Water charges for excessive usage

Snow Garden

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe if you read the thread. It’s only a few pages back.

The post number perhaps?

James Brown

The way I see it; we were in such bad state, anything was possible. We could have dismantled and rebuilt anything we wanted. We really could have 'changed the way we do business'. Kenny's Fine Gael decided to take advantage with Reilly's clinics and the quango that is Irish Water. Noonan's dept. deal with O'Brien is still under investigation. It was an exercise in 'looking after our own'.
Any talk on the environment was a mere vehicle for nest feathering. The metering was the entire point IMO.
Anyone who believes it was a genuine attempt to tackle water infrastructure has been well and truly fooled. The political architects of the Irish Water concept are laughing behind their sleeves at you.

high_king

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Over and out.... Middle Ireland won’t be stiffed twice.

twice ? lol . . .They've been stiffed for generations and always take it, and always will. They are a cash cow for the golden circle, the wealthy and the welfare classes.

K.Flyer

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Has anyone discovered how they'll find out if an unmetered property is going over their allowance?

Pipe dream.

They can show that you have a LEAK fairly easy, but without a group meter it's Impossible to quantify.
Even with a group meter, if nobody has a leak and it's a sizeable development, then it's almost impossible to pinpoint who is using more than they should.
A leak on a property with a group meter may give them a slight chance to calculate, but it would have to be the ONLY property with a leak on that meter. But a leak does not necessarily mean over usage either. The property may use very little water due to harvesting or conservation, and even with a leak, may not break the threshold.
The only sure fire way to prove you over use is by you having a meter on your own supply.
But, they will not dig up the path to fit one, as that is hugely more expensive than the fine, so they "offer" to fit one to your supply within your boundry if they "suspect" you are over the threshold.
You tell them to sod off they are not coming in and there is nothing they can do, no proof, tough luck!
As for I.W. offering to fix a leak for you, currently, according to their web site, they will only fix a leak on a metered supply.

high_king

K.Flyer wrote: »

They can show that you have a LEAK fairly easy, but without a group meter it's Impossible to quantify.
Even with a group meter, if nobody has a leak and it's a sizeable development, then it's almost impossible to pinpoint who is using more than they should.
A leak on a property with a group meter may give them a slight chance to calculate, but it would have to be the ONLY property with a leak on that meter. But a leak does not necessarily mean over usage either. The property may use very little water due to harvesting or conservation, and even with a leak, may not break the threshold.
The only sure fire way to prove you over use is by you having a meter on your own supply.
But, they will not dig up the path to fit one, as that is hugely more expensive than the fine, so they "offer" to fit one to your supply within your boundry if they "suspect" you are over the threshold.
You tell them to sod off they are not coming in and there is nothing they can do, no proof, tough luck!
As for I.W. offering to fix a leak for you, currently, according to their web site, they will only fix a leak on a metered supply.

So what about the dupes that collaberated with IW and allowed a meter to be fitted to their supply, in effect they are the only ones that can be fined now for excessive use . .lol . . this is no country for honest men.

Does anyone remember Enda's very suspiciously worded promise "those who paid their Irish water bills will not be treated any less favorably that those who did not"

K.Flyer

high_king wrote: »

So what about the dupes that collaberated with IW and allowed a meter to be fitted to their supply, in effect they are the only ones that can be fined now for excessive use . .lol

That's what most of this thread has been about.
Those with meters are really the only ones who will be checked.
Someone on an average sized development with no meters but on a group meter would have to be using a huge amounts of water to raise a flag on a group meter, but that still doesn't tell I.W. which property it is.
If that property does not have a leak and only uses (wastes) water during the day, I.W. will have a huge task picking out and proving which property it is.

high_king

K.Flyer wrote: »

That's what most of this thread has been about.
Those with meters are really the only ones who will be checked.
Someone on an average sized development with no meters but on a group meter would have to be using a huge amounts of water to raise a flag on a group meter, but that still doesn't tell I.W. which property it is.
If that property does not have a leak and only uses (wastes) water during the day, I.W. will have a huge task picking out and proving which property it is.

please don't tell me it took 77 pages to come to the simple conclusion that only those that were fool enough to let IW put a meter in will be liable ?

Brendan Bendar

high_king wrote: »

please don't tell me it took 77 pages to come to the simple conclusion that only those that were fool enough to let IW put a meter in will be liable ?

No only those who will pay Irish Water are the fools.

Stiffed once.……… won’t be stiffed again.


Meter one……………meter all.

Benedict

K.Flyer wrote: »

That's what most of this thread has been about.
Those with meters are really the only ones who will be checked.
Someone on an average sized development with no meters but on a group meter would have to be using a huge amounts of water to raise a flag on a group meter, but that still doesn't tell I.W. which property it is.
If that property does not have a leak and only uses (wastes) water during the day, I.W. will have a huge task picking out and proving which property it is.

Even if their SWAT team did pick out a "suspect" and sat outside for 24 hours measuring the flow, they would have to remain there 24/7/365 in order to establish a total annual figure.


Even if a home used 200 litres in one day - theoretically, they might use nothing for the rest of the year and would not be liable for a charge.


IW would not be legally entitled to say "You used X amount last Monday so we'll multiply that by 365".


So if you don't have a meter and see a caravan parked up outside your front gate, it might be the SWAT team.

Brendan Bendar

Benedict wrote: »

Even if their SWAT team did pick out a "suspect" and sat outside for 24 hours measuring the flow, they would have to remain there 24/7/365 in order to establish a total annual figure.


Even if a home used 200 litres in one day - theoretically, they might use nothing for the rest of the year and would not be liable for a charge.


IW would not be legally entitled to say "You used X amount last Monday so we'll multiply that by 365".


So if you don't have a meter and see a caravan parked up outside your front gate, it might be the SWAT team.

Unless there’s a few greyhounds hanging around the caravan, I wouldn’t worry.

Brendan Bendar

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Unless there’s a few greyhounds hanging around the caravan, I wouldn’t worry.

Are you casting aspersions about greyhound owners??

Benedict

high_king wrote: »

please don't tell me it took 77 pages to come to the simple conclusion that only those that were fool enough to let IW put a meter in will be liable ?

Well, you may think it is simple but IW are betting all their chips on the gamble that users will believe that they'll know exactly what non-metered homes are using and bill them accordingly.



What this thread has been about is showing clearly that IW are wrong and that the country will be split between those who have to stick to a quota (or be fined) and those who can use what they like with no fines.

K.Flyer

Benedict wrote: »

Even if a home used 200 litres in one day - theoretically, they might use nothing for the rest of the year and would not be liable for a charge.

IW would not be legally entitled to say "You used X amount last Monday so we'll multiply that by 365".

This is where a good solicitor / barrister would show them the door in a court.
Unless they have a meter which can individually monitor your supply then they will have great difficulty proving that you use more than the threshold.
The only chance is if you have a bad LEAK and you are the Only property in the development with any sort of leak and there is a group meter. Then even then, they would need to shut off every other property in that development in order to measure your flow over a given time. They would then need to do it several times a week and keep doing it until their measurements exceed the threshold. Think of the man hours overtime this would cost Irish Water.
They cannot just isolate everyone, measure one, say for an hour, then multiply it out and say here is a fine because in six months you will go over, that is not proof.
Those with meters are the easy pickings for them.
And now there are some people over the last few years who have probably moved from a property without a meter to one with and vice versa.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The way I see it; we were in such bad state, anything was possible. We could have dismantled and rebuilt anything we wanted. We really could have 'changed the way we do business'. Kenny's Fine Gael decided to take advantage with Reilly's clinics and the quango that is Irish Water. Noonan's dept. deal with O'Brien is still under investigation. It was an exercise in 'looking after our own'.
Any talk on the environment was a mere vehicle for nest feathering. The metering was the entire point IMO.
Anyone who believes it was a genuine attempt to tackle water infrastructure has been well and truly fooled. The political architects of the Irish Water concept are laughing behind their sleeves at you.

The fools are those who believed that water infrastructure could be fixed without water charges and without an independent entity that could borrow on its own terms.

600,000 are under a boil water notice at the moment, what percentage of those were those fools?

charlie14

Benedict wrote: »

Even if their SWAT team did pick out a "suspect" and sat outside for 24 hours measuring the flow, they would have to remain there 24/7/365 in order to establish a total annual figure.


Even if a home used 200 litres in one day - theoretically, they might use nothing for the rest of the year and would not be liable for a charge.


IW would not be legally entitled to say "You used X amount last Monday so we'll multiply that by 365".


So if you don't have a meter and see a caravan parked up outside your front gate, it might be the SWAT team.

In theory there are two ways they could attempt to find if an unmetered household is using more than their allowance, and none whatsoever to find if apartments are.

There is the way you mention, which would be economic insanity, or they could do all their calculations based on a district meter reading, of lets say 500 households, and then attempt to use those figures as an excuse to meter all 500 household to find who is exceeding their allocation.

That also even loosely based on the law of economics makes no sense in outlay against returns.
Especially when for the same effort and a whole lot less money the could find and fix leaks in the mains that are the cause of 50% of water loss.


For me at least, that is the big plan. Softly softly catchy monkey with support from those that are already metered.
If those that are metered are dumb enough to fall for it on nothing other than misery loves company, where even the first attempt at prosecuting for going over the allocation would be laughed out of court, then they will really learn what misery is down the line.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

The fools are those who believed that water infrastructure could be fixed without water charges and without an independent entity that could borrow on its own terms.

600,000 are under a boil water notice at the moment, what percentage of those were those fools?

Metering and "off the books" were nothing other than set ups for privatisation. They were that inept that they even stated that was the plan in the submission to Eurostat when attempting "off the books"


600,000 under boil water notice in the greater Dublin area had nothing to do with funding. Just sheer ineptitude on the part of Irish Water on the basics of mains water treatment.


But all that you know without having to be told.

Brendan Bendar

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you casting aspersions about greyhound owners??

No, just greyhound owners who live in caravans.

Brendan Bendar

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

No, just greyhound owners who live in caravans.

Caravan dwellers favour lurchers over pure breeds! Speaking as a greyhound owner!

Brendan Bendar

Deleted User wrote: »

Caravan dwellers favour lurchers over pure breeds! Speaking as a greyhound owner!

Thank you for that, I stand corrected.

K.Flyer

blanch152 wrote: »

600,000 are under a boil water notice at the moment, what percentage of those were those fools?

The reason for the boil notice is due to Kildare Co Co for decades never sorting out the water facility that draws from the liffey for drinking water, which at one point drew the water Down Stream from the Sewerage treatment facility overflow discharge into the river.

Benedict

charlie14 wrote: »

In theory there are two ways they could attempt to find if an unmetered household is using more than their allowance, and none whatsoever to find if apartments are.

There is the way you mention, which would be economic insanity, or they could do all their calculations based on a district meter reading, of lets say 500 households, and then attempt to use those figures as an excuse to meter all 500 household to find who is exceeding their allocation.

That also even loosely based on the law of economics makes no sense in outlay against returns.
Especially when for the same effort and a whole lot less money the could find and fix leaks in the mains that are the cause of 50% of water loss.


For me at least, that is the big plan. Softly softly catchy monkey with support from those that are already metered.
If those that are metered are dumb enough to fall for it on nothing other than misery loves company, where even the first attempt at prosecuting for going over the allocation would be laughed out of court, then they will really learn what misery is down the line.

With respect, you are forgetting that IW do not need an excuse to meter homes. They are legally entitled to do so right now. But the home owners will not accept meters - and you are also forgetting that IW don't install meters anymore.

Beta Ray Bill

blanch152 wrote: »

The fools are those who believed that water infrastructure could be fixed without water charges and without an independent entity that could borrow on its own terms.

600,000 are under a boil water notice at the moment, what percentage of those were those fools?

Sorry but you've completely got the wrong end of the stick here.

Irish water has cost millions to set up:
€30m on installing just 51,700 meters over 9 months.
€13m on administrative costs.
€10m on the irish water contact centre.

Also they pay bonuses totaling around €3m to staff every year.

That's €62m in just 3 years with even one pipe being fixed or one water treatment plant being built.

We've have overflows at Ringsend, boil notices for most of the capital, a boil notice for over a year in Galway, etc, etc

And they expect people to pay for this?
That 60 Million could have gone towards the Ringsend upgrade.

One thing is for sure though, it's that Irish people have learned they don't have to take this crap off a government that won't listen to the voices of the majority of the people that 100% did not want water charges introduced.
It's also shown that the middle classes have no more to give, (and wont give).

Snow Garden

You forgot the consultant fees...

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/untruths-of-irish-water-setup-costs-467510.html

However at yesterday’s Joint Oireachtas Committee on Housing, Planning and Local Government, Mr O’Dowd criticised Irish Water for a lack of transparency within the company, and for the costs in establishing the utility.


“We were told the total set-up costs of consultants would be less than €20m,” said Mr O’Dowd. “That’s the truth. And what happened? It was over €200m. They went crazy with consultants, they spent money left, right, and centre

Only idiots would pay for waste like this.

Snow Garden

The irony is that installing the water meters have made the water infrastructure even worse. We have essentially paid hundreds of millions to go backwards.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/cork-county-council-fix-375-leaks-at-new-water-meters-and-replace-80-faulty-meter-boxes-442858.html

Cork County Council had to fix 375 leaks at newly installed water meters last year and get an additional 80 meter boxes replaced, because they were faulty.

The news has led to claims some Irish Water contractors installing the meters and connections to them were guilty of “shoddy” workmanship.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/water-meter-installation-damages-1-in-50-pipes-621776.html

Dublin City Council has reportedly spent €136,000 fixing leaks caused by the installation of water meters.

According to a report in the Irish Times, contractors working for Irish Water have damaged pipes outside one in every 50 homes.

A massive waste of money.

charlie14

Benedict wrote: »

With respect, you are forgetting that IW do not need an excuse to meter homes. They are legally entitled to do so right now. But the home owners will not accept meters - and you are also forgetting that IW don't install meters anymore.

All true.
Irish Water do not install meters anymore, nor do they need an excuse too.


That doesn`t mean that given even half a chance they would`nt attempt too.

Beta Ray Bill

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

Sorry but you've completely got the wrong end of the stick here.

Irish water has cost millions to set up:
€30m on installing just 51,700 meters over 9 months.
€13m on administrative costs.
€10m on the irish water contact centre.

Also they pay bonuses totaling around €3m to staff every year.

That's €62m in just 3 years with even one pipe being fixed or one water treatment plant being built.

We've have overflows at Ringsend, boil notices for most of the capital, a boil notice for over a year in Galway, etc, etc

And they expect people to pay for this?
That 60 Million could have gone towards the Ringsend upgrade.

One thing is for sure though, it's that Irish people have learned they don't have to take this crap off a government that won't listen to the voices of the majority of the people that 100% did not want water charges introduced.
It's also shown that the middle classes have no more to give, (and wont give).

Miles and miles of pipes have been replaced here in Tipperary. But, shur, why let facts get in the way of a good old rant.

People get the service they pay for. Or in this case, don’t pay for.

blanch152

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

Sorry but you've completely got the wrong end of the stick here.

Irish water has cost millions to set up:
€30m on installing just 51,700 meters over 9 months.
€13m on administrative costs.
€10m on the irish water contact centre.

Also they pay bonuses totaling around €3m to staff every year.

That's €62m in just 3 years with even one pipe being fixed or one water treatment plant being built.

We've have overflows at Ringsend, boil notices for most of the capital, a boil notice for over a year in Galway, etc, etc

And they expect people to pay for this?
That 60 Million could have gone towards the Ringsend upgrade.

One thing is for sure though, it's that Irish people have learned they don't have to take this crap off a government that won't listen to the voices of the majority of the people that 100% did not want water charges introduced.
It's also shown that the middle classes have no more to give, (and wont give).

Water charges would have enabled Irish Water to borrow hundreds of millions to fix the infrastructure.

K.Flyer

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Miles and miles of pipes have been replaced here in Tipperary. But, shur, why let facts get in the way of a good old rant.

People get the service they pay for. Or in this case, don’t pay for.

Here's the thing, look at all that money that was spent setting up I.W., consultants and meter installation, not to mention the very generous bonuses and severance payoffs.
Where did all this money come from, taxpayers off course, all of us.
So the service we got for our money was, from the outset, shoddy and inept. Money wasted.
If they had rolled all that money into the creaking infrastructure first, then at least we would have seen a service worth paying for, not some gilt edged quango jobs for the boys.

charlie14

Deleted User wrote: »

Miles and miles of pipes have been replaced here in Tipperary. But, shur, why let facts get in the way of a good old rant.

People get the service they pay for. Or in this case, don’t pay for.

We have been hearing you for around 5 years now about these miles of pipes in Tipperary. With the water being lost via mains leaks not having lessened over those year, then this is either confined to Tipperary or those pipes are for something other than water.
But shur don`t let propaganda get in the way of facts.


And shur while you are at it, don`t let all the ways we have been, and still are paying for water services, get in the way of a criminally expensive failed political scam.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

Water charges would have enabled Irish Water to borrow hundreds of millions to fix the infrastructure.

It would certainly have made it handy for privatising with a few old friends waiting in the wings

It would have really helped if the countless hundreds of millions wasted on metering had been used to fix the infrastructure.