Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all, we have some important news to share. Please follow the link here to find out more!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058419143/important-news/p1?new=1

No refund for families who have paid water charges

1…34689…27

Comments

  • #152
    nhunter100
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,990 ✭✭✭nhunter100


    Mr.Micro wrote:
    No matter. The point is still the same, buddy. Justification of not paying for clean quality water for all, now and in the future. Instead, don't pay and leave it with the council guy, where quality is not guaranteed let alone sustainable. All the other issues I mentioned much more important, but let's all get hung up on water charges.


    Start your own thread about those issues if you feel so strongly.


  • #153
    BailMeOut
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,061 ✭✭✭BailMeOut


    nhunter100 wrote: »
    Ah the scaremongering never ceases.You need to learn the difference between a bill/ charge and taxes it is very relevant. Particularly if you set up a company for eventual privatisation.

    why the scaremongering about privatisation? Can anyone find a good example of anything done in Ireland by public service that is any good? Water is perfect for a private company to run properly. Yes state would still own the water and infrastructure but FFS the state has an appalling track record of maintaining or running our water system properly.


  • #154
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    BailMeOut wrote: »
    why the scaremongering about privatisation? Can anyone find a good example of anything done in Ireland by public service that is any good? Water is perfect for a private company to run properly. Yes state would still own the water and infrastructure but FFS the state has an appalling track record of maintaining or running our water system properly.

    If the Government has made such a bags of it, why not privatise it?


  • #155
    ads20101
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,453 ✭✭✭ads20101


    nhunter100 wrote: »
    Ah the scaremongering never ceases.

    I am sorry if you think that I was scaremongering, this was not my intention. Equally, I don't feel that I have said anything wrong.

    I am just saying that the non payment of a bill generally results in some kind of consequences. The severity of such depends on how much the provider wants to claim the money back.

    Equally, I understand that they may just let everyone off with it too. Doesn't seem very fair to those who were just adhering to the law.


  • #156
    BailMeOut
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,061 ✭✭✭BailMeOut


    Deleted User wrote: »
    If the Government has made such a bags of it, why not privatise it?

    They should and that has always been the plan.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,854 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    nhunter100 wrote: »
    So if I pay the water charge I'm in line for a tax refund? Correct?
    I've tried and tried to figure out how you got that from what I typed, and the only conclusion I can arrive at is that you're being deliberately obtuse.
    heyjude wrote: »
    It is not against the law not to pay your utility bill, whether it be electricity, gas or water, anymore than it is against the law not to make payments on your car or mortgage, so the frequently laid claim by the pro-water charge lobby that people who haven't paid the water charge are breaking the law is also false.
    You might want to do some research into the concept of "contract law".


  • #158
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    BailMeOut wrote: »
    They should and that has always been the plan.

    So, what's the problem. Privatise and get the job done!


  • #159
    nhunter100
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,990 ✭✭✭nhunter100


    ads20101 wrote:
    Equally, I understand that they may just let everyone off with it too. Doesn't seem very fair to those who were just adhering to the law.

    Without the protests the bills would have been a damn sight higher. I think gratitude is owed to the protestors tbh.


  • #160
    Arkady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 433 ✭✭Arkady


    Deleted User wrote: »
    If the Government has made such a bags of it, why not privatise it?

    So the cronies can benefit even more from taxpayers investment and the people of Ireland. lol


  • #161
    BailMeOut
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,061 ✭✭✭BailMeOut


    Deleted User wrote: »
    So, what's the problem. Privatise and get the job done!

    hey if I was the boss it would be done and everyone would pay for water. If you cannot pay then create some mechanism in social welfare to discount cost.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    nhunter100
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,990 ✭✭✭nhunter100


    oscarBravo wrote:
    You might want to do some research into the concept of "contract law".

    Does contract law apply if one party did not sign up?


  • #163
    nhunter100
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,990 ✭✭✭nhunter100


    Deleted User wrote:
    So, what's the problem. Privatise and get the job done!


    A large section of the population would have a problem with that.I know FG supporters wouldn't but as evidenced by the election not everyone supports FG.


  • #164
    BailMeOut
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,061 ✭✭✭BailMeOut


    Arkady wrote: »
    So the cronies can benefit even more from taxpayers investment and the people of Ireland. lol

    no, a private who does a very good job maintaining national infrastructure and makes profit from their good work.

    What are the alternatives? We let the local CoCo make a mess of it again?


  • #165
    Turkish1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 273 ✭✭Turkish1


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    .You might want to do some research into the concept of "contract law".

    I'm open to correction but for there to be a contract does it not require two parties to enter into it (offer and acceptance)? I would have to thought that by not registering with Irish Water that there is no legally enforceable contract?

    Or was there something in the legislation that bypassed this requirement?

    Edit: if a person signed up and received the water conservation grant of €100 then they would have entered a contract and be in breach by not paying.


  • #166
    nhunter100
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,990 ✭✭✭nhunter100


    BailMeOut wrote:
    What are the alternatives? We let the local CoCo make a mess of it again?


    Councils never made a mess, government withheld funding.FG cut funding for water provision upon entering government.


  • #167
    Arkady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 433 ✭✭Arkady


    BailMeOut wrote: »
    no, a private who does a very good job maintaining national infrastructure and makes profit from their good work.

    What are the alternatives? We let the local CoCo make a mess of it again?

    You mean Irish style like Eircon, Quinn, and Anglo . . .lol

    And the County Councils done a lot better than Irish Water with a lot less. Now Irish water, the vehicle that was supposed to deliver privatization, has double the staff, double the Government funding, charges private sector rates, cronie contracts left right and center, and has made a complete an utter balls of it.


  • #168
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    oscarBravo wrote: »

    You might want to do some research into the concept of "contract law".

    For a contract you need two parties who agree. Without a signed IW form or proof of acceptance via a distance contract there is no way an Irish water bill to someone who didn't register etc would stand up to any scrutiny. There has to be an offer and acceptance.


  • #169
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    For a contract you need two parties who agree. Without a signed IW form or proof of acceptance via a distance contract there is no way an Irish water bill to someone who didn't register etc would stand up to any scrutiny. There has to be an offer and acceptance.

    That has been done to death. It is an act of the Oireachtas which doesn't need an actual contract.


  • #170
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    nhunter100 wrote: »
    Councils never made a mess, government withheld funding.FG cut funding for water provision upon entering government.

    Really. Cryptosporidium outbreaks. Boil water notices. All that bottled water that people buy because the local water is unsafe or bad.


  • #171
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    Deleted User wrote: »
    That has been done to death. It is an act of the Oireachtas which doesn't need an actual contract.

    Exactly, as in the law.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    nhunter100
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,990 ✭✭✭nhunter100


    Mr.Micro wrote:
    Really. Cryptosporidium outbreaks. Boil water notices. All that bottled water that people buy because the local water is unsafe or bad.


    You miss the bit about withheld funding?


  • #173
    henryporter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,088 ✭✭✭henryporter


    nhunter100 wrote: »
    You miss the bit about withheld funding?

    Any evidence of where funding was withheld or is that just a bit made up to support the scroungers stance?


  • #174
    nhunter100
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,990 ✭✭✭nhunter100


    henryporter wrote:
    Any evidence of where funding was withheld or is that just a bit made up to support the scroungers stance?


    Try Google. ; )


  • #175
    Jack Killian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,663 ✭✭✭Jack Killian


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    That has been done to death. It is an act of the Oireachtas which doesn't need an actual contract.

    Would a similar Act of the Oireachtas make existing contracts null and void ?

    I mean, if contracts are irrelevant then surely it goes both ways ?


  • #176
    Jack Killian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,663 ✭✭✭Jack Killian


    Turkish1 wrote: »
    I'm open to correction but for there to be a contract does it not require two parties to enter into it (offer and acceptance)? I would have to thought that by not registering with Irish Water that there is no legally enforceable contract?

    Or was there something in the legislation that bypassed this requirement?

    Edit: if a person signed up and received the water conservation grant of €100 then they would have entered a contract and be in breach by not paying.

    Water Conservation Grant has nothing to do with an Irish Water contract. The idiots implemented the bribe in such a way as to try to con Eurostat re it not being "funding via the back door" and in doing so wrote the law in such a way that the two are completely unrelated, despite AK47's attempts to correlate the two.


  • #177
    henryporter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,088 ✭✭✭henryporter


    nhunter100 wrote: »
    Try Google. ; )

    Did that before asking you - not much showing up for "Government withholds funding from Local Authorities" in relation to water. In fact, as I recall, the Government never threatened to withhold money from LA's until the Property Tax was brought in and that was in relation poor administration - ergo your argument is Straw man


  • #178
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    nhunter100 wrote: »
    You miss the bit about withheld funding?




    I am sure there has always been adequate funding.


    So an archaic system of 26 + local authorities doing there own thing with water supply, one not knowing what the other is doing, as opposed to one body for the whole country. That is so 21st century.


  • #179
    Jack Killian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,663 ✭✭✭Jack Killian


    ads20101 wrote: »
    I'm not naive to think this was thought of as another stream of revenue, but the truth of the matter we are one of the few western european countries that did not have a specific national division to manage our essential water supply.

    This is not something that was missed by the european union who has been putting more than a spot of pressure on several previous governments.

    There are many reasons to regulate our water supply nationally, but the main one has to be the massive rate of waste of the clean water system.

    If they had as much interest in our illegal VRT and gave us a level playing field then they might have a leg to stand on. As it is they only get involved these days when they want to screw the taxpayer.


  • #180
    Jack Killian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,663 ✭✭✭Jack Killian


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    If it's not a tax, then it's a utility bill, and all those who refused to pay it are freeloaders stealing water.

    They've paid their LPT which was given to IW.

    No freeloading or stealing going on whatsoever.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,854 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    There has to be an offer and acceptance.
    There's a lot of focus on offer and acceptance, but everyone's conveniently skipping over the third requirement of contract law: there has to be a consideration.

    If you're going to argue that there's no contract, therefore you don't have to pay, isn't the logical corollary that since there's no consideration, they don't have to supply?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement