

What's also ignored is that despite these hardships, they probably have a far better and bigger house with more land than their urban counterpart would get for what they paid. They don't have the pollution and congestion of urban traffic, or the general crowding of living in a large town or city, and the overall costs of living are lower.

Fairness indeed!

Benedict

Benedict wrote: »

But what about fairness? If everyone breaching the quota got a fine, then ok. But that's not how it will be. IW are not even bothering to install meters in homes being built right now because their attitude is, those who already have meters are the targets and we'll leave it at that.
What if you were told you have to get your septic tank cleaned out regularly but the house next door doesn't have to? Would say just say "OK"?

Don’t worry your head about it. There are ways and means of identifying over use. As for meters and new builds, while the actual meter isn’t a requirement, the meter box is.

What my neighbor does with his septic tank is his business, same as it always was.

BTW, life was never meant to be fair. It’s up to each of us to make the most of it.

Benedict

Deleted User wrote: »

Don’t worry your head about it. There are ways and means of identifying over use. As for meters and new builds, while the actual meter isn’t a requirement, the meter box is.

What my neighbor does with his septic tank is his business, same as it always was.

BTW, life was never meant to be fair. It’s up to each of us to make the most of it.

If you get an estate somewhere with 500 houses. None of them with meters (as is quite common). No 157 is going over the quota. Can you say how in heaven's name IW can discover this. Because nobody else knows how? What are the "ways and means"?

C3PO

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Won’t happen,a chara, Middle Ireland won’t be stiffed twice.

R e l a x.......gonna be OK

I think you’ve mentioned that opinion before!

Benedict

Benedict wrote: »

If you get an estate somewhere with 500 houses. None of them with meters (as is quite common). No 157 is going over the quota. Can you say how in heaven's name IW can discover this. Because nobody else knows how? What are the "ways and means"?

Process of elimination. It won’t be long before No 157’s neighbors are begging for a meter!

Plumbthedepths

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Process of elimination. It won’t be long before No 157’s neighbors are begging for a meter!

That makes no sense to what you were asked tbh.

Plumbthedepths

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

That makes no sense to what you were asked tbh.

Process of elimination?

Plumbthedepths

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Process of elimination?

So my neighbour is using lots of water, logical action I beg for a meter.lol.

Brendan Bendar

C3PO wrote: »

I think you’ve mentioned that opinion before!

I have indeed, it is still quite valid, in my opinion.

Will I have another go............noooooooo.... spare you that.

Plumbthedepths

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

So my neighbour is using lots of water, logical action I beg for a meter.lol.

If you want to pay for their wastage, that’s up to you!

Plumbthedepths

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If you want to pay for their wastage, that’s up to you!

Still not seeing the logic in your comment, can you elaborate? As the example given all 500 houses were meter less. So what would have me begging for a meter in said fictional estate.

Benedict

Deleted User wrote: »

Process of elimination. It won’t be long before No 157’s neighbors are begging for a meter!

The question to you is this, how does IW know that No 157 is using too much.
If you know the answer please tell us because I don't know and nobody else (apart from you) knows either.


If they know how much No 157 is using and No 157 has no meter, what is the point of meters in the first place.


Now come on Maryanne, tell us!

Benedict

Benedict wrote: »

The question to you is this, how does IW know that No 157 is using too much.
If you know the answer please tell us because I don't know and nobody else (apart from you) knows either.


If they know how much No 157 is using and No 157 has no meter, what is the point of meters in the first place.


Now come on Maryanne, tell us!

Here you go. https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/qa-households-who-use-too-much-water-are-facing-fines--heres-everything-you-need-to-know-937670.html

“What if I don't have a meter? How will they measure my use?

Irish Water says that 55% of domestic premises are metered. Through the analysis of water balances, leak alarms and other means, Irish Water says they can identify areas where there appears to be excess use.

If an area is identified, a leakage and pressure investigation crew will be dispatched to measure supply at different points. This investigation crew can then determine the households that may have excess use.

And if I still don't have a meter?

Irish Water will offer you one. If your property can't be metered, a flow monitoring device will be connected to the service pipe to monitor usage and determine if the household has excess use.”

Brendan Bendar

Measure one

Measure all.

No reason whatsoever should one house be metered and another one not.

No way that kind of schyte would be tolerated.

No party would survive trying to push that rubbish through.