• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please contact us.

Irish Water's clause 3.2 and the €100 'grant' examined.

Mad as Fish

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 6, 2012
Messages
24,185
Clause 3.2 of the Irish Waters domestic contract has been a bone of contention on here before with the supporters of water privatisation queuing up to insist that its only a formality to try and stop you bypassing the meter or some other feeble excuse but it's worth looking at again -

Save in respect of an existing shared Service Connection the Customer is prohibited from using the Connection and/or using any other mechanism to supply water onwards to another location or premises other than the Premises to which these Terms and Conditions apply.


http://www.water.ie/docs/Domestic-Terms-and-Conditions-English.pdf

In that it quite clearly states that should the user supply water off the premises by any mechanism then they are in breach of the contract. There are two main issues here-

The ownership of Ireland's water is common to the people of Ireland, the government may manage it but as far as I understand the constitution that does not mean that any body or institution can take ownership of it. One test of ownership is the freedom to dispose of the the item as the user may wish, this right is denied under the T&C's. Perhaps one more au fait with the workings of the constitution may comment upon this.

Note how the T&C's refer to 'water' alone and in general and do not specify the source of that water. The shared connection refers to existing arrangements and not ones that may be made after the T&C's have been accepted. This means that should a property owner drill a well or collect rainwater then he is prohibited from passing any on to his neighbours or anyone else. This ensures a future near monopoly for any company that buys IW and may well fall foul of EU competition laws.

So what are the chances of rural dwellers drilling their own well and passing the water on? To throw some light on that it has been regularly argued on here that to cover the full cost of water provision by metering then the average bill will need to be around €1,000 per household. A private well may cost as little as €3,000 to drill and connect! Double that if you are unlucky and have to go a lot deeper. Given that a well may be paid for within 3 - 6 years (half that if you share the cost with a neighbour) paying property owners €100 to stop them competing with IW seems an absolute bargain and that bribe was nowhere near as silly a gesture as it was thought to be.


BTW, just as a footnote I see that the T&C's were updated in Feb 2015. I've no idea what the changes are but were we not meant to be informed of any alteration to the contract?
 


Lúidín

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2013
Messages
7,253
A friend living in a cryptosporidium zone regularly collects bottles of the good stuff when he visits. I point out that it would be breaking the contract with IW under the clause "...the Customer is prohibited from using the connection and/or using any other mechanism to supply water onwards to another location..."

Then we both laugh at the very idea of signing a contract and paying the third water tax and fill up.
 

Mad as Fish

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 6, 2012
Messages
24,185
A friend living in a cryptosporidium zone regularly collects bottles of the good stuff when he visits. I point out that it would be breaking the contract with IW under the clause "...the Customer is prohibited from using the connection and/or using any other mechanism to supply water onwards to another location..."

Then we both laugh at the very idea of signing a contract and paying the third water tax and fill up.
That's another interesting point you raise there.

Let us suppose that your friend is in a situation where he is able to drill a well. If he had signed up with IW then he would be unable to supply clean water to others affected by the bacteria and those in the zone would have to continue buying contaminated water from IW despite clean water being available nearby.
 

Barna

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
2,988
That's another interesting point you raise there.

Let us suppose that your friend is in a situation where he is able to drill a well. If he had signed up with IW then he would be unable to supply clean water to others affected by the bacteria and those in the zone would have to continue buying contaminated water from IW despite clean water being available nearby.
The quango is a FFailure.
It'll be quietly gotten rid of soon enough.
I doubt even the FFailures or the blueshirts would be stupid enough to kick that hornets nest again.
Then again, there's a lot of stupid people in the aforementioned.

850,000 people have refused to become involved with the scam and since the election I'd reckon a lot more......
 

Barna

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
2,988
So are they trying to say that all water is Irish Water's? Has this ever been clarified?
Badly written legislation forced through by the arrogant blueshirt use of the guillotine was always going to be bad legislation.
Let the FFailed quango be a lesson to countries worldwide on how NOT to act in government.
Anyway, there can be hundreds of threads on this in various different outlets, but the fact is, charging people for water services that they already pay for through general taxation and through the LGF is not going to happen.
The sooner Fianna Gael realise this, the easier it will be for them.
 

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,202
The ownership of Ireland's water is common to the people of Ireland
Do they own the pipes, pumps and processing facilities as well?

[video=youtube;LYqLpG-Yx04]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYqLpG-Yx04[/video]
 

Barna

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
2,988
Last year, the quango took in around €140 million (if we believe them) and the DSP paid out over €85 million in a bribe.
What a scam.
 

crossman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 16, 2011
Messages
1,602
Badly written legislation forced through by the arrogant blueshirt use of the guillotine was always going to be bad legislation.
Let the FFailed quango be a lesson to countries worldwide on how NOT to act in government.
Anyway, there can be hundreds of threads on this in various different outlets, but the fact is, charging people for water services that they already pay for through general taxation and through the LGF is not going to happen.
The sooner Fianna Gael realise this, the easier it will be for them.
No doubt you are right because of the blunders made in setting up IW but it is still a bad result for the country. We should have charges based on usage after a certain free allocation. but it won't happen now. Its crazy that we get so uptight over relatively small bills while car insurance, just to take one example, is rocketing.
 

Barna

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
2,988
No doubt you are right because of the blunders made in setting up IW but it is still a bad result for the country. We should have charges based on usage after a certain free allocation. but it won't happen now. Its crazy that we get so uptight over relatively small bills while car insurance, just to take one example, is rocketing.
We also have a LPT, set up to fund local services for the people in the area's it's collected.
However, it's only collected from property owners, meaning that renters get away scott free.

Funnily enough, the exact amount collected in LPT each year since its inception has been funnelled through the LGF straight to the IW quango.

Banana Republic.
 

Mad as Fish

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 6, 2012
Messages
24,185
So are they trying to say that all water is Irish Water's? Has this ever been clarified?
That is exactly the question I have asked before and am asking again. When mentioned a few months back I had all the IW/FG supporters piling in to offer various alternative interpretations including a story about it only applying to water supplied by IW, but nowhere does it say that, in fact it specifically avoids saying what they mean by 'water'. The source of water is mentioned in the paragraph but in a different context and attempts were made to conflate the two.

As far as ownership goes then the right to dispose of the water as one sees fit must surely be a test of ownership, if IW are saying that any water on the premises cannot be disposed of other than by existing arrangements (although that is not entirely clear) then they would appear to be trying to take ownership of the water on the properties of those who have accepted the contract.
 

Mad as Fish

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 6, 2012
Messages
24,185
Last year, the quango took in around €140 million (if we believe them) and the DSP paid out over €85 million in a bribe.
What a scam.
The point being that it is not a bribe, but a cheap way of trying to gain ownership of much of Ireland's available water and stifle future competition.
 

Mad as Fish

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 6, 2012
Messages
24,185
Badly written legislation forced through by the arrogant blueshirt use of the guillotine was always going to be bad legislation.
Let the FFailed quango be a lesson to countries worldwide on how NOT to act in government.
Anyway, there can be hundreds of threads on this in various different outlets, but the fact is, charging people for water services that they already pay for through general taxation and through the LGF is not going to happen.
The sooner Fianna Gael realise this, the easier it will be for them.
I'm not so sure it was badly written, in fact I think it is very cleverly written to ensure that the government had a defined asset to sell come privatisation.

Whatever happens I expect IW to remain in existence in some form or another if only because the government will want to hold on to what is has of that asset and I should imagine they will be looking for further ways of conning people to sign their rights over in the future.
 
Last edited:

hammer

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
58,180
Keep up the good work Madser.

Its reassuring that I will no longer have to pay even though I see the need.

Long live the Revolution.
 

Mad as Fish

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 6, 2012
Messages
24,185
Do they own the pipes, pumps and processing facilities as well?

[video=youtube;LYqLpG-Yx04]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYqLpG-Yx04[/video]
Insomuch as they are items that belong to the state then yes, much like any other part of the county's assets.
 

Mad as Fish

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 6, 2012
Messages
24,185
Keep up the good work Madser.

Its reassuring that I will no longer have to pay even though I see the need.

Long live the Revolution.
You sound rather bitter and defeated, I do hope that is the case.
 

Mad as Fish

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 6, 2012
Messages
24,185
No doubt you are right because of the blunders made in setting up IW but it is still a bad result for the country. We should have charges based on usage after a certain free allocation. but it won't happen now. Its crazy that we get so uptight over relatively small bills while car insurance, just to take one example, is rocketing.
It's not just about the money though and do you honestly believe that the water bills will not also skyrocket?
 

Mad as Fish

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 6, 2012
Messages
24,185
Absolutely not.

No IW charges saves me a small fortune and a lot of hassle.

Thanks again.
We are still all paying through general taxation, which is as it should be.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top