See also, images, blog
_______________________________________________
And to start, (not in order but it gives a fair idea of things) a letter from Robin Eddi hilarious on the subject ... after examining the "record" after 3 days of hunger strike of Helen and "negotiations" -Hard-with the mayor. I enjoy the leaves.
Robin Eddi to the Mayor of Saint-Ambroix
Since 2007 we are challenging the water bill of € 4000, 2 rue Désiré we n 'have never lived without result. My wife has exceeded finally resolved to make a hunger strike in front of City Hall to draw attention to the injustice. You proposed to journalist Michel Pernet Marseillaise mediate .. My wife has agreed to take a break from their strike pending the outcome negotiations, demonstrate its goodwill. Result? None. It is therefore decided to resume today July 8, 2010.
During the interview on Monday, June 28, 2010, you stated that you had no proof that it was Mrs. A. the tenant who paid the water.
1 / We gave you a statement from him confirming that it paid well and a water bill in his name.
You rejected this evidence by saying that it concerned no doubt ... Street cicadas (!) which is her ex-boyfriend ME, that denies itself in writing. Because you said, the bill did not contain the part sanitation force in the city center (where Desire Street).
2/LE next day, I brought M Bagnol, employed by a water bill with sanitation (214!) On behalf of Mrs A. Desire Street. An important point which he claimed would help greatly to solve the problem. Since we now know the name of which was that the meter and the bills were sent, the problem is resolved. No.
Car then you have raised a new argument:
leakage of any water would have occurred between February 2005 and 2007.
not as Mrs A. Following is a party to the danger of the collapse of the party wall with M Pialet wall we went often to check the status with ourselves and masons. If it were we would have found (it was very important.)
You still wanted to check. We went with Mr. Koenig and Mr. Bagnol, Assistant to the house to check that there was no leak that could explain the exorbitant bill, almost an Olympic swimming pool. The report shows clearly that there is none.
Mr. Bagnol then wanted to ensure that the meter was consistent with the regulation that is was in working condition. Verification relevant because it appeared he was down. Since when? No one knows.
During this investigation we have taken statements from MB (reliever meters) ensuring that payment of water and Mrs. A. (Hence the Desire Street) was completed by his companion, M E., confirming the statements of the latter, my wife and invoice submitted.
Everything is settled? No.
You on the other hand recognized that since the departure of Mrs A, confirmed by FCA in October 2005, the house was not inhabited. It is true that this point, you have accepted without written evidence *. The problem is solved? No.
This should lead us to conclude that if there was excessive consumption is between February and October 2005 and if there is leakage between October 2005 and 2007. But since the discovery of leaks and the failure of the counter, nothing is certain.
What explanations can be advanced?
- Management random the water company at the time.
- Mrs. A. would knowingly wasted water between February and October 2005. Unlikely (it is not part on bad terms with us.)
- The meter has dysfunctions, which seems the most likely explanation .**
You have requested a review of the meter in a laboratory, independent, at our expense, although in three cases, cause us to pursue outside. But the lab, we are told that everything that can be demonstrated is that the meter does not work, and that under no circumstances will we know what he has ever done before his arrest. No need to pay 175 euros for that we reaffirm what we know. But Mr. Bagnol has another idea: he suggested it checked by ... the manufacturer itself, which seems plausible, the two caps being incompatible ... Also the meter has over 30 years to -50 years According to my wife, and that its manufacturer must eat dandelions by the root for some time ..
Logic would finally you recognize now that there was a problem which we are all responsible. No. His account is taken with great regularity.
Moreover, the regulation of the water company said:
Article 7 The subscriber has to pay only the amount actually consumed. In this case, 0.
What is the actual consumption since February 2005?
The only statement probably reliable, ie with a meter that works seems to be that of February 2005. The following 2007, even though the apartment was empty since October 2005 (!) Makes no sense. This counter with dysfunction between 2005 and 2007.
Nobody can move the volume of real consumption as outlined in the settlement since the survey of February 2005.
Moreover, the regulation specifies that failure to counter the consumer should serve as a reference is that of the previous similar period (Article X) this if the house is actually inhabited.
To assess consumption from February to October 2005, the period should be 2003-2005. The bill this time (where Mrs. A. Street Desire lived with her children) is relatively low, since for 10 months, for example 15/06/2003 to 04/27/2004, she accuses only 50 m3 all round , are 74.96 euros, which is 7.50 euros / month ... This applied from February to October 2005 (9 months) we obtain 605 euros ... repetition, if the house is inhabited.
Then one meter rental must be taken into account ... yet one can legitimately ask the question of the amount of the subscription of a meter over 30 years .. and makes more of such "services". Assuming of course that he is responsible for this bill Olympic pool, my wife certifying on honor not to hold in his two pieces of the Desire Street or elsewhere.
These two articles provide a clear basis for billing in our case ... repetition, if the house was actually occupied.
Since October 2008 (start date of the seizure of the account) to date, 2337 euros have already been taken. Euro 1276 remain therefore "due" off meter rental.
* For out of makes M Leon Pialet if your father has won the party wall and the three floors in my wife collapsed, it had demolished a house that backed his My wife, hence his conviction to rebuild. The case is exceptional home -in-peril was fortunately over-populated and could not be applicable during the period when the meter was charging 4000 euros conscientiously.
** although it may surprise a meter ( somehow "cross ownership" ) whose consumption has been paid, at a time by Mr. Larrivé (then aged and recently widowed, who settled what was asked without looking), then by M E. companion of the tenant (there is normal) ... which we now requires "balance" (4000 euros) ... to my wife because he would have remained in his name all this time. A gag?
____________________
In order to present.
13/06/10
Helena Larrivé to: City of St. Ambroix (30), MD Pialet, Mayor ... open letter
