S.O wrote: » Complete fearmongering.www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/councils-to-sit-out-tenants-billing-disputes-with-irish-water-1.1966840
VinLieger wrote: » Ridiculous analogy, the tenants have signed up to those services in their own names, if they don't sign up for IW the landlords in this case Meath county council will be on the hook for any water they use per the IW pr cluster fvck yesterday
TallGlass wrote: » Meath County Council has confirmed that it has written to all Rental Accommodation Scheme tenants advising them that they could face eviction if they do not pay their water charges. "You are required to confirm your details using the application and apply for your water services allowances. You will then be set up as a customer of Irish Water." The letter went on to state that if tenants fail to comply with an obligation under the terms of the agreement, then they may be held to be in breach of tenancy.http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/1016/652691-irish-water/ I am not fearmongering anyone. This is what I read.
TallGlass wrote: » Meath County Council has confirmed that it has written to all Rental Accommodation Scheme tenants advising them that they could face eviction if they do not pay their water charges.http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/1016/652691-irish-water/
KERSPLAT! wrote: » Fear mongering from them not you is what he meant I'd imagine.
xOxSinéadxOx wrote: » We are disappointed that there was no help given to us in the budget while there was help given to those with higher incomes than us. We are 3 friends living together, all on minimum wage.
xOxSinéadxOx wrote: » We will pay the water charges in my household. We haven't signed up yet but we can see the way it will go with Irish Water (wrongfully) using landlords as enforcers. We are in private rented accommodation and don't want any hassle/issues/disagreements with our landlord. If I lived in my own house and not private rented, I would definitely boycott and not pay. We are disappointed that there was no help given to us in the budget while there was help given to those with higher incomes than us. We are 3 friends living together, all on minimum wage. I am not even getting full time hours in work. We are already struggling enough here with rent increases. The government only brought in these relief measures in the budget out of fear of people not paying.
the representative body for landlords says its members cannot co-operate with the new utility in the event that tenants fail to register or pay water charges.
emo72 wrote: » you know how it works....never ever ever admit you are wrong, even when you majorly **** up. tierney should resign. he is presiding over a shambles. wont make things better, we just shouldnt be rewarding failure.
TallGlass wrote: » Just to add in on this as a Motorist that pays for use of the road network. The network is so ****ed I most of the time use my bike as it is quicker, I only ever use a car for bulky operations. Mind you I pay a lot of money into the road network. Car Tax, Fuel, NCT, Insurance. Sure look at the state of the road network, imagine the same principles for water in a few years?
shamrock2004 wrote: » How did he get the job in the first place? He wasted millions (I think to the tune of €30million) on the poolbeg incinerator and it was never built!
Leslie91 wrote: » How do any of these idiots get these jobs? (it's not what you know..... it's who you know)
Larbre34 wrote: » 13 days to the original sign up deadline, I'd love to know what the compliance level is at right now. If they're extending the deadline they must be crapping themselves at how low it is.
Barely There wrote: » Signed up a couple of days ago. Suspect that the compliance levels will surprise you - there's a largely silent majority who recognize that the tax base needs to be broadened, in fact it should have been decades ago. The minority in this country who refuse to accept this realty have made so much noise whinging and whining, that they've convinced themselves they're in the majority. In for a rude awakening I'm afraid (again).
shamrock2004 wrote: » I don't even know what to say...
Irish Steve wrote: » Something along the lines of "If I stop and actually THINK about the whole process of purifying water, and delivering it to the tap, and then taking the waste water, and treating it to make it once again safe, the cost of under HALF A CENT per litre ( with NO ALLOWANCES TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION) is not unreasonable, and is a LOT less than the cost of buying bottled water to flush the loo (FFS). The way it's been set up, and is being (mis)managed, and badly sold by the political elite is another GUBU cluster fcuk that almost defies imagination, but that is the result of the crazy way that the political system has been allowed to develop BY THE PEOPLE THAT CAST THEIR VOTES in the way they do. The concept of directly paying for water is not unreasonable, it puts a specific value on the service that's been obscured by being lost in general taxation for too long, and we've seen the results, there were no votes in new water mains, or new sewers, so the Local authority spend on water was nothing like what it should have been, and IW was a belated attempt to try and change that situation. if IW had been properly set up, it would have taken water out of political control and influence, and properly funded, going forward would have seen the crazy losses due to leaks and other related issues addressed, but with the gombeen way that things like bonuses are being paid before IW is even running, and the absence of change in the way that the infrastructure is actually being run, the chances of the funds being properly spent are decreasing by the hour, and with semi state wasters at the top of the tree, and making the decisions, that's only going to get worse, the track record is already clearly seen. Where's Michael O'Leary when you need him? No, I don't want him at the top of IW, that's the other extreme, which would have been equally risky, but some input from people like him into the structure, staffing, and operation of IW would have at least meant that it might have been fit for purpose, right now it clearly is not, they're already in an arrears situation in dealing with customers and complaints, and they've not even got to the starting line properly yet.
Irish Steve wrote: » S Where's Michael O'Leary when you need him? No, I don't want him at the top of IW, that's the other extreme, which would have been equally risky, but some input from people like him into the structure, staffing, and operation of IW would have at least meant that it might have been fit for purpose, right now it clearly is not, they're already in an arrears situation in dealing with customers and complaints, and they've not even got to the starting line properly yet.
Leroy42 wrote: » Sorry, but MOL is exactly the sort of person that we need. He delivers a product that people want at a price they can afford. He didn't blame the customer for the cost being too high he looked at the operating model and saw loads of inefficiences that would reduce the overall cost, which would ,man they could operate at lower fairs and thus increase actual revenue. When a system is so utterly broken as we are told that the whole water system is, it needs a radical and through review from top to bottom. IW have gone about it the other way. Lets charge everyobody to cover our current costs and then maybe, at some point down the line (no specifics given) we might be able to make savings. The only message they have given out is that if people conserve too much water then the rpices will have to raise to cover the shortfall!
Iwasfrozen wrote: » I'm very risk averse but I would happily put a grand on the probability of the government making it to next election.
Irish Steve wrote: » And if the next budget is not stuffed full of all sorts of "incentives" (bribes) to help win the next election, I will be very surprised indeed. What's really depressing is that so many people will be suckered in by this short term short sighted bribery...
Anatom wrote: » Good post. One point though - IW has not paid its staff any bonuses, and senior management are exempt from it in any case. There is a wage freeze in place until 2016. The bonuses referred to in the media recently relate to Bord Gáis Eireann - the Energy and Networks side - not IW. The pay contracts of the people who work for IW include a salary, part of which is only paid if that person hits specific performance targets. This applies to all workers, not the elite as someone here called it, and is no different to contracts in many many other companies. It incentivises staff. The staff costs were included in the initial IW budget, signed off and approved by the Dáil earlier in the year when IW was set up. There's an impression around that bonuses are being flashed around like snuff at a wake and that's simply not the case. I doubt it will be. In terms of set up, a date - a line in the sand if you will - had to be set for when the responsibility for the water infrastructure was handed over from the Local Authorities to Irish Water (That was set by the Department of the Environment, not IW or the government). When that happened, the sheer scale of the neglect (and this was the absolute fault of the Local Authorities) was revealed. For us to just get our water supply fit for purpose is going to take about ten years (look at the IW submission) and they've hit the ground running in terms of prioritising the most urgent projects (there's quite a few going on in Roscommon to alleviate the boil water notices for example) and get the supply back on track. Take into account too, the ongoing water leaks that occur around the country which need urgent attention, and its a miracle they are keeping it together at all. The political meddling, especially at the start has been a real, hindering, factor in this. Instead of letting the professionals (whatever you may think about their background or hiring methods) do their job, the politicians have been trying to dictate everything. Its a real shame and I blame them, not Irish Water...
Curly Judge wrote: » Nice to see all the lefties on here standing up for the poor old landlords. Bless!
Irish Steve wrote: » In some respects, I don't have a problem with your rationale, my concern is that if M O'Leary had been parachuted into IW, they'd have stalled, as his culture would have been so diametrically opposed to the unionised operation that has strangled so much of public service for years, and that could only have had one outcome, which would have been a nightmare to resolve, they'd have been out on strike within minutes of his arrival, and resolving that would have been a fearful task that would have probably occupied the Labour court for the next couple of years, and in the meantime, the show would have had to go on somehow.
