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

Water charges for excessive usage

Options
1…457910…85

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    Utter Consternation
    Registered Users Posts: 926 ✭✭✭Utter Consternation


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    When I pay my taxes I do feel entitled to water supply. That's just me now. Do they expect free money?

    When you pay your taxes? Do you only pay tax occasionally?


  • Options
    #183
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 39,652 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Nobody is saying that. People are saying that in order to fix the network, money needs to be sourced from somewhere. The fairest way, in my opinion, is charging by use (above and beyond a very generous allowance).

    This line keeps getting banged out., it's hilarious because there is nothing to back it up.

    What's the cost in fixing the network to an acceptable level?

    What's the savings?

    What's the time scale, how can this be sped up?

    We got meters in the ground faster than any other country has ever had in the history of metering.

    Why not the same gusto for fixing the network?


  • Options
    #184
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    liatroimabu wrote:
    Also on the subject of water, those of us on private group schemes or with wells have been paying for water for years and paying tax that in turn pays for the water of those who get it for free. The water charges would've been so miniscule in this country compared to others that some people need to wise up and stop expecting handouts.


    So your group scheme doesn't avail of grants?


  • Options
    #185
    liatroimabu
    Registered Users Posts: 61 ✭✭liatroimabu


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    When I pay my taxes I do feel entitled to water supply. That's just me now. Do they expect free money?

    No they expect you to pay for a service the same as you would in every single other EU country.


  • Options
    #186
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    zimmermania wrote: »
    What about all the apartment dwellers who do not have meters?
    Allowance is 213,000L per household average of four people. That's 146L a day but apparently we only use 133L on average. There's also 25000L per extra person in a household. As others have pointed out IW will be able to get data on what's flowing into locations.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    liatroimabu
    Registered Users Posts: 61 ✭✭liatroimabu


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    So your group scheme doesn't avail of grants?

    I personally have a well so do not know the ins and outs of the local group scheme but it is still people paying for water.

    The same as I had to install a filtration system, salt etc. all out of my own pocket just to have drinkable water.

    Why should some have to pay for water and others not? At the end of the day the charge would've been the 3rd lowest in the EU, not exactly bank breaking even by PBP standards


  • Options
    #188
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    Deleted User wrote:
    I've a neighbour whose overflow in the attic is leaking for a year. His solution put a bin at the bottom of the house on the path to stop it splattering on his concrete. I kid you not, it's also a rental so he cares less about it, told him he can easily stop it by either replacing ball cock or even trying to bend the handle downwards.


    Bet he had two pints in his hands as you were chatting to him. ;-)


  • Options
    #189
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 39,652 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    liatroimabu wrote: »
    I personally have a well so do not know the ins and outs of the local group scheme but it is still people paying for water.

    The same as I had to install a filtration system, salt etc. all out of my own pocket just to have drinkable water.

    So you built or bought your house in a "rural" location?


  • Options
    #190
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    liatroimabu wrote:
    I personally have a well so do not know the ins and outs of the local group scheme but it is still people paying for water.


    Grant available for private well also.


  • Options
    #191
    liatroimabu
    Registered Users Posts: 61 ✭✭liatroimabu


    Boggles wrote: »
    So you built or bought your house in a "rural" location?

    No I didn't , my great grandfather built a house in a rural location that is still the family home as our livelihood is agriculture.

    The geography of where I live shouldn't have anything to do with some paying for water and others not. Everyone should have to pay, if you live out of the way in a remote area where more pipes are running and need maintenance and are specifically for you and one or two other homes, you pay more.

    Nobody should be entitled to it for free as is the case at the minute however.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    liatroimabu
    Registered Users Posts: 61 ✭✭liatroimabu


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    Grant available for private well also.

    Yes a grant which covers 75% of cost (with max cost permitted being over 2 grand) , so yes I am still paying for my water.


  • Options
    #193
    Tommy Kelly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 416 ✭✭Tommy Kelly


    I call to houses every day where there is a constant flow of water being measured flowing through their water meter 24/7

    9 times out of 10 it is a simple fix like replacing a ball cock in a cistern or in the water storage tank in the attic etc.

    People won't replace them though for whatever reason.

    It's worth noting that a cistern that's constantly filling can waste up to 5 to 6 hundred litres of treated water per day.

    People can't seem to grasp that this is what's causing the over usage or the real waste of water and it's this that IW is trying to highlight or sort out.


  • Options
    #194
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    liatroimabu wrote:
    Yes a grant which covers 75% of cost (with max cost permitted being over 2 grand) , so yes I am still paying for my water.


    So free money, the irony. lol.


  • Options
    #195
    liatroimabu
    Registered Users Posts: 61 ✭✭liatroimabu


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    So free money, the irony. lol.

    I still had to pay 25%, yes its fantastic to have such a grant scheme in place to cover a substantial amount of the cost but regardless of its existence I would be paying anyway.

    Also the 25% I paid is directly for water, I know that is a tough thing to understand for some people but while I got government assistance, I still had to pay for a service, something most people in this country dont want to do.


  • Options
    #196
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 39,652 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Farmer lecturing to people about free money.

    Fúck me, that's enough internet today.


  • Options
    #197
    liatroimabu
    Registered Users Posts: 61 ✭✭liatroimabu


    Boggles wrote: »
    Farmer lecturing to people about free money.

    Fúck me, that's enough internet today.

    Probably for the best, who knows, your broadband company might actually charge you for going over your usage allowance, imagine that, being charged for a service. The horror.


  • Options
    #198
    blackcard
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭blackcard


    Boggles wrote: »
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Nobody is saying that. People are saying that in order to fix the network, money needs to be sourced from somewhere. The fairest way, in my opinion, is charging by use (above and beyond a very generous allowance).

    This line keeps getting banged out., it's hilarious because there is nothing to back it up.

    What's the cost in fixing the network to an acceptable level?

    What's the savings?

    What's the time scale, how can this be sped up?

    We got meters in the ground faster than any other country has ever had in the history of metering.

    Why not the same gusto for fixing the network?
    I think you would be looking at something in the region of 40 billion to bring the network up to scratch or to "fix the leaky pipes" as some people call it. That excludes the cost of disruption to businesses and the general public as the roads are dug up in our cities and towns.


  • Options
    #199
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    liatroimabu wrote:
    I still had to pay 25%, yes its fantastic to have such a grant scheme in place to cover a substantial amount of the cost but regardless of its existence I would be paying anyway.


    So you need to spend 2 k the state gives you 1.5k in the form of a grant and you are claiming others are looking for stuff for free.....ha ha ha. Up the yard lad.


  • Options
    #200
    Benedict
    Registered Users Posts: 684 ✭✭✭Benedict


    Some people are missing the point completely. I would be okay with paying for excessive usage if the rule applied to all IW customers equally. But it doesn't! For example, there are huge apartments with multiple en suites and power showers and many occupants. The power showers could be going all day and because they are apartments, not one cent is due while the eejit down the road living on his or her own in a small cottage who maybe uses a bit over the quota is hammered. Is that fair?

    Look, car-tax is fair. But what if we were told that those with blue cars had to pay tax and people with red cars didn't - and you had a blue car. would you be happy to pay? Cos I wouldn't!

    The people who stood outside their gates and prevented installation of meters are laughing at those who didn't.

    IW will end up in court if they try to fine anyone.

    The whole thing is a bluff.


  • Options
    #201
    blackcard
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭blackcard


    blackcard wrote: »
    Boggles wrote: »
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Nobody is saying that. People are saying that in order to fix the network, money needs to be sourced from somewhere. The fairest way, in my opinion, is charging by use (above and beyond a very generous allowance).

    This line keeps getting banged out., it's hilarious because there is nothing to back it up.

    What's the cost in fixing the network to an acceptable level?

    What's the savings?

    What's the time scale, how can this be sped up?

    We got meters in the ground faster than any other country has ever had in the history of metering.

    Why not the same gusto for fixing the network?
    I think you would be looking at something in the region of 40 billion to bring the network up to scratch or to "fix the leaky pipes" as some people call it. That excludes the cost of disruption to businesses and the general public as the roads are dug up in our cities and towns.
    To add to this, the time frame for doing the work would be around 20 years. This is bearing in mind the construction expertise in this country and trying to get value for money. You would then be spending approximately 1 billion a year afterwards on maintaining the network afterwards


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #202
    liatroimabu
    Registered Users Posts: 61 ✭✭liatroimabu


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    So you need to spend 2 k the state gives you 1.5k in the form of a grant and you are claiming others are looking for stuff for free.....ha ha ha. Up the yard lad.

    No I had to spend 3.2k, the state paying 1.5k, the €1700 I paid is more than the majority of people will ever pay in their lives for water because they pay nothing and expect it for free for some reason.

    So yes I got a help from the govt. I never said there was anything wrong with help or aid if people need it, just this mularky of people expecting everything for nothing and to have to make no contribution is utter tripe.


  • Options
    #203
    klaaaz
    Registered Users Posts: 1,628 ✭✭✭klaaaz


    Benedict wrote: »
    Look, car-tax is fair. But what if we were told that those with blue cars had to pay tax and people with red cars didn't - and you had a blue car. would you be happy to pay? Cos I wouldn't!

    Car tax aka motor tax is unfair, pre-2008 cars largely owned by poorer people are charged a whopping fortune subsidising post 2008 cars owned by wealthier people. Replace it with a tax on fuel instead but as it is, it's urban drivers subsidising rural drivers.

    On the subject of the motor tax, does 66% of the motor tax still go to IW ?


  • Options
    #204
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,905 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    It's an opening gambit methinks. I have no problem whatsoever with conservation of water and my water butts and my garden thank me for the rainwater.

    But there is only so much I can do. I had no objection to a water meter on the path outside my house, nor did anyone else around here.

    But the thought of people like us (who pay for everything, but get little in return), being fined for slight overuse or mega overuse, when the underground pipes are leaking like a sieve, and those elsewhere without meters cannot be immediately identified either, is just farcical to me.

    I think this time, those who agreed to water meters (or at least didn't object) will put Paul Murphy to the kerb on this one. At least I will. I've had enough now.


  • Options
    #205
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    liatroimabu wrote:
    So yes I got a help from the govt. I never said there was anything wrong with help or aid if people need it, just this mularky of people expecting everything for nothing and to have to make no contribution is utter tripe.


    You got 1700 euro for free for living in the sticks by your own choice. You think you pay the full economic cost of the road that runs by your gaff or the ESB lines that supply your home with electricity, other tax payers have paid for you to be able to live where you do. The only mularky is this 'everything for nothing' bs which is trotted out repeatedly.


  • Options
    #206
    liatroimabu
    Registered Users Posts: 61 ✭✭liatroimabu


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    You got 1700 euro for free for living in the sticks by your own choice. You think you pay the full economic cost of the road that runs by your gaff or the ESB lines that supply your home with electricity, other tax payers have paid for you to be able to live where you do. The only mularky is this 'everything for nothing' bs which is trotted out repeatedly.

    *1500. Yes I live in the sticks by my own choice and pay my taxes the same as everyone else round here and those in urban areas that do also.

    If it so happens that between myself and others in my parish or locality, that we don't cover the costs of the small amenities we have in the area, I would be very surprised.

    The rhetoric of living in rural Ireland so tough you should have to pay more for everything is akin to me saying I pay for many people in urban areas by working and paying taxes seeing as a number of people in these areas are lifelong social welfare recipients.

    It is everything for nothing you and others of your opinion want though, you dont want to pay water charges but want water?


  • Options
    #207
    Benedict
    Registered Users Posts: 684 ✭✭✭Benedict


    But would you not stand up for yourself if you were threatened with a fine for using a bit too much while the guy down the road had his lawn sprinkler going all day without a worry in the world because he wouldn't allow a meter to be installed?

    The rule is for everyone - or it's for no-one.


  • Options
    #208
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    liatroimabu wrote:
    The rhetoric of living in rural Ireland so tough you should have to pay more for everything is akin to me saying I pay for many people in urban areas by working and paying taxes seeing as a number of people in these areas are lifelong social welfare recipients.


    Dude providing services to a large population centred in one location is incredibly cheap compared to servicing one off gaffs miles apart.


  • Options
    #209
    padd b1975
    Registered Users Posts: 10,705 ✭✭✭✭padd b1975


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    If you're unemployed or sick you get Hogan's trickle?

    How do these poor unfortunates manage with the other utility bills?


  • Options
    #210
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 39,652 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    blackcard wrote: »
    I think you would be looking at something in the region of 40 billion to bring the network up to scratch or to "fix the leaky pipes" as some people call it.

    I appreciate the answer, but where did your 40 billion figure come from?
    blackcard wrote: »
    That excludes the cost of disruption to businesses and the general public as the roads are dug up in our cities and towns.

    In my town they have been at this constantly for a decade, no one even complains about it anymore.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #211
    BarryD2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,732 ✭✭✭BarryD2


    Benedict wrote: »
    But would you not stand up for yourself if you were threatened with a fine for using a bit too much while the guy down the road had his lawn sprinkler going all day without a worry in the world because he wouldn't allow a meter to be installed?

    The rule is for everyone - or it's for no-one.

    That's a silly excuse, plainly a meter should be installed for the 'fecker' with his lawn sprinkler. And if he refuses, cut him off. His better half won't be long clipping him about the ears and telling to grow up and stop being such a pain in the arse.


Advertisement