seamus wrote: » You've pretty much just proven my point. They can't go to other bodies to fetch that information because the document(s) you've signed doesn't give them permission to share it with IW in the exact same way that IW can't share it with anyone else willy-nilly.
seamus wrote: » Seriously, you're scrambling to justify your reasons for not signing up to this but proving that your reasons are baseless and more to do with the fact that you just don't want to pay.
seamus wrote: » :rolleyes: Next you're going to claim I'm a government shill or a public sector worker. Change the record and engage in the discussion.
Irish Water may disclose the Customer's data to third parties in the event that it sells or buys any business or assets, in which case it may disclose Customer data to the prospective seller or buyer or such business or assets; if Irish Water or substantially all of its assets are acquired by a third party, in which case Customer data held by it about its Customer will be one of the transferred assets.
generalmental wrote: » They won't just guess. This is one of the reasons they want your PPS numbers. If you live in property with 2adults and 2kids they will check the other properties in your area with same amount of people in them and they will charge you the average rate of what they use.. You should hope they don't like showeriin those properties.
Banjo String wrote: » No not at all. Irish Water are actively seeking pps numbers from tax payers that they then tell us they reserve the right to pass on as they see fit
I'm not proving any point you've made. You have basically said that I'd have signed loads of documents regarding my personal data (including my Pps number) over the last 15 years.
If that's the case, why don't IW (a semi state) private company ask Revenue to hand it over. Why try and dupe us
With all due respect seamus, you know nothing about me, or how much I currently pay in vat returns, income tax, prsi, USC, rates and so on. I don't feel I should pay again.
You can dismiss some of us all you like seamus, but Irish Waters true intentions have been clear for all to see.
Next you'll tell me that This doesn't actually mean what it says. Wonder why they've hastily removed that important fact from their page.
_Kaiser_ wrote: » EXCEPT... it's nothing to do with "conservation" at all. It was admitted pretty early on that if consumption did drop noticably, IW will up the rates accordingly to compensate. All your saving efforts will mean zilch if they just hike the bills to cover their "losses".
Phoebas wrote: » Paragraph 1: You say it has nothing to do with conservation. Paragraph 2: You concede that consumption may drop noticeably.
geeksauce wrote: » Water conservation deals with savings to the environment and would have a major effect on the environment
geeksauce wrote: » water is not an infinite resource. and should be conserved.
cookie24 wrote: » if it was got to do with conservation your bills would reduce in line with less consumption.
Southern Belle wrote: » Meter installed. How do I turn off my mains if needed now for installation of shower etc?
Phoebas wrote: » Same way you did it before the meter was installed.
end of the road wrote: » it is exactly that. and it is conserved by most people. most people only use what they need to. the people leaving taps on during the winter do so for fear of the pipes freezing up, if there was a cost effective way of preventing them from freezing up people wouldn't leave the taps on. the water charges are about an extra tax and thats it.
dxhound2005 wrote: » If water is conserved by most people how come we use more than everyone else in Europe? Could it be that they have to pay for it directly?
Southern Belle wrote: » Can't see a valve, just a meter!?
Phoebas wrote: » Did IW remove a valve that was there previously?
jobyrne30 wrote: » Could it be that the water network is a complete mess worse than any other European country in terms of leaks and water loss well before the customer gets it ? Could it be that the water network was allowed to fall apart while successive governments just kept on taking our taxes and not investing it in the water network ?
dxhound2005 wrote: » That is not my experience of the water network. In the 1970's there was water rationing every summer in Dundalk with no supply overnight during drought periods. This was because the town had grown and the reservoir infrastructure dating back one hundred years could not cope. So a very expensive scheme was developed to take water from Lough Muckno outside Castleblayney and we now have a perfect supply. All the new housing estates obviously have new piping and as far as I know it is not falling apart. Older piping probably needs to be replaced. In addition a complete new waste water treatment plant for the town was built in the 1990's, again a very expensive and impressive feat of engineering. I know something similar has been done in Drogheda. Where did you get the information that the network is falling apart. And can you prove that the consumption figures I gave include leakages which occur before the supply reaches the taps? I know all of this work was paid for in the time of no water charges. A lot of the money came from EU grants. But I would prefer in future if other people as well as the PAYE workers like me would contribute something to the cost of the services they get.
Farty88 wrote: » I don't understand why we are going to pay water charges. Firstly the water isn't suitable for human consumption secondly our p.p.s number is all a scam to check your bank accounts. Thirdly people are streched enough due to other charges the government is thrown at us (The budget should be Fun).I could go on all night but I couldn't be bothered.all I'm gonna say is our government is a joke our made up charges are a joke lately of all our country is a joke. Europe is laughing at us and nobody is even bothered fighting back Irish freedom my **** no freedom here anymore we're all like caged rat's and getting more and more screwed every year
Farty88 wrote: » secondly our p.p.s number is all a scam to check your bank accounts.
allthedoyles wrote: » The head of Communications Irish Water said tonight on Prime Time that IW will be able to identify the difference between the ones that can pay , cannot pay , and won't pay . Looks like a credit check to me .
dxhound2005 wrote: » If water is conserved by most people how come we use more than everyone else in Europe? Could it be that they have to pay for it directly?In the absence of domestic tariffs and meters, domestic water use is higher than in other European countries, with daily domestic consumption of water by customer at approximately 160 litres in Ireland.[1] This compares to 150 litres in the UK (where approximately 40% of households are metered), 121 litres in Germany and 114 litres in Denmark (all users are metered in both countries).[8] At 141m³ per inhabitant, Ireland has the third highest freshwater abstraction rate per inhabitant of 26 EU countries, ranked behind only Italy and Croatia.[9] How do you know so much about other people's usage of water?
seamus wrote: » Read it again. It says in fact the exact opposite; they may only pass them on under very specific circumstances. Why are you deliberately ignoring that fact?
seamus wrote: » ...and your PPSN hasn't been shared. Exactly. Therefore, you sign this document and it still won't be shared. So, what you would prefer is Revenue break the law and illegally share this information with an unauthorised 3rd party, rather than share it with IW who will not break the law and will only share it with authorised 3rd parties.
seamus wrote: » That makes no sense. So you're quite well aware that you pay tax every year then. You don't pay one year and say, "Grand, done now". You're not paying again, you're paying for it directly, rather than indirectly as you have done up until now.
seamus wrote: » You'll have to ask them that.
seamus wrote: » What true intentions would they be so?
“Please see below our updated Data Protection Notice that we are currently reviewing with the office of the Data Protection Commissioner”
seamus wrote: » I see no issue with privatising it further down the line and I'm not going to try and convince anyone that it won't happen. It's worked out great for the consumer with gas and electricity. Why not the same with water?
end of the road wrote: » i don't really care. people having to pay out another charge they can't afford on something necessary as water and the hardship that will bring to many struggling families is much more important.
it is exactly that. and it is conserved by most people. most people only use what they need to. the people leaving taps on during the winter do so for fear of the pipes freezing up, if there was a cost effective way of preventing them from freezing up people wouldn't leave the taps on. the water charges are about an extra tax and thats it.
