Water charges for excessive usage

blanch152 · 29-11-2019 12:10pm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Problem is, her party colleagues in her local area obviously don't see her as innocent, nor do the higher ups, hence her being dropped like a hot potato from the ticket.

Following her disastrous interview, the public obviously don't view her as innocent, and the report Leo sanctioned said she overstated her injuries, that's just carefully crafted double talk roughly translated means "she lied through her hoop".

Maria could have given a big eff you to all her doubters by going the full good with her claim, but she chose not to, and in fact apologised for chancing her arm - something I don't think Murphy did.

It is nice that you have finally found your voice to air your opinion, seeing as you had none about her on the actual thread about her, even if it's in a thread about water charges.

Good point, Maria did apologise and Murphy didn't. That certainly puts her above him in the ranks of decent people, though they are both probably in the last decile.

Last I checked she has the same status as Murphy - hasn't been convicted of a crime - but Murphy gets a free pass on these boards, while she doesn't. The same free pass is given to the likes of Gerry Adams if anyone dares suggest he was a member of the IRA.

That isn't an opinion defending Maria by the way, it is merely observational facts about the behaviour of posters on these threads. Different standards applied depending on their political perspective.

Despite some people having an ego so big that they think I follow them around on boards, I only point out the most hypocritical posts.

charlie14 · 29-11-2019 1:10pm

Benedict wrote: »

Rather than continuing to make silly comments, what would be really useful now would be if M84 were to focus on explaining exactly how she thinks IW can assess the usage of non-metered homes. She is the only person in Ireland (apart from her plumber) who knows how it can be done - it so cruel of her that she still refuses to share the secret with us.

Who I have a feeling may be her husband.

If so then it appears to be a family secret.

People can be very reluctant to share those because they feel in general that such secrets may shame them.

K.Flyer · 29-11-2019 1:28pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And....who comes out when it wasn’t the council? The water fairy?

Usually nobody until you hound them with phone calls, then you might get someone in a van with I.W. livery but they will usually look and then fook off and get the council lads out.
90% of site respondents to my calls are council operatives.
The other 10% may as well be "water fairies" for all the good they do.
And this is from my own personal interaction with I.W. on a regular enough basis, apart from my own connections within their organisation.

charlie14 · 29-11-2019 1:58pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Good point, Maria did apologise and Murphy didn't. That certainly puts her above him in the ranks of decent people, though they are both probably in the last decile.

Last I checked she has the same status as Murphy - hasn't been convicted of a crime - but Murphy gets a free pass on these boards, while she doesn't. The same free pass is given to the likes of Gerry Adams if anyone dares suggest he was a member of the IRA.

That isn't an opinion defending Maria by the way, it is merely observational facts about the behaviour of posters on these threads. Different standards applied depending on their political perspective.

Despite some people having an ego so big that they think I follow them around on boards, I only point out the most hypocritical posts.

I know when asked before about your credibility in the eyes of other posters you more or less said you didn`t care, but surely even you must realise that this running to the defense of anything questionable relating to Fine Gael is becoming more ridiculous.

Bailey withdrew her claim after she was caught out making a fraudulent claim for compensation, so really had no option other than apologise if she hoped to remain a T.D.

Murphy on the other hand was found not guilty by a jury where is anyone should have apologised it was the state for over reaching on a charge that stank off political interference, and where they were extremely fortunate Murphy did not refer the case to GSOC.

With your earlier post on Fine Gael`s "arguing tenuously" on the Water Framework Directive with the E.U. being the reason we do not have those millions of euros daily fines you so trenchantly informed us all in the past were imminent if we didn`t comply with the original Fine Gael quota regime, the irony of hypocritical posts is obviously lost on you.

blanch152 · 29-11-2019 3:42pm

Deleted User wrote: »

And....who comes out when it wasn’t the council? The water fairy?

It is like people don't read implementation plans or annual reports and base their views on what they read on Facebook and the like.

The migration of staff from the local authorities to Irish Water was always going to take years, it has also run into industrial relations difficulties which have delayed it further.

Benedict · 29-11-2019 4:02pm

Again from IW official site:

"Q, When did you start to measure customer usage?

A. We are continuously monitoring water usage to allow us identify leaks. Data is collected from metered households quarterly and district meters are used to identify excess usage in unmetered areas."

This still doesn't get us any closer to discovering precisely how they are going to determine exactly how much water Mr & Mrs Blogs in No 158 have used?

It sounds good - but it means nothing!

Plumbthedepths · 29-11-2019 4:21pm

Benedict wrote: »

Again from IW official site:

"Q, When did you start to measure customer usage?

A. We are continuously monitoring water usage to allow us identify leaks. Data is collected from metered households quarterly and district meters are used to identify excess usage in unmetered areas."

This still doesn't get us any closer to discovering precisely how they are going to determine exactly how much water Mr & Mrs Blogs in No 158 have used?

It sounds good - but it means nothing!

Simply put IW cannot measure the individual usage of a household without the aid of a meter. Any claim to the contrary by posters here and IW is bullsh*t.

blanch152 · 29-11-2019 4:34pm

charlie14 wrote: »

I know when asked before about your credibility in the eyes of other posters you more or less said you didn`t care, but surely even you must realise that this running to the defense of anything questionable relating to Fine Gael is becoming more ridiculous.

Bailey withdrew her claim after she was caught out making a fraudulent claim for compensation, so really had no option other than apologise if she hoped to remain a T.D.

Murphy on the other hand was found not guilty by a jury where is anyone should have apologised it was the state for over reaching on a charge that stank off political interference, and where they were extremely fortunate Murphy did not refer the case to GSOC.

With your earlier post on Fine Gael`s "arguing tenuously" on the Water Framework Directive with the E.U. being the reason we do not have those millions of euros daily fines you so trenchantly informed us all in the past were imminent if we didn`t comply with the original Fine Gael quota regime, the irony of hypocritical posts is obviously lost on you.

I really don't think putting Maria Bailey more or less alongside Paul Murphy in the bottom decile of decent people can be construed as defending FG. It tells you everything I think of both of them.

However, as I have explained multiple times, politics isn't about personality, it is about policy.

McMurphy · 29-11-2019 5:01pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Good point, Maria did apologise and Murphy didn't. That certainly puts her above him in the ranks of decent people, though they are both probably in the last decile.

Last I checked she has the same status as Murphy - hasn't been convicted of a crime - but Murphy gets a free pass on these boards, while she doesn't. The same free pass is given to the likes of Gerry Adams if anyone dares suggest he was a member of the IRA.

That isn't an opinion defending Maria by the way, it is merely observational facts about the behaviour of posters on these threads. Different standards applied depending on their political perspective.

Despite some people having an ego so big that they think I follow them around on boards, I only point out the most hypocritical posts.

You're just being a little rascal now, trying to stir the **** you wee rascal lol.

Bailey got caught out trying to pull a fast one, she apologised.

The guards got caught out trying to frame Murphy for a crime he didn't commit, and Murphy didn't apologise .

Bit of a difference.

As for putting Murphy with the lower classes of society, just FYI, that's a label I apply to compo chasers and fraudsters.

Gerry Adams and the RA got a mention too I see, full house blanch, whatabout bingo.

blanch152 · 29-11-2019 5:19pm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

You're just being a little rascal now, trying to stir the **** you wee rascal lol.

Bailey got caught out trying to pull a fast one, she apologised.

The guards got caught out trying to frame Murphy for a crime he didn't commit, and Murphy didn't apologise.

As for putting Murphy with the lower classes of society, just FYI, that's a label I apply to compo chasers.

Bit of a difference.

Gerry Adams and the RA got a mention too I see, full house blanch, whatabout bingo.

I think foghorn protestors and terrorist leaders probably deserve to be down in that bottom decile of decent people as well, but each to their own opinion I suppose.

charlie14 · 29-11-2019 6:00pm

blanch152 wrote: »

I really don't think putting Maria Bailey more or less alongside Paul Murphy in the bottom decile of decent people can be construed as defending FG. It tells you everything I think of both of them.

However, as I have explained multiple times, politics isn't about personality, it is about policy.

No point in me repeating Johnny Dogs post as it covers my own thoughts on your post. Simply disingenuous.

If you are adhering to politics is about policy then it is getting increasingly difficult to see any difference between your politics and Fine Gael policy.

In fact I felt the mask slipped somewhat in your post on who did and did not apologies where Maria Bailey was referred to as Maria, whereas Paul Murphy was just Murphy.

blanch152 · 29-11-2019 6:03pm

charlie14 wrote: »

No point in me repeating Johnny Dogs post as it covers my own thoughts on your post. Simply disingenuous.

If you are adhering to politics is about policy then it is getting increasingly difficult to see any difference between your politics and Fine Gael policy.

In fact I felt the mask slipped somewhat in your post on who did and did not apologies where Maria Bailey was referred to as Maria, whereas Paul Murphy was just Murphy.

Well, thank you, normally people analyse which posts I thank, analysing my grammatical use takes us to a new level.

charlie14 · 29-11-2019 7:11pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, thank you, normally people analyse which posts I thank, analysing my grammatical use takes us to a new level.

You contradict yourself so often, at times even in the same post, that even if I could be bothered, any analysis would be a waste of time.

Neither was I commenting on your grammar.
I just found it amusing with your interested in politics being policy rather than personalities, how the mask slipped with Maria Bailey being Maria whereas Paul Murphy was just Murphy.

Benedict · 30-11-2019 10:38am

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Simply put IW cannot measure the individual usage of a household without the aid of a meter. Any claim to the contrary by posters here and IW is bullsh*t.

Absolutely correct.

This thread has clearly demonstrated that the current IW plan is fatally flawed - and if IW is following (and if they're not, then they should be) they should be grateful because there's a saying in business which is "best to fail quickly". Best not to waste any more time/money, shred it now and move to a new plan.

No matter how much woffle they chuck at us, we know full well that the quota & penalties will never ever apply to the unmetered half of the country and this means that the plan can never work.

So shred it now and move on.

Shamboo1801 · 30-11-2019 1:04pm

Benedict wrote:

This thread has clearly demonstrated that the current IW plan is fatally flawed - and if IW is following (and if they're not, then they should be) they should be grateful because there's a saying in business which is "best to fail quickly". Best not to waste any more time/money, shred it now and move to a new plan.

Problem is, I don't think the egos of these people will allow them to scrap it and start again. Like the children's hospital and NBP, they convince themselves of superior intelligence, even on the advice of others, and just continue with their failed ventures. Sure it's our money they're wasting, why would it bother them.

Benedict · 30-11-2019 2:41pm

Shamboo1801 wrote: »

Problem is, I don't think the egos of these people will allow them to scrap it and start again. Like the children's hospital and NBP, they convince themselves of superior intelligence, even on the advice of others, and just continue with their failed ventures. Sure it's our money they're wasting, why would it bother them.

That could be why they have said they won't send out bills until Jan 2021 at the earliest - because if they sent them out now, the reaction would cause a crisis.

charlie14 · 30-11-2019 7:46pm

Benedict wrote: »

That could be why they have said they won't send out bills until Jan 2021 at the earliest - because if they sent them out now, the reaction would cause a crisis.

Even if they had the means to do it, they have no interest in collecting small pennies from households using over their allocation. Oct 2020 or Jan 2021 are significant in that prior to both dates we will have a General Election.

The market ideology behind this water charges fiasco is from the conservative right wing playbook which is part and parcel of Fine Gael DNA. Regardless of how it has failed in other countries we have only to look closer to home at not just this fiasco but the National Children Hospital and the National Broadband Plan to see how it has worked here.

So do not be fooled that this is just about exceeding water allocations. This has been a constant drip drip of headlines going from not enough water too to much water too now the latest on allocations.
The aim is should Fine Gael get a majority in the General Election household metering (minus apartments even if they make noise on it) will be back on the agenda based on "expert reports" that the taxpayer will pay more untold millions on to state whatever Fine Gael want them to state, giving them a shield to hide behind even when it makes no financial sense.

If anybody doubt this, then they have, just on it`s own, only to look at the shenanigans of the Public Broadband plan where Fine Gael totally ignored the advice of their own Departments in favour of "expert reports" . Especially the KPMG report costing 11M.

blanch152 · 30-11-2019 11:30pm

charlie14 wrote: »

You contradict yourself so often, at times even in the same post, that even if I could be bothered, any analysis would be a waste of time.

Neither was I commenting on your grammar.
I just found it amusing with your interested in politics being policy rather than personalities, how the mask slipped with Maria Bailey being Maria whereas Paul Murphy was just Murphy.

I call Gerry Adams, Gerry, so does that mean I like him as much as Maria. I call Leo, Varadkar, so does that mean I rate him as highly as Murphy.

Benedict · 01-12-2019 9:33am

charlie14 wrote: »

Even if they had the means to do it, they have no interest in collecting small pennies from households using over their allocation. Oct 2020 or Jan 2021 are significant in that prior to both dates we will have a General Election.

The market ideology behind this water charges fiasco is from the conservative right wing playbook which is part and parcel of Fine Gael DNA. Regardless of how it has failed in other countries we have only to look closer to home at not just this fiasco but the National Children Hospital and the National Broadband Plan to see how it has worked here.

So do not be fooled that this is just about exceeding water allocations. This has been a constant drip drip of headlines going from not enough water too to much water too now the latest on allocations.
The aim is should Fine Gael get a majority in the General Election household metering (minus apartments even if they make noise on it) will be back on the agenda based on "expert reports" that the taxpayer will pay more untold millions on to state whatever Fine Gael want them to state, giving them a shield to hide behind even when it makes no financial sense.

If anybody doubt this, then they have, just on it`s own, only to look at the shenanigans of the Public Broadband plan where Fine Gael totally ignored the advice of their own Departments in favour of "expert reports" . Especially the KPMG report costing 11M.

Yes, it's true that governments can get away with crazy things - for example, if there were 2 beds side by side in a hospital ward, the patient with VHI would have to pay 10 time more than the public patient for the same treatment. What could be more farcical than that - but they did it!

The history of public unrest about IW charges would make this one difficult to push through. But beware you metered homes out there, weird things do happen.

Brendan Bendar · 01-12-2019 11:09am

Benedict wrote: »

Yes, it's true that governments can get away with crazy things - for example, if there were 2 beds side by side in a hospital ward, the patient with VHI would have to pay 10 time more than the public patient for the same treatment. What could be more farcical than that - but they did it!

The history of public unrest about IW charges would make this one difficult to push through. But beware you metered homes out there, weird things do happen.

Why should metered homes have any concerns as a matter of interest?

Middle Ireland will not be hoodwinked by any flim flam from any Govt.

A fair legal system for all or no system, it’s that simple.

There is No Way any metered home can legally be charged for water usage while others can use what ever amount they like.

It will be challenged ab initio and rejected.

Just won’t happen, make no mistake about that.

Even a Govt as inept and accident prone as this one, understands that, and if they don’t they soon will.

charlie14 · 01-12-2019 12:48pm

blanch152 wrote: »

I call Gerry Adams, Gerry, so does that mean I like him as much as Maria. I call Leo, Varadkar, so does that mean I rate him as highly as Murphy.

Yet on a thread of all things water charges related you had no idea that Dinny referred to Denis O`Brien and then accused others of hypocritical posts.

charlie14 · 01-12-2019 12:55pm

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Why should metered homes have any concerns as a matter of interest?

Simple enough answer to that one Brendan.

Because if Irish Water are daft enough to send out bills for exceeding the quota, those homes will be the only ones getting them.

Brendan Bendar · 01-12-2019 3:50pm

charlie14 wrote: »

Simple enough answer to that one Brendan.

Because if Irish Water are daft enough to send out bills for exceeding the quota, those homes will be the only ones getting them.

Thanks for that Cha, handy for starting the fire , ta ta.

X111111111111 · 01-12-2019 10:35pm

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Why should metered homes have any concerns as a matter of interest?

Middle Ireland will not be hoodwinked by any flim flam from any Govt.

A fair legal system for all or no system, it’s that simple.

There is No Way any metered home can legally be charged for water usage while others can use what ever amount they like.

It will be challenged ab initio and rejected.

Just won’t happen, make no mistake about that.

Even a Govt as inept and accident prone as this one, understands that, and if they don’t they soon will.

Middle Ireland will do what they've always done keep their heads down, keep working, pay the water charges and keep voting FFG. They get everything they deserve.

McMurphy · 01-12-2019 10:58pm

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Why should metered homes have any concerns as a matter of interest?

Middle Ireland will not be hoodwinked by any flim flam from any Govt.

A fair legal system for all or no system, it’s that simple.

There is No Way any metered home can legally be charged for water usage while others can use what ever amount they like.

It will be challenged ab initio and rejected.

Just won’t happen, make no mistake about that.

Even a Govt as inept and accident prone as this one, understands that, and if they don’t they soon will.

Funny you should say that Brenner, because I seem to recall fg and labour planning to send bills to everyone on the public supply, metered or not from day one.

Are you suggesting the plan was legally flawed from the start ?

Brendan Bendar · 02-12-2019 9:01am

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Funny you should say that Brenner, because I seem to recall fg and labour planning to send bills to everyone on the public supply, metered or not from day one.

Are you suggesting the plan was legally flawed from the start ?

Can not recall that John, what would they have been billed for, can you recall?

Was it a kind of standard charge or something. Must check my records on that John.

The issue I’m grappling with right now,John, is the idea of billing folk with meters for over use whilst ignoring those without.

I’m suggesting that that might well be subject to legal challenge.

McMurphy · 02-12-2019 10:19am

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Can not recall that John, what would they have been billed for, can you recall?

Was it a kind of standard charge or something. Must check my records on that John.

The issue I’m grappling with right now,John, is the idea of billing folk with meters for over use whilst ignoring those without.

I’m suggesting that that might well be subject to legal challenge.

Unmetered bill
If your premises doesn’t have a meter you receive unmetered bills. Our Understand your bill page contains information about unmetered bills. Visit our Business charges page for information on unmetered water charges. We bill all customers based on previous usage.

From Irish Water website https://www.water.ie/for-business/billing-explained/

And let's not forget those in apartments who were never going to be metered.

Brendan Bendar · 02-12-2019 10:30am

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

From Irish Water website https://www.water.ie/for-business/billing-explained/

And let's not forget those in apartments who were never going to be metered.

Thanks a tousend John, now that seems to be business premises related.

I was more referring to today’s situation and to domestic dwellings only.

I was suggesting that in that situation as has been said it would be difficult to square the circle regards charging metered and unmetered dwellings.

The Brenner would not be ponying up a plugged nickel, if Fintan two estates away was untouched just because he jumped into a hole and started taking pictures.

I think we can all agree that that one is going nowhere.

McMurphy · 02-12-2019 11:04am

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Thanks a tousend John, now that seems to be business premises related.

I was more referring to today’s situation and to domestic dwellings only.

I was suggesting that in that situation as has been said it would be difficult to square the circle regards charging metered and unmetered dwellings.

The Brenner would not be ponying up a plugged nickel, if Fintan two estates away was untouched just because he jumped into a hole and started taking pictures.

I think we can all agree that that one is going nowhere.

Sorry Bren, you're bang on, that link was indeed business related, but it was the exact same thing for private dwellings back in the day, specifically (and an easy one to show) apartments that Irish water said would never be metered.

I'll get a link for residential premises in a bit for you,

Brendan Bendar · 02-12-2019 12:32pm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Sorry Bren, you're bang on, that link was indeed business related, but it was the exact same thing for private dwellings back in the day, specifically (and an easy one to show) apartments that Irish water said would never be metered.

I'll get a link for residential premises in a bit for you,

No worries John, don’t use too much of your valuable time.

It’s really from now on is the issue.

There was a huge delivery cock up with the set up, that’s a given.

Bit similar to the asylum seekers accommodation, you gotta bring the taxpaying public along with you,the people with skin in the game.

I think this Govt, given the cumulative cock ups they ‘masterminded’ need to take a good rest in early May.

Benedict · 02-12-2019 7:07pm

If the only homes with no meter were the homes which actively prevented installation, then IW could punish them by billing them for the maximum excessive use charge. What has really prevented that from happening is that many homes were willing to accept meters but IW took their ball and walked off the pitch and they never came back. Also, what about all the apartments who could argue that they never refused and would love a meter.

IW have really placed themselves firmly behind the black-ball.

charlie14 · 02-12-2019 7:29pm

Benedict wrote: »

If the only homes with no meter were the homes which actively prevented installation, then IW could punish them by billing them for the maximum excessive use charge. What has really prevented that from happening is that many homes were willing to accept meters but IW took their ball and walked off the pitch and they never came back. Also, what about all the apartments who could argue that they never refused and would love a meter.

IW have really placed themselves firmly behind the black-ball.

I doubt Dinny`s lads would have been run off their feet with demands from households and apartments for water meters that came with an excess usage allocation of 30,000 liters.

Benedict · 03-12-2019 10:05am

charlie14 wrote: »

I doubt Dinny`s lads would have been run off their feet with demands from households and apartments for water meters that came with an excess usage allocation of 30,000 liters.

Yes, but if everyone had been offered a meter, then IW could say to them look, you refused a meter so we are entitled to assume you're using the maximum amount and it's your own fault. But the way it is now, No 157 Anywhere Road can say "Hey! I never refused a meter you just never gave me one"

They really have snookered themselves!

ELM327 · 03-12-2019 10:07am

I don't understand why this couldnt have been like any other utility,
No billing until every and all installation had a meter. Then bill for actual use.

Benedict · 03-12-2019 10:13am

ELM327 wrote: »

I don't understand why this couldnt have been like any other utility,
No billing until every and all installation had a meter. Then bill for actual use.

Quitting installations was a critical error for IW to make because it has meant that a vast number of homes have been left without a meter through no fault of their own. So not only do they escape excess usage charges - but it's through no fault of their own so they can't be penalised.

It's really difficult to see how IW can fix this situation without beginning all over again.

ELM327 · 03-12-2019 10:15am

Benedict wrote: »

Quitting installations was a critical error for IW to make because it has meant that a vast number of homes have been left without a meter through no fault of their own. So not only do they escape excess usage charges - but it's through no fault of their own so they can't be penalised.

It's really difficult to see how IW can fix this situation without beginning all over again.

While I was against Irish Water as an institution, I'm actually in favour of water charges, I can't believe we don't have them.
But now it's a political hot potato it won't be touched for 10-15 years minimum.

If we can install water meters at every installation and the option is meter or no water (same as gas, electricity etc) then you'll find the rentamob won't be able to protest as much.

Brendan Bendar · 03-12-2019 10:27am

ELM327 wrote: »

I don't understand why this couldnt have been like any other utility,
No billing until every and all installation had a meter. Then bill for actual use.

Again if memory serves me correctly that was kind of the original plan.

Big Phil threatened non compliant users the he would ‘turn it to a trickle’

and that raised hackles everywhere.

What happened after that was a litany of errors and cock ups and ensured that IW as is said is now firmly behind the 8 ball.

The whole operation was handled very badly.

McMurphy · 03-12-2019 10:27am

ELM327 wrote: »

While I was against Irish Water as an institution, I'm actually in favour of water charges, I can't believe we don't have them.
But now it's a political hot potato it won't be touched for 10-15 years minimum.

If we can install water meters at every installation and the option is meter or no water (same as gas, electricity etc) then you'll find the rentamob won't be able to protest as much.

There's that word again.

The problem you have with trying to label people who wouldn't entertain the ham fisted attempt at the shambles they tried to force on them as "rentamobs" - many, many of the people who wouldn't entertain it were actual middle Ireland, people who FG relied on their votes.

Ask Noonan if you don't believe me, he couldn't get their refunds to them quick enough.

ELM327 · 03-12-2019 10:59am

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

There's that word again.

The problem you have with trying to label people who wouldn't entertain the ham fisted attempt at the shambles they tried to force on them as "rentamobs" - many, many of the people who wouldn't entertain it were actual middle Ireland, people who FG relied on their votes.

Ask Noonan if you don't believe me, he couldn't get their refunds to them quick enough.

rentamob is a derogatory term used to people who seem to have nothing better to do than attend every protest going.

I was actually against IW and didnt pay.

Benedict · 03-12-2019 11:56am

IW has stated that they will begin sending out letters in the 3rd quarter of 2019 (now history) to warn them if they were using excess amounts. My reading of the threat is that if these water-abusers do not mend their ways, they will ultimately be charged for the excess used in 2019 - but if they mend their ways, the bill will be torn up.

Does that mean that anyone who hasn't had a warning letter is not using too much and can carry on as before?

I doubt very much if anyone has received a letter - but I don't know this of course.

Making idle threats would only make the whole thing look even more dumb (if that's possible).

ELM327 · 03-12-2019 12:09pm

Benedict wrote: »

IW has stated that they will begin sending out letters in the 3rd quarter of 2019 (now history) to warn them if they were using excess amounts. My reading of the threat is that if these water-abusers do not mend their ways, they will ultimately be charged for the excess used in 2019 - but if they mend their ways, the bill will be torn up.

Does that mean that anyone who hasn't had a warning letter is not using too much and can carry on as before?

I doubt very much if anyone has received a letter - but I don't know this of course.

Making idle threats would only make the whole thing look even more dumb (if that's possible).

I think they wouldnt dare challenge people with charges, especially not until anyone who wants a meter has one

charlie14 · 03-12-2019 1:19pm

Benedict wrote: »

Yes, but if everyone had been offered a meter, then IW could say to them look, you refused a meter so we are entitled to assume you're using the maximum amount and it's your own fault. But the way it is now, No 157 Anywhere Road can say "Hey! I never refused a meter you just never gave me one"

They really have snookered themselves!

I cannot see where it would make any difference as regards the number of non-metered households that Irish Water cannot now bill for exceeding their allocation.
In fact it would have more than likely increased the number if households had been given a choice.

Around 50% refused to "engage" with Irish Water, so safe to assume they did not want a meter. Plus I very much doubt of all of those metered if asked would have been happy to have one, so had they gone with that plan then the amount of households metered would now be significantly lower imo.

Benedict · 03-12-2019 6:46pm

charlie14 wrote: »

I cannot see where it would make any difference as regards the number of non-metered households that Irish Water cannot now bill for exceeding their allocation.
In fact it would have more than likely increased the number if households had been given a choice.

Around 50% refused to "engage" with Irish Water, so safe to assume they did not want a meter. Plus I very much doubt of all of those metered if asked would have been happy to have one, so had they gone with that plan then the amount of households metered would now be significantly lower imo.

But if they had been told you're getting a meter but if you refuse and obstruct the installation, then we'll charge you X amount so it would be worth your while to take a meter. Then most homes would have accepted a meter. But instead, they just stopped installations. For example new builds don't have a meter and there is nobody living there 'till they're sold.

Nobody knows why they stopped installations.

charlie14 · 03-12-2019 7:32pm

Benedict wrote: »

But if they had been told you're getting a meter but if you refuse and obstruct the installation, then we'll charge you X amount so it would be worth your while to take a meter. Then most homes would have accepted a meter. But instead, they just stopped installations. For example new builds don't have a meter and there is nobody living there 'till they're sold.

Nobody knows why they stopped installations.

That would not have decreased the numbers refusing to have anything to do with Irish Water and charging people for refusing to do so, (even if they had a way of doing so), would have created even more negative feelings than Hogan`s "trickle".
Can you imagine the social disorder surrounding court cases prosecuting those that refused. It would have been mayhem.

They stopped installations because the public showed at the polling booth they didn`t want metering by decimating Labour and leaving FG needing a confidence and supply agreement from a party that opposed the fiasco.

Benedict · 04-12-2019 9:25am

charlie14 wrote: »

That would not have decreased the numbers refusing to have anything to do with Irish Water and charging people for refusing to do so, (even if they had a way of doing so), would have created even more negative feelings than Hogan`s "trickle".
Can you imagine the social disorder surrounding court cases prosecuting those that refused. It would have been mayhem.

They stopped installations because the public showed at the polling booth they didn`t want metering by decimating Labour and leaving FG needing a confidence and supply agreement from a party that opposed the fiasco.

I don't think you're correct there. If the installers had arrived at every front door and put in a meter unless they were prevented, and those who prevented them were fined, that would be a fair system. If the public perceived the system as fair, then most would pay. They might not like it (who likes bills?) but they'd pay.

It's the gross unfairness of the current plan that's getting people's backs up.

Brendan Bendar · 04-12-2019 10:17am

charlie14 wrote: »

That would not have decreased the numbers refusing to have anything to do with Irish Water and charging people for refusing to do so, (even if they had a way of doing so), would have created even more negative feelings than Hogan`s "trickle".
Can you imagine the social disorder surrounding court cases prosecuting those that refused. It would have been mayhem.

They stopped installations because the public showed at the polling booth they didn`t want metering by decimating Labour and leaving FG needing a confidence and supply agreement from a party that opposed the fiasco.

Hmmmm... while you may have an element of truth in that statement,Cha, I think you are a wee bit off kilter by implying that water charges played that big a part at the polling booths.

Yes, they were a factor but not really not that big I would suggest.

I have seen the main ‘activists’ operating at several points quite diverse in my area, and there was a lot of the same faces at the same engagement point, far removed from their home base.

Quite entitled to protest legally of course, but my experience looking at those involved in ‘picket lines’ and listening to their output ,and watching their activities,would lead me to believe that political action against certain parties at the polling booths,was not big on their agenda.

Labour perhaps, but generally from what I saw most of the ‘meter action protesters’ at the frontline on the footpaths didn’t seem to me to be over familiar with polling booths.

Just my observation...could be wrong

charlie14 · 04-12-2019 2:05pm

Benedict wrote: »

I don't think you're correct there. If the installers had arrived at every front door and put in a meter unless they were prevented, and those who prevented them were fined, that would be a fair system. If the public perceived the system as fair, then most would pay. They might not like it (who likes bills?) but they'd pay.

It's the gross unfairness of the current plan that's getting people's backs up.

People didn`t see much about the original set up as fair. That is what ultimately killed it.
They were hardly going to change their minds on its fairness by being compelled to either accept a meter or end up in court for not paying a fine.
Dumb and all as FG were, at least they had enough cop on not to make a bad situation worse by prosecuting households for not paying water charges.

To prosecute people for not accepting meters would have been a whole other world of dumb for even them.

charlie14 · 04-12-2019 2:19pm

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Hmmmm... while you may have an element of truth in that statement,Cha, I think you are a wee bit off kilter by implying that water charges played that big a part at the polling booths.

Yes, they were a factor but not really not that big I would suggest.

I have seen the main ‘activists’ operating at several points quite diverse in my area, and there was a lot of the same faces at the same engagement point, far removed from their home base.

Quite entitled to protest legally of course, but my experience looking at those involved in ‘picket lines’ and listening to their output ,and watching their activities,would lead me to believe that political action against certain parties at the polling booths,was not big on their agenda.

Labour perhaps, but generally from what I saw most of the ‘meter action protesters’ at the frontline on the footpaths didn’t seem to me to be over familiar with polling booths.

Just my observation...could be wrong

The usual people protesting is something pro supporters were always at pains to point out.
Problem with that is they always failed to note the people who were marching in the protests. FG did not but still got it wrong.

They saw their own voters out, middle Ireland if you like, and panicked making a bad situation worse by coming up with the ludicrous "conservation grant" that was not even a kissing cousin too conservation.

We could debate what effect water charges had at the polling both, but fair to assume that much of the damage inflicted on Labour was due to their lies on water charges in the run up to the 2011 GE.
I would not find it a particularly long stretch to believe that the FG lies prior to GE 2011 also cost them votes that left them in a minority government.

Brendan Bendar · 04-12-2019 10:02pm

charlie14 wrote: »

The usual people protesting is something pro supporters were always at pains to point out.
Problem with that is they always failed to note the people who were marching in the protests. FG did not but still got it wrong.

They saw their own voters out, middle Ireland if you like, and panicked making a bad situation worse by coming up with the ludicrous "conservation grant" that was not even a kissing cousin too conservation.

We could debate what effect water charges had at the polling both, but fair to assume that much of the damage inflicted on Labour was due to their lies on water charges in the run up to the 2011 GE.
I would not find it a particularly long stretch to believe that the FG lies prior to GE 2011 also cost them votes that left them in a minority government.

“Lies” there's that auld hoary well used terminology from the PBP manual.

Where did stuff spring from, Cha.

Plumbthedepths · 04-12-2019 10:10pm

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

“Lies” there's that auld hoary well used terminology from the PBP manual.

Where did stuff spring from, Cha.

https://www.labour.ie/emmetstagg/news/127231783317196123.html
This prehaps?

Water charges for excessive usage

Comments