Water charges for excessive usage

blackcard · 18-07-2019 7:46pm

A lot of local authorities carried out repairs prior to Irish Water and are continuing to do so. Where Local Authorities used contractors, Irish Water are using contractors

Fann Linn · 18-07-2019 7:50pm

Tommy Kelly wrote: »

At the moment IW have subbed in contractors to replace all of the lead piping, repair & replace mains pipes in poor condition. That & repairing any leaks on external mains pipes from the boundary box to customers front doors.

It's all there under the 'Projects' section on their website. Check it out.

End of the day Irelands water system should never have gotten to the state it's in today.

What was the local authorities & county councils spending all your tax money on for decades? I'd love to know that.

IW have subbed in contractors and these projects are then overseen by LA/CoCo re engineers.

If there is a leak locally, the customer or member of the public now rings a call centre which then directs the call through a myriad of hoops and that same initial call returns on a nice shiny tablet back to the LA water services caretaker or supervisor.

Prior to IW if there was a leak that same customer or member of the public would ring their local Area Office, and speak directly to the very same LA water services caretaker or supervisor.

IW have given us call centres, pr gurus like Elizabeth Arnett, John Tierney and others.

Brendan Bendar · 18-07-2019 7:53pm

Fann Linn wrote: »

IW have subbed in contractors and these projects are then overseen by LA/CoCo re engineers.

If there is a leak locally, the customer or member of the public now rings a call centre which then directs the call through a myriad of hoops and that same initial call returns on a nice shiny tablet back to the LA water services caretaker or supervisor.

Prior to IW if there was a leak that same customer or member of the public would ring their local Area Office, and speak directly to the very same LA water services caretaker or supervisor.

IW have given us call centres, pr gurus like Elizabeth Arnett, John Tierney and others.

Have they given us full houses in Downeys sucking pints at 1230 of a Friday?

Subbed by John Q Taxpayer?

Fann Linn · 18-07-2019 7:54pm

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Have they given us full houses in Downeys sucking pints at 1230 of a Friday?

Subbed by John Q Taxpayer?

Any links?

Tommy Kelly · 18-07-2019 7:56pm

blackcard wrote: »

A lot of local authorities carried out repairs prior to Irish Water and are continuing to do so. Where Local Authorities used contractors, Irish Water are using contractors

Local authorities ideas of repairing leaks was to repair a leak on a rotten pipe and leave it at that. It's called kicking the can down the road. The rotton pipes should have been repalaced 30 years ago.

Local authorities never had private contractors in to carry out work to the scale of work that's going on now. There's massive lead replacement projects going on around the country now.

If you had a leak on the external mains pipe that supplies your home and it was inside your boundary wall the CC would tell you to fck off and repair it yourself. IW will repair it for free.

CC's are telling people to contact IW when they report known leaks everyday.

Your tax money is paying these CC workers. Remember that.

suicide_circus · 18-07-2019 7:56pm

blackcard wrote: »

A lot of local authorities carried out repairs prior to Irish Water and are continuing to do so. Where Local Authorities used contractors, Irish Water are using contractors

better to hire contractors than your own staff. employment law is so strongly in favour of the employee you'd be mad to hire someone yourself if you could avoid it.

Tommy Kelly · 18-07-2019 8:02pm

Fann Linn wrote: »

IW have subbed in contractors and these projects are then overseen by LA/CoCo re engineers.

If there is a leak locally, the customer or member of the public now rings a call centre which then directs the call through a myriad of hoops and that same initial call returns on a nice shiny tablet back to the LA water services caretaker or supervisor.

Prior to IW if there was a leak that same customer or member of the public would ring their local Area Office, and speak directly to the very same LA water services caretaker or supervisor.

IW have given us call centres, pr gurus like Elizabeth Arnett, John Tierney and others.

Absolute bull ****. LA engineers are not over seeing these projects.

Why can't or didn't they do these projects when.they should have been done decades ago?

I'll tell you why. Because they weren't able. Yet they took our taxes that was supposed to be spent on doing it.

County councils are the nearest things you'll get to the mafia in this country.

BarryD2 · 18-07-2019 8:02pm

Benedict wrote: »

The question is, would you be happy paying a fine while others were doing the same thing but weren't getting fined? It sounds like you would be happy?

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Must be a level playing field for the Brenner, otherwise this ‘strategy’ is complete and utter bull crap. Must. Be. A. Level. Playing. Field.

Well then go and campaign to level it. It needs to be fair to all and it's up to the state to implement that viable and fair strategy. If that means getting the army out of the barracks to deal with the minority that want to battle over it, so be it. Either that or cut them off until they see sense. As it is, the tail is wagging the dog.

is_that_so · 18-07-2019 8:05pm

Tommy Kelly wrote: »

At the moment IW have subbed in contractors to replace all of the lead piping, repair & replace mains pipes in poor condition. That & repairing any leaks on external mains pipes from the boundary box to customers front doors.

It's all there under the 'Projects' section on their website. Check it out.

End of the day Irelands water system should never have gotten to the state it's in today.

What was the local authorities & county councils spending all your tax money on for decades? I'd love to know that.

What were they spending the money that should have been put aside for the upgrading of our water system spent on or where did it go too?

Up until 1978 they actually had money then someone had a vision of a one party government. A secondary element of it is that they can't be seen. Potholes would always get far more attention than the leaky infrastructure beneath the ground. It is bizarre that even an LA like DCC only began to implement a leak reduction programme in the 90s and they are probably one of the best for leak reduction.

Brendan Bendar · 18-07-2019 8:05pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

better to hire contractors than your own staff. employment law is so strongly in favour of the employee you'd be mad to hire someone yourself if you could avoid it.

Check it out with some semi -states back in the day...

Internal staff took so long to complete work they ‘talked ‘themselves out of their jobs.

You are correct.

suicide_circus · 18-07-2019 8:11pm

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Check it out with some semi -states back in the day...

Internal staff took so long to complete work they ‘talked ‘themselves out of their jobs.

You are correct.

i have a good deal of experience in a particular semi state, what staff get away is nothing short of breathtaking.

Fann Linn · 18-07-2019 8:15pm

Tommy Kelly wrote: »

Local authorities ideas of repairing leaks was to repair a leak on a rotten pipe and leave it at that. It's called kicking the can down the road. The rotton pipes should have been repalaced 30 years ago.

Local authorities never had private contractors in to carry out work to the scale of work that's going on now. There's massive lead replacement projects going on around the country now.

If you had a leak on the external mains pipe that supplies your home and it was inside your boundary wall the CC would tell you to fck off and repair it yourself. IW will repair it for free.

CC's are telling people to contact IW when they report known leaks everyday.

Your tax money is paying these CC workers. Remember that.

1:Tommy, the can was kicked down the road because of Govt policy. Not LA workers fault.

2:There are massive capital projects on now but again, that is because of govt policy, ie they're spending money now, as someone else said private contractors have always worked hand in hand with LAs, its only now the cash is available.

3:CoCos would never do work inside the curtilage of private properties, be it to do with water, waste,sewage, housing repairs etc Why would they, it was never in their remit. I do know however they would never tell them to fcuk off.

4: LAs are telling people to contact IW with regard to leaks as that is what they've been instructed to do. I have seen it with my own eyes where a person has walked in off the street, spoken to the waterworks caretaker, reported a fault, and that very same caretaker has told the person to report the fault via IW and he has to wait until the call is delegated back to him before he can address it.

5: Tax payers money is paying these CoCo workers because they are fixing the leaks.
Have you a problen with that?

Fann Linn · 18-07-2019 8:15pm

Tommy Kelly wrote: »

Local authorities ideas of repairing leaks was to repair a leak on a rotten pipe and leave it at that. It's called kicking the can down the road. The rotton pipes should have been repalaced 30 years ago.

Local authorities never had private contractors in to carry out work to the scale of work that's going on now. There's massive lead replacement projects going on around the country now.

If you had a leak on the external mains pipe that supplies your home and it was inside your boundary wall the CC would tell you to fck off and repair it yourself. IW will repair it for free.

CC's are telling people to contact IW when they report known leaks everyday.

Your tax money is paying these CC workers. Remember that.

1:Tommy, the can was kicked down the road because of Govt policy. Not LA workers fault.

2:There are massive capital projects on now but again, that is because of govt policy, ie they're spending money now, as someone else said private contractors have always worked hand in hand with LAs, its only now the cash is available.

3:CoCos would never do work inside the curtilage of private properties, be it to do with water, waste,sewage, housing repairs etc Why would they, it was never in their remit. I do know however they would never tell them to fcuk off.

4: LAs are telling people to contact IW with regard to leaks as that is what they've been instructed to do. I have seen it with my own eyes where a person has walked in off the street, spoken to the waterworks caretaker, reported a fault, and that very same caretaker has told the person to report the fault via IW and he has to wait until the call is delegated back to him before he can address it.

5: Tax payers money is paying these CoCo workers because they are fixing the leaks.
Have you a problen with that?

Fann Linn · 18-07-2019 8:20pm

Tommy Kelly wrote: »

Absolute bull ****. LA engineers are not over seeing these projects.

Why can't or didn't they do these projects when.they should have been done decades ago?

I'll tell you why. Because they weren't able. Yet they took our taxes that was supposed to be spent on doing it.

County councils are the nearest things you'll get to the mafia in this country.

So there are no LA RE engineers overseeing these projects? Are you sure?

James Brown · 18-07-2019 8:37pm

Tommy Kelly wrote: »

Absolute bull ****. LA engineers are not over seeing these projects.

Why can't or didn't they do these projects when.they should have been done decades ago?

I'll tell you why. Because they weren't able. Yet they took our taxes that was supposed to be spent on doing it.

County councils are the nearest things you'll get to the mafia in this country.

You're misinformed Tommy.
IW stated when they set up the quango that the LA's did great work despite decades of under funding. The LA's had contractors carry out maintenance and repairs under the Dept of the environment, now we've the failed quango, using the LA's, who use contractors, to carry out repairs and maintenance.

If the councils are Mafia, what do you think of the Siteserv deal and despite blarney to the contrary, making meter installation a priority over mains repair and over haul? The Siterv deal is under investigation, not the LA's.

is_that_so · 18-07-2019 8:39pm

Fann Linn wrote: »

So there are no LA RE engineers overseeing these projects? Are you sure?

See Number 4 above. LAs are now just jobswoths on water problems. They make you contact IW who usually pass it back to the LA.

Tommy Kelly · 18-07-2019 8:41pm

Fann Linn wrote: »

1:Tommy, the can was kicked down the road because of Govt policy. Not LA workers fault.

2:There are massive capital projects on now but again, that is because of govt policy, ie they're spending money now, as someone else said private contractors have always worked hand in hand with LAs, its only now the cash is available.

3:CoCos would never do work inside the curtilage of private properties, be it to do with water, waste,sewage, housing repairs etc Why would they, it was never in their remit. I do know however they would never tell them to fcuk off.

4: LAs are telling people to contact IW with regard to leaks as that is what they've been instructed to do. I have seen it with my own eyes where a person has walked in off the street, spoken to the waterworks caretaker, reported a fault, and that very same caretaker has told the person to report the fault via IW and he has to wait until the call is delegated back to him before he can address it.

5: Tax payers money is paying these CoCo workers because they are fixing the leaks.
Have you a problen with that?

Once again LA's / CC's never ever repaired leaks on private (domestic) property only at the boundary box or on the mains on the public side. Where as IW or the contractors they have subbed in will.

I have seen this with my own eyes. I work in leak investigation / detection & I call to council houses every single day of the week where I identify large scale leaks inside the boundary wall of said properties that have been known about by the CC's for years yet did nothing about. They are being paid to repair the leaks / conserve water yet they didn't. Note I cover 4 counties & it's the same story in each county.

I know engineers working for county councils & they don't have as much as a safe pass to their name. I also know first hand the disgraceful way they spend & waste our tax payers money.

Have you a problem with me being paid to repair leaks / conserve water?

James Brown · 18-07-2019 8:43pm

is_that_so wrote: »

See Number 4 above. LAs are now just jobswoths on water problems. They make you contact IW who usually pass it back to the LA.

It's simple. You use to contact the local LA water department, now you contact IW. Then IW tell the LA and the LA gets the contractor. Money well spent

Tommy Kelly · 18-07-2019 8:45pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You're misinformed Tommy.
IW stated when they set up the quango that the LA's did great work despite decades of under funding. The LA's had contractors carry out maintenance and repairs under the Dept of the environment, now we've the failed quango, using the LA's, who use contractors, to carry out repairs and maintenance.

If the councils are Mafia, what do you think of the Siteserv deal and despite blarney to the contrary, making meter installation a priority over mains repair and over haul? The Siterv deal is under investigation, not the LA's.

Tell me why is it that our water network is red rotten today then?

Simple question...

Tommy Kelly · 18-07-2019 8:55pm

is_that_so wrote: »

See Number 4 above. LAs are now just jobswoths on water problems. They make you contact IW who usually pass it back to the LA.

Contractors have numbers & targets to hit when it comes to leak reduction. That's something the CC's / LA's never had to worry about.

Questions will have to answered every Friday if there isn't a certain amount of jobs closed out or completed.

The leaks are there we all know that, IW want the contractors to do what they are being paid for and that's identify & repair them.

Plumbthedepths · 18-07-2019 9:03pm

BarryD2 wrote:

Well then go and campaign to level it. It needs to be fair to all and it's up to the state to implement that viable and fair strategy. If that means getting the army out of the barracks to deal with the minority that want to battle over it, so be it. Either that or cut them off until they see sense. As it is, the tail is wagging the dog.

You want the army deployed against civilians who engage in civil disobedience, are you serious?

klaaaz · 18-07-2019 9:10pm

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

You want the army deployed against civilians who engage in civil disobedience, are you serious?

It's typical FG hatred of the poor attitude, look down on the plebs as subhuman so that the army be deployed to shoot the vulnerable and unfortunates.

Tommy Kelly · 18-07-2019 9:13pm

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

You want the army deployed against civilians who engage in civil disobedience, are you serious?

I knocked on the door of a house the other day to see if they'd mind turning off their inside stop valve for 2 mins while I done a test at the boundary box / meter that was feeding their house. There was an 8 litre per min constant flow going through said meter.

The door was opened by what I quickly found out to be IW protester who immediately stuck his forehead to mine on the doorstep & marched me backwards outside the boundary wall. he proceeded to tell me he didn't give two fcks about the amount of water that was going through the meter and that if I stepped inside the boundary wall again he'd mangle me that and alot of other obscenities that I couldn't repeat on here.

It's worth noting that it was a local authority house he occupied. 8 litres per min constant flow 24/7. Not to sure how that leak will be repaired now. Waste of time fining or charging that lad too.

Plumbthedepths · 18-07-2019 9:15pm

Tommy Kelly wrote:

It's worth noting that it was a local authority house he occupied. 8 litres per min constant flow 24/7. Not to sure how that leak will be repaired now. Waste of time fining or charging that lad.

What precisely has your post got to do with suggesting the deployment of soldiers against civilians?

Tommy Kelly · 18-07-2019 9:16pm

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

What precisely has your post got to do with suggesting the deployment of soldiers against civilians?

Nothing.

Plumbthedepths · 18-07-2019 9:19pm

Tommy Kelly wrote:

Nothing.

So why respond to my question about the army ?However I assume you made a compliant to the guards instead of just posting your experience here.

Tommy Kelly · 18-07-2019 9:22pm

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

So why respond to my question about the army ?However I assume you made a compliant to the guards instead of just posting your experience here.

I didn't make a complaint, no. I considered it a waste of time.

Have you a problem with me posting my experience here? It appears you do.

Have you nothing else to nit pick about?

Plumbthedepths · 18-07-2019 9:24pm

Tommy Kelly wrote:

Have you a problem with me posting my experience here? It appears you do.

Not at all, but if I was threatened the guards would seem the natural port of call not a bunch of randomers on the internet. I suppose it was convenient though this thread popped up today and your nasty experience happened on the same day, what are the odds. ;-)

Tommy Kelly · 18-07-2019 9:30pm

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Not at all, but if I was threatened the guards would seem the natural port of call not a bunch of randomers on the internet. I suppose it was convenient though this thread popped up today and your nasty experience happened on the same day, what are the odds. ;-)

It didn't happen today though.

Someone posting on the internet to a random person making reference to to said person posting about an experience to a bunch of random people on the internet. Fair amount of Irony there in fairness.

odyssey06 · 18-07-2019 9:32pm

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

You want the army deployed against civilians who engage in civil disobedience, are you serious?

They will be too busy guarding the ATMs or the Border post Brexit. I get confused by FG spin.

Water charges for excessive usage

Comments