Water charges for excessive usage

K.Flyer

[Deleted User] wrote: »

IW will not be discriminating. Those without meters can be identified and charged for overuse same as those metered. In the Uk, customers were offered the choice of meter or flat rate. It works out ok for them. Why not here?

How does it work out for a single occupancy in an apartment when next door have 2 adults and two children, no meters and a flat rate imposed on both, where is there fairness in that?

Without a meter on a property and no group meter monitoring the estate's usage, I.W. may be able to determine that there is A Leak at a certain property. Without a meter they cannot quantify the loss, therefore cannot assess if there is over usage.
Even with a group meter, if more than one property has a leak, they cannot quantify the loss from each property accurately.
A half arsed barrister would show them the door in a courtroom.

K.Flyer

Irish Water Engineer Spotted Checking Homes With No Meters To Determine Over Usage..

Plumbthedepths

[Deleted User] wrote: »

IW will not be discriminating. Those without meters can be identified and charged for overuse same as those metered. In the Uk, customers were offered the choice of meter or flat rate. It works out ok for them. Why not here?

Without a meter how do you charge someone for overuse?
Your claim makes absolutely no sense.

charlie14

K.Flyer wrote: »

Each and every apartment has their own water supply entering the apartment, this is where a meter can be installed. New meters do not need to be physically read, they have transmitters on them, so ordinarily no need to access the apartment.
I could take pictures of numerous apartment water distribution systems where fitting a meter would only take a few minutes and are outside the apartments.
Regardless of all of that, by not metering apartment buildings I.W. have created a discrimination between those who they want to meter and those who they don't. If you are happy to accept that then, imo, more fool you.
How come in europe they are able to meter apartments, new and old. I've seen it done.
I.W. are going after the low hanging fruit and making those with meters pay for those who do not.

Perhaps I did not make it clear what the situation is regarding metering and IW.


IW can put a meter situated on public land on a supply pipe entering a property. They cannot enter a property to do so or put a meter anywhere on the curtilage.


Now a few other things we need to clear up.

I have never been a fool where IW or FG`s privatisation plans are concerned.

I have never "engaged" with IW, never paid them a cent or had any intention off, nor have I like some here who were so in favour of "pay what you use" claimed that idiotic "conservation grant".

The fools here are either those that are not in favour of this metering scam and do not see that this whole excess allowance thing is an attempt to, through divide and conquer, create a groundswell of noise that FG hope will further their wet dream of privatisation with all households metered

That or they are fools that believe wasting another Billion plus Euro will have any different outcome from the last time they attempted it.

charlie14

Deleted User wrote: »

There should be

Wasn`t FG in their graciousness going to allow a free drip for those that refused to "engage" with their scam :rolleyes:

Spanish Eyes

Maybe a zero point five increase in VAT on Goods and services is in order, ringfenced for Water. I do realise VAT is an own resource and a proportion of the yield is shared out via the EU or something like that.

But we can strike our own rate. Sorted.... Everyone who buys goods (0 rate excepted for everyone of course) and services pays a proportion for water through consumption of such goods and services.

Am I dreaming? I suppose the can't pay won't pay brigade will go ballistic, as will probably those paying for their own supply and on group water schemes outside mains supply, but hey, sometimes the easier it is to administer then the yield equals more than the bureacracy and bullsh!t being mooted re over users of water where many don't have a meter.

Just a mad thought I suppose, and am girding my loins for a pasting.

charlie14

Deleted User wrote: »

Just because they cannot get metered doesn’t mean that they cannot get charged.

So after a Billion euro of taxpayers money wasted during the worse economic crisis this country has seen,would you care to tell me where that leaves the two reasons IW and FG/Lab were attempting to sell this scam on, conservation and pay for what you use ?

Plumbthedepths

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Maybe a zero point five increase in VAT on Goods and services is in order, ringfenced for Water. I do realise VAT is an own resource and a proportion of the yield is shared out via the EU or something like that.

But we can strike our own rate. Sorted.... Everyone who buys goods (0 rate excepted for everyone of course) and services pays a proportion for water through consumption of such goods and services.

Am I dreaming? I suppose the can't pay won't pay brigade will go ballistic, as will probably those paying for their own supply and on group water schemes outside mains supply, but hey, sometimes the easier it is to administer then the yield equals more than the bureacracy and bullsh!t being mooted re over users of water where many don't have a meter.

Just a mad thought I suppose, and am girding my loins for a pasting.

Vat was increased before to pay for water, the money however was not ring fenced. Plus increasing vat to pay for water does not satisfy the end game which is privatisation. If it weren't, simple solution would be bring in a flat charge and give collection to Revenue job done. But the fact FG didn't speaks volumes.

charlie14

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Maybe a zero point five increase in VAT on Goods and services is in order, ringfenced for Water. I do realise VAT is an own resource and a proportion of the yield is shared out via the EU or something like that.

But we can strike our own rate. Sorted.... Everyone who buys goods (0 rate excepted for everyone of course) and services pays a proportion for water through consumption of such goods and services.

Am I dreaming? I suppose the can't pay won't pay brigade will go ballistic, as will probably those paying for their own supply and on group water schemes outside mains supply, but hey, sometimes the easier it is to administer then the yield equals more than the bureacracy and bullsh!t being mooted re over users of water where many don't have a meter.

Just a mad thought I suppose, and am girding my loins for a pasting.

I could see you getting a bit of a pasting from those that are happy to suport a political ideology on privatisation, and perhaps those on group water schemes, even though metering wasn`t going to effect them adversely financially, but for myself, and from what I have surmised on the various threads dealing with this, the vast majority of those opposed to metering are in favour of paying through general taxation.

Spanish Eyes

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Vat was increased before to pay for water, the money however was not ring fenced. Plus increasing vat to pay for water does not satisfy the end game which is privatisation. If it weren't, simple solution would be bring in a flat charge and give collection to Revenue job done. But the fact FG didn't speaks volumes.

Yes, in fairness the dodgy dealings re the contracts for meter installation + the potential privatisation were issues back then which led to its demise eventually.

However, if a certain proportion of VAT happened to be absolutely ringfenced (I know, I know) it would possibly cover all these ridiculous shenanigans. And the good thing is, that EVERYONE on mains water supply pays. Then again there is the issue of those on Group water or wells. But for the greater good maybe it would work.

Just throwing it out, as it may be visually or perceptively relatively non contentious. As I said, I enjoy the debate, but am bracing myself still!

But if anyone has a better idea, off you go, I'm open to anything that does not involve enrichment of a non Governmental entity.

Plumbthedepths

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Yes, in fairness the dodgy dealings re the contracts for meter installation + the potential privatisation were issues back then which led to its demise eventually.

However, if a certain proportion of VAT happened to be absolutely ringfenced (I know, I know) it would possibly cover all these ridiculous shenanigans. And the good thing is, that EVERYONE on mains water supply pays. Then again there is the issue of those on Group water or wells. But for the greater good maybe it would work.

Just throwing it out, as it may be visually or perseptively relatively non contentious. As I said, I enjoy the debate, but am bracing myself still!

But if anyone has a better idea, off you go, I'm open to anything that does not involve enrichment of a non Governmental entity.

A flat charge levelled by Revenue on every household connected to the public supply would be the fairest option plus no one escapes compliance with Revenue. Those on group schemes and private wells left as they were.
The upside once you hand it over to Revenue, privatisation is off the table, which would satisfy a large cohort of those against IW.

Brendan Bendar

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

A flat charge levelled by Revenue on every household connected to the public supply would be the fairest option plus no one escapes compliance with Revenue. Those on group schemes and private wells left as they were.
The upside once you hand it over to Revenue, privatisation is off the table, which would satisfy a large cohort of those against IW.

Now we are sucking diesel.......

Plumbthedepths

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Now we are sucking diesel.......

Suggested it many times B, i'm only a working Joe. Amazing how the 80 million spent on consulting couldn't arrive at such a simple solution. No gravy in it though for the friends of FG I guess.

Spanish Eyes

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

A flat charge levelled by Revenue on every household connected to the public supply would be the fairest option plus no one escapes compliance with Revenue. Those on group schemes and private wells left as they were.
The upside once you hand it over to Revenue, privatisation is off the table, which would satisfy a large cohort of those against IW.

Just like the LPT. A great success, well depends on what you get for it I suppose, and having been run by Revenue, well you know yourself there is apparently a 95% compliance rate, the legislation was written well and catered for deferral, inability to pay, but it would be taken eventually. No escape.

Big issue for me though was that LPT did/does not apply to renters be they Council or private. Yet they are availing of the same services that everyone else is. Don't like that. But anyway....

Apparently there was some block somewhere along the line (obviously) regarding Revenue taking on the Water Charge, cannot remember right now what it was, but it died anyway.

So back to my VAT charge. LOL.

Brendan Bendar

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Suggested it many times B, i'm only a working Joe. Amazing how the 80 million spent on consulting couldn't arrive at such a simple solution. No gravy in it though for the friends of FG I guess.

Well Pee, it doesn’t penalize the cretin with the garden hose on speed dial, but it would be a start, if the proceeds were ring fenced and there were no ‘ derogations’, no nod and wink dudes……… comprehendo.

K.Flyer

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

A flat charge levelled by Revenue on every household connected to the public supply would be the fairest option[...]

This was attempted back in the mid 90's with the proposed fee being 75.00 punts (approx 95.00 euro) and without the assistance of social media etc, people resisted it then, protested and the government of the day backed down.
Its not a fair proposal as properties vary in occupancy sizes and water usage.
Why should a single person pay the same as the big family next door who wash their car and driveway every other weeend?
What I could never understand about I.W. was why they tried to re-invent the wheel with their convoluted billing ideas.
In europe properties are metered, you pay a nominal basic charge, the property gets an allowance, you pay extra for above your allowance, simple really.
But as everyone saw, I.W. was a job for the boys with gilt edge salaries and pensions for wasting millions of tax payers money. A sham of a set up.

Brendan Bendar

K.Flyer wrote: »

This was attempted back in the mid 90's with the proposed fee being 75.00 punts (approx 95.00 euro) and without the assistance of social media etc, people resisted it then, protested and the government of the day backed down.
Its not a fair proposal as properties vary in occupancy sizes and water usage.
Why should a single person pay the same as the big family next door who wash their car and driveway every other weeend?
What I could never understand about I.W. was why they tried to re-invent the wheel with their convoluted billing ideas.
In europe properties are metered, you pay a nominal basic charge, the property gets an allowance, you pay extra for above your allowance, simple really.
But as everyone saw, I.W. was a job for the boys with gilt edge salaries and pensions for wasting millions of tax payers money. A sham of a set up.

Never heard of that , must have been popping into the nappy.

charlie14

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

A flat charge levelled by Revenue on every household connected to the public supply would be the fairest option plus no one escapes compliance with Revenue. Those on group schemes and private wells left as they were.
The upside once you hand it over to Revenue, privatisation is off the table, which would satisfy a large cohort of those against IW.

Getting Revenue involved would certainly knock privatisation on the head, but leveling such a flat charge would not only kill the FG wet dream, it would also mean they would have to admit that there was never going to be a hope of those meters already buried being used and that a Billion euro was needlessly wasted.


I would tend to go with Spanish Eyes on VAT being ring-fenced. It`s more or less a silent tax where some might complain at its introduction,but that would die off quickly and would knock privatisation as well.

Another letter along with HPT plus all the other taxes that go towards water services coming annually might not be accepted as easily.

Plumbthedepths

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Just like the LPT. A great success, well depends on what you get for it I suppose, and having been run by Revenue, well you know yourself there is apparently a 95% compliance rate, the legislation was written well and catered for deferral, inability to pay, but it would be taken eventually. No escape.

Big issue for me though was that LPT did/does not apply to renters be they Council or private. Yet they are availing of the same services that everyone else is. Don't like that. But anyway....

Apparently there was some block somewhere along the line (obviously) regarding Revenue taking on the Water Charge, cannot remember right now what it was, but it died anyway.

So back to my VAT charge. LOL.

Block is Revenue cannot collect on behalf of a private company. Quite easy to have the council supply the details of tenant's for charging proposes. The will just has to exist.

Spanish Eyes

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Block is Revenue cannot collect on behalf of a private company. Quite easy to have the council supply the details of tenant's for charging proposes. The will just has to exist.

Thanks, I knew there was some reason that Revenue would not get involved, but could not remember it.

Better to decommission IW, send it back to Central Gov and get the loot in by Revenue. But uh oh, there is something stopping that I am sure!

Plumbthedepths

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

But uh oh, there is something stopping that I am sure!

What stops it is the lack of gravy for the buddies of the political class. Although he who shall not be named did quite well out of the set up this far.

Brendan Bendar

Revenue deal with taxes, not charges?

There was some legalese around that terminology if I recollect correctly.

Spanish Eyes

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Revenue deal with taxes, not charges?

There was some legalese around that terminology if I recollect correctly.

Yes, there was something preventing Revenue from collecting Water Charges, unlike the LPT.

I think as you say, it may have been something to do with the fact the LPT was based on legislation as a tax, whereas IW charge was based on payment to an entity or something as a Charge.

Sorry for being so vague, but that is my recollection.

Could easily be changed with a Bill in the Dail though, or could it? Is IW a private entity now? I must have missed that. After I got my refund I forgot about the feckers. Well as you can see, we have a meter and paid up.

Never again though if there is no level field. Never. This excessive usage charge has to be a joke. Do they think we are idiots or what?

charlie14

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Revenue deal with taxes, not charges?

There was some legalese around that terminology if I recollect correctly.

Not a problem when it came to Local Property Tax Brendan and a flat charge collected by Revenue would have been no different.

But then to legislate for that rather than what they did legislate would have meant no privatisation possible.

Plumbthedepths

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Revenue deal with taxes, not charges?

There was some legalese around that terminology if I recollect correctly.

The precursor to the LPT was the Household Charge, no issue for Revenue to collect the charge.

Spanish Eyes

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

The precursor to the LPT was the Household Charge, no issue for Revenue to collect the charge.

Was collected by the Local Authority though, If I recall correctly. And all issues relating to it are referred to your Local Authority. It was a charge, not a tax.

Plumbthedepths

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Was collected by the Local Authority though, If I recall correctly. And all issues relating to it are referred to your Local Authority. It was a charge, not a tax.

Revenue collected the charge off those who refused to pay the Charge.

Spanish Eyes

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Revenue collected the charge off those who refused to pay the Charge.

Are your sure? I think it was an issue when closing a sale where the HC had never been paid. But open to correction.

I don't think Revenue got involved in the Household charge at all.

Plumbthedepths

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Are your sure? I think it was an issue when closing a sale where the HC had never been paid. But open to correction.

I don't think Revenue got involved in the Household charge at all.

Positive as the 100 euro increased to 200 and collected through income deduction by Revenue. Hiw do I know because i refused to pay the 100 euro. It was recorded on my pay slip as Household Charge. My local council spent 6 million building an office suite for themselves as services were being curtailed at the time of the charge.

Sleeper12

I've been following this on & off for 3 months now.

It'll be interesting to see how I get on. Four adults showering daily. I'm torn. Obviously I'm hoping to avoid the charges but I think I'll be disappointed if four adults escape the charges also