Water charges for excessive usage

James Brown · 25-10-2019 7:45pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Exactly why it should be privatised. That way every TD in the country will be keeping an eye on them and every household will pay for what they use. Simples.

Maybe in La La land.
Does 'Our hands are tied. We've signed up to contracts' ring any bells? It's what we hear when the public complain about private enterprise. They played a blinder with outsourcing the cervical checks and Children's hospital build :rolleyes:

K.Flyer · 25-10-2019 8:10pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Exactly why it should be privatised. That way every TD in the country will be keeping an eye on them and every household will pay for what they use. Simples.

Will they fcuk..
They weren't keeping an eye on the new children's hospital finances, and when that blew up in the media what did they do????
Nothing was done!
Who got reprimanded and lost their job?
Nobody!

Why do our governments try to re-invent the wheel when there are proven successful ways of doing things in other countries..
Going back over the years they get so many major infrastructure projects wrong because they are so pig headed in not wanting to be seen "copying" someone else.
A few come to mind..
M50, originally made too narrow with useless interchanges, Port Tunnel, too low for certain trucks, Luas, no "joined up" thinking, and when they did they still got it wrong, Children's Hospital, nuff said, Irish Water a p!ss take of an effort and a classic example of how to really balls something up.

charlie14 · 25-10-2019 8:13pm

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

That’s what private companies do, padre.

Increase productivity, increase efficiency, generate profit.

What do state companies do?

Bleed the taxpayer dry

Bed in a large number of ‘lifers’ who once they are ‘made permanent’ immediately either ,

A.... Fight the management backed by unions at every hands turn.

B... Set. Up your own business and work the system as a back up

C..Go on sick leave or disability and lie back while the euro s roll in

D.. use the nod and wink strategy where if in your area it’s a barter system, you lift my bins, all six of them:D, and I’ll sort out your plumbing problems for you.

E.. be backed up in Downeys of a Friday with a tray of pints a t 1300 hrs

You don’t fool anybody, buddy.

For private companies squeezing as much as they can out of consumers for their product is their primary and often only concern. Hand them a product where they have a monopoly and they will squeeze until your wallet pops.

One of the main points attempting to sell this metering pup was the conservation of water.
How many private companies do you know Brendan that encourage consumers to use less of their product?

If we take the example of our nearest neighbour, England, that has been mentioned here, when consumption fell prices simply went up to ensure profits didn`t drop. Good you might say in that water was conserved, even if householders didn`t see the financial benefit. Problem is, the water supposedly conserved was sold at reduced rates to bulk buyers.

Brendan Bendar · 25-10-2019 8:38pm

charlie14 wrote: »

For private companies squeezing as much as they can out of consumers for their product is their primary and often only concern. Hand them a product where they have a monopoly and they will squeeze until your wallet pops.

One of the main points attempting to sell this metering pup was the conservation of water.
How many private companies do you know Brendan that encourage consumers to use less of their product?

If we take the example of our nearest neighbour, England, that has been mentioned here, when consumption fell prices simply went up to ensure profits didn`t drop. Good you might say in that water was conserved, even if householders didn`t see the financial benefit. Problem is, the water supposedly conserved was sold at reduced rates to bulk buyers.

Surely the consumers are able to think for themselves, and surely there are regulators to ‘ oversee’ the processes.

There is no way a service provider , especially a vital service provider would be allowed to operate un moderated.

Give us credit for some intelligence .

charlie14 · 25-10-2019 9:01pm

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Surely the consumers are able to think for themselves, and surely there are regulators to ‘ oversee’ the processes.

There is no way a service provider , especially a vital service provider would be allowed to operate un moderated.

Give us credit for some intelligence .

What exactly would the consumers have to think about if a product they require to simply stay alive was monopolised by a private company ? This regulator you mention ?
I`m sure they will find a lot of solace in that thought. We have such a strong history of regulatory protection from private company greed.:rolleyes:

Brendan Bendar · 25-10-2019 9:11pm

charlie14 wrote: »

What exactly would the consumers have to think about if a product they require to simply stay alive was monopolised by a private company ? This regulator you mention ?
I`m sure they will find a lot of solace in that thought. We have such a strong history of regulatory protection from private company greed.:rolleyes:

Go up to Dunnes and buy some.

Probably would be a good idea.

Would they think of that would you say, or die of thirst in the conservatory.

Jeez :rolleyes:

charlie14 · 25-10-2019 9:26pm

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Go up to Dunnes and buy some.

Probably would be a good idea.

Would they think of that would you say, or die of thirst in the conservatory.

Jeez :rolleyes:

That could work well for both the private company monopolising water and Dunnes.
When the private monopoly have squeezed households to use as little water as possible for the maximum monetary return, they can sell all that "conserved" water at a bulk cut rate to Dunnes.:rolleyes:

BarryD2 · 25-10-2019 9:32pm

charlie14 wrote: »

That could work well for both the private company monopolising water and Dunnes.
When the private monopoly have squeezed households to use as little water as possible for the maximum monetary return, they can sell all that "conserved" water at a bulk cut rate to Dunnes.:rolleyes:

Tin hat lunatic brigade.,

charlie14 · 25-10-2019 9:48pm

BarryD2 wrote: »

Tin hat lunatic brigade.,

Facetious reply to Brendan`s post I`ll admit. But then he did start it.

If you think it is tin hat that private water companies do not increase their price to compensate for lower usage by domestic consumers and then sell the "conserved" water at bulk reduced prices then you have only to look across the Irish Sea to see just how real that is

Snow Garden · 25-10-2019 10:03pm

Snow Garden wrote: »

Let's take a step back folks...before Irish Water start coming after the wasters....have they got their own house in order???

Last time I looked Irish Water was a wasteful bloated superquango with loads of problems;
- Overstaffed (2000 FG said)
- Too many senior managers
- Crony appointments (Tierney's RPS crew)
- Excessive salaries and bonus culture (29 earning > 100k with 15% bonuses)
- Dodgy contracts (EU said as much)
- Massive overspend on consultants
- Bureaurcracy (HSE Mark II)
- Massive legal bills
- Lack of any credible financial planning, just greed
- Secrecy/Lies
- Leaks caused by installing meters poorly
- Privatisation plans
- Poor Customer service

I know the awful CEO with a terrible track record got the boot but that cost the taxpayer 570,000 Euros!

Do let me know if you need links to any of above...I'll be your huckleberry.

Anyone disagree?

Benedict · 26-10-2019 8:19am

Deleted User wrote: »

Exactly why it should be privatised. That way every TD in the country will be keeping an eye on them and every household will pay for what they use. Simples.

You've shifted to another point - I take it that you are not going to tell us how exactly you think that IW will know for sure how much unmetered homes are using.

A while ago, you suggested the "process of elimination" - probably the daftest idea ever. In order to nail a "suspect" you have to establish the usage of every other house on the estate first.

There are now apartments in Dublin being rented for six-figure sums per annum (sometimes by multi-national companies for their executives). Under the new rules, these apartments will be quota-free while a 2-up 2-down in a Mullingar estate will have a quota imposed.

The "frogs" to be "boiled slowly" will be the likes of the 2-up 2-down.

IW need to shred this plan now before any more time/money is wasted because if they attempt to impose it on the Irish people, they will get their answer.

suicide_circus · 26-10-2019 10:00am

why is it ok for electricity and telecoms to be privatised but with water it would be armageddon?

McMurphy · 26-10-2019 10:05am

Deleted User wrote: »

Exactly why it should be privatised. That way every TD in the country will be keeping an eye on them and every household will pay for what they use. Simples.

What party do you envisage will have water privatisation as one of their policies in a manifesto, and how would you envisage they would perform in that election?

I'll even help you by narrowing things down a bit.

FG
FF
SF
LAB

I await your reply. Should I count to a million?

Benedict · 26-10-2019 10:28am

First we were told that water would be cut off if you didn't pay. That was shown to be illegal. Then the was the "trickle" threat. (A trickle was all you would get if you didn't cough up). They couldn't do that either. Next came the threat that paying for water out of general taxation was against European Law. We now know that that's not true. We were told that a law would not be passed banning privatisation. We were told there was "no need" for such a law because it "would never happen". Then we were told that every IW user would be metered and we know where that ended up.

Now we're being told that both the metered and the non-metered homes will have the quota applied. We know that that's not true either.

So what will we be told next?

Sleeper12 · 26-10-2019 12:20pm

Benedict wrote:

First we were told that water would be cut off if you didn't pay. That was shown to be illegal. Then the was the "trickle" threat. (A trickle was all you would get if you didn't cough up). They couldn't do that either. Next came the threat that paying for water out of general taxation was against European Law. We now know that that's not true. We were told that a law would not be passed banning privatisation. We were told there was "no need" for such a law because it "would never happen". Then we were told that every IW user would be metered and we know where that ended up.

I agree with the above but it was never claimed that paying through taxation was illegal. The EU correctly pointed out that it would be much better for Ireland to get water off the books altogether. This was sound advice. This is why they set up Irish water. The problem is that because we don't pay for water setting up Irish water was a waste of money. It isn't off the books

Benedict · 26-10-2019 12:42pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I agree with the above but it was never claimed that paying through taxation was illegal. The EU correctly pointed out that it would be much better for Ireland to get water off the books altogether. This was sound advice. This is why they set up Irish water. The problem is that because we don't pay for water setting up Irish water was a waste of money. It isn't off the books

Well in fairness, we were told that the EU felt that paying for water through general taxation was against the rules - does that not mean illegal? And were we not told that the Government was under pressure from the EU to introduce water charges and would be fined if we didn't do so? Why would we be fined if it was not illegal?

charlie14 · 26-10-2019 1:22pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I agree with the above but it was never claimed that paying through taxation was illegal. The EU correctly pointed out that it would be much better for Ireland to get water off the books altogether. This was sound advice. This is why they set up Irish water. The problem is that because we don't pay for water setting up Irish water was a waste of money. It isn't off the books

Actually it was claimed by FG/Lab that it was illegal paying for water services through taxation because of E.U. Water Policy Directive 2000/60 on the basis that all water services were subject to the principle of recovery of costs.
They and their supporters peddled the line that by not doing so would result in massive daily fines for non-compliance........ And continued to do so long after the European Court of Justice in 2014 ruled in Commission v Germany and associated states that was not the case.
The E.U. did have a thing about water privatisation, but there was never any E.U. law compelling us to get water services "off the books".

We were simply being sold a pup so FG could spend billions of taxpayers money in the middle of the worst recession we had ever experience based on nothing but a political party`s dogma on privatisation.

Sleeper12 · 26-10-2019 1:41pm

Benedict wrote:

Well in fairness, we were told that the EU felt that paying for water through general taxation was against the rules - does that not mean illegal? And were we not told that the Government was under pressure from the EU to introduce water charges and would be fined if we didn't do so? Why would we be fined if it was not illegal?

charlie14 wrote:

Actually it was claimed by FG/Lab that it was illegal paying for water services through taxation because of E.U. Water Policy Directive 2000/60 on the basis that all water services were subject to the principle of recovery of costs. They and their supporters peddled the line that by not doing so would result in massive daily fines for non-compliance........ And continued to do so long after the European Court of Justice in 2014 ruled in Commission v Germany and associated states that was not the case. The E.U. did have a thing about water privatisation, but there was never any E.U. law compelling us to get water services "off the books".

It was never claimed to be illegal and you won't find a link to that effect. There was a directive where EU countries were to charge for water. The polluter pays principal and we were exempt from this.

Plumbthedepths · 26-10-2019 1:41pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I agree with the above but it was never claimed that paying through taxation was illegal. The EU correctly pointed out that it would be much better for Ireland to get water off the books altogether. This was sound advice. This is why they set up Irish water. The problem is that because we don't pay for water setting up Irish water was a waste of money. It isn't off the books

So its the EU's fault that FG created the mess that is IW?

Benedict · 26-10-2019 2:01pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

It was never claimed to be illegal and you won't find a link to that effect. There was a directive where EU countries were to charge for water. The polluter pays principal and we were exempt from this.

Did the Government not claim that if water charges were not introduced then we would be in trouble with the EU and would be fined on an ongoing basis?

This is copied & pasted from a Newstalk podcast called "Can the EU make Ireland introduce water charges"

"Simon Coveney has argued that Ireland is 'likely' be brought before European courts if we attempt to abolish charges - which could lead to the State facing massive fines if we are found to be in violation of EU directives."

The same link goes on to say (quote)
"Sinn Féin MEP Lynn Boylan last year said that legal advice she has received confirms charges can be scrapped."

This podcast seems quotes a number of reputable sources and seems to suggest that the EU have been vague - the "polluter pays" principle has to be applied but if the country's tradition has been to make the polluter pay through taxation, that may be fine.

And the EU do not endorse the fining of one half of users while waiving charges for the other half which is the current farcical plan. This plan is clearly discriminatory and the EU is totally against such ad hoc discrimination.

Sleeper12 · 26-10-2019 2:02pm

Plumbthedepths wrote:

So its the EU's fault that FG created the mess that is IW?

This lands solely at FGs feet. This is one of the worst handled implementation ever in the history of the state. I don't believe any government comes close to mishandling a single issue like this. They turned Gardai against normally law abiding citizens.

charlie14 · 26-10-2019 2:09pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

It was never claimed to be illegal and you won't find a link to that effect. There was a directive where EU countries were to charge for water. The polluter pays principal and we were exempt from this.

If it was never illegal what were these massive daily fines in millions we were being told would rain down from the E.U. for non-compliance of E.U. Water Policy Directive 2000/60 where all water services were subject to the principle of recovery of costs ?

Something that was repeated ad nauseam by FG/Lab long after 2014 when they knew from a European Court of Justice ruling stating that was not true.

We were exempt from the polluter pays principle until the FG/Lab Government let that exemption lapse.

Sleeper12 · 26-10-2019 2:17pm

Benedict wrote:

Did the Government not claim that if water charges were not introduced then we would be in trouble with the EU and would be fined on an ongoing basis?

Did the EU ever even attempt to fine us? Ever? They couldn't because we never signed up to the directive.

We were exempt from this directive. Exempt in writing no less
We weren't breaking any directive. This was clear from the get go.

Sleeper12 · 26-10-2019 2:19pm

charlie14 wrote:

If it was never illegal what were these massive daily fines in millions we were being told would rain down from the E.U. for non-compliance of E.U. Water Policy Directive 2000/60 where all water services were subject to the principle of recovery of costs ?

What fines? Not a single penny was sought in fines. FF made it clear from the start that they never signed up to the directive and that we were exempt. They can't fine you if you are exempt

Sleeper12 · 26-10-2019 2:29pm

charlie14 wrote:

We were exempt from the polluter pays principle until the FG/Lab Government let that exemption lapse.

This didn't happen. FG tried to sell the story the FF before them introduced us to water charges. This was not true nor did FG "let it lapse". We were always exempt

charlie14 · 26-10-2019 2:34pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

What fines? Not a single penny was sought in fines. FF made it clear from the start that they never signed up to the directive and that we were exempt. They can't fine you if you are exempt

So in essence you are saying that all the noise from FG/Lab on these E.U. daily fines were nothing other than lies and scare tactics to get households to "engage" with Irish Water on metering are you not ?

charlie14 · 26-10-2019 2:49pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

This didn't happen. FG tried to sell the story the FF before them introduced us to water charges. This was not true nor did FG "let it lapse". We were always exempt

Just an aside, but it was the E.U. contention that by submitting a water basin management plan that Ireland automatically lost that derogation. Something FF contested but that FG/Lab were happy to go along with as it helped their case on metering.
Either way it is null and void on the issue of water services being subject to the principle of recovery of costs with the ECJ ruling of 2014.

Brendan Bendar · 26-10-2019 2:55pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

This lands solely at FGs feet. This is one of the worst handled implementation ever in the history of the state. I don't believe any government comes close to mishandling a single issue like this. They turned Gardai against normally law abiding citizens.

Like the Jobstown mob?

Plumbthedepths · 26-10-2019 3:04pm

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Like the Jobstown mob?

The guards didn't distinguish themselves in the subsequent court cases. Came across as a bunch of liars tbh. Even the judge couldn't accept their evidence.
Dawn arrests, yet a guy who cost the country billions was arrested on appointment.

Brendan Bendar · 26-10-2019 3:10pm

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

The guards didn't distinguish themselves in the subsequent court cases. Came across as a bunch of liars tbh. Even the judge couldn't accept their evidence.
Dawn arrests, yet a guy who cost the country billions was arrested on appointment.

Neither did the mob who were at the event.

Every good reason for dawn arrests, curb public order and the gathering of flash mobs as soon as the word came out.

Was the guy who “cost the country millions “ there on appointment?

If he was, what’s your problem?

Water charges for excessive usage

Comments