Tommy1000

we would heartily recommend Creative Living who have recently finished an extensive refurbishment/extension and garden hard-scaping etc for us. http://www.creativelivingse.co.uk/

Aristide makes a good point - you just both need to comfortable that the chosen surveyor has both of your best interests in mind. We have used Ken Power ([email protected]) who was very good, and pro-active. I can't remember exactly what he charged sorry, but I do remember he was at the more reasonably end of the scale (and about half of what the council's surveyor charged - as the house next door is council-owned).

Now that our project has been completed I thought I should update this thread to say that we're very happy with the finished article. Building works finished in November and snagging in December. Creative Living gave us a competitive quote and when we agreed to go with them we agreed the start date, which was stuck to. We had some unforeseeable cost overruns which were kept appraised of along the way, with efforts being made on their part to keep them as low as possible. The finished extension, downstairs WC, utility room, newly hardscaped garden, decked patio and new fencing is all of a great quality and finish. One particular point to note with respect to the finish is the builder (Ken's) attention to detail - as a result we have a high quality build and excellent looking finish. Their contact details are in my original post.

We are halfway through a large kitchen extension project with Creative Living SE and would thoroughly recommend them. They have helped us with planning, structural and party wall matters. Everything with the actual build has gone very smoothly so far, and also at a very good pace (we are currently slightly ahead of schedule). The team are a pleasure to deal with. Feel free to PM for any further details. Website is http://www.creativelivingse.co.uk/ Contact is Iain on 07469 194915

We've used two different companies over the years and these guys were the best of the two (and have been used for a few different jobs): http://www.checkatrade.com/NmnSoundproofing/

We have used Jon from Mains and Drains before and were very happy. Jon's number is 07771 586759

We used (and were/are very pleased with) www.homesecurityservices.co.uk for a full install of new monitored alarm system.

We bought genuine ones from www.roofblinds.co.uk and I think they were cheaper than buying direct.

In response to Miga, I would disagree that the punishment is 'massive'. I think it could, and should, have been a lot harsher. It is no use comparing it to stamping, for example, because this is the THIRD time Suarez is guilty of this offence. As has been mentioned before, with many of the other acts of violence it can be harder to see definite intent. Not a problem with biting, however. Any talk of 'unprecedented' punishment is besides the point. The crime, and especially a third occurrence, is unprecedented. Frankly, if they're setting a precedent with a four month ban for what he has done for the third time, then I am disappointed that the precedent hasn't been set harshly enough. I would agree that fouls intended to injure etc are just as bad and, provided it be established (to whatever the deemed standard of proof would be) that it was intentional (or, depending on the incident, perhaps even just reckless) the punishments for these should be much more severe. That's a different discussion though to whether or not Suarez's punishment is, on its merits, justified. If not 3, how many times does a player have to bite another player to receive a four month ban? In the Premier League players pick up suspensions of increased length the more yellow cards they accumulate, so there is absolutely precedent in football for escalation of punishment. Many violent conduct offences in football have a degree of ambiguity surrounding them (was the injurious challenge malicious, for example?), but with Suarez there is no grey area. He is fortunate in all instances not to have faced / be facing criminal charges.

Suarez's ban didn't extend to international duty last time presumably because he was banned by the FA/Premier League, the body which had jurisdiction over him given he did it in a league match. Don't think they have power to ban players from international games. This happened on Fifa's watch, who have jurisdiction over all levels of football. I'm not saying he shouldn't have been banned from international duty also, but there seem to be logical (or at least procedural) reasons why he wasn't. The punishment could have been harsher also, given it's the third time he has done it. For screamingly obvious reasons, a repeat offence almost always attracts a harsher punishment than the last time. Looking at it narrowly you could say that Liverpool are collateral damage in all this, however, given that they have witnessed his antics first hand on more than one previous occasion, and inexplicably (and embarrassingly) stood by him, it could be said that another ban was only a matter of time. Brought into sharper focus of course given that they were legally obliged to sell him in the summer and decided not to. I'm not saying it's karmic but I certainly don't think anyone will feel sorry for LFC. And in any case, surely he is ten times more likely to stay at Liverpool now because of this.

Eddie Carey (07802 846097) did ours - a boiler replacement and moving it - and was brilliant. Highly recommended.

We also did this last year, dropping the first floor ceilings by a foot. I think we ended up with something like 2.1 or so in the loft and 2.4 on the first floor. Which in both cases is perfectly good. Try and incorporate as large a velux window/s as possible as it can really take the edge off the impression of a lower ceiling.

Mourinho/Chelsea not winning the league is, at this point, right near the top of my shopping list...

I'm not saying the rule is right, but it should categorically not have been a sending off. The general rule is denial of a clear goal-scoring opportunity. More specifically, the rule for this situation (i.e. a handball) is if "the unacceptable and unfair intervention prevented a goal being scored". The ball was not going in so there was no goal-scoring opportunity denied, and no goal prevented. The more interesting question is why the ref gave any decision at all, considering he had already signalled for a goal kick and the linesman wasn't flagging. Arsenal were in enough trouble as it was (2-0 down, or 3-0 as it should have been with a penalty and a yellow card for Chamberlain) without wrongly going down to ten.

If you make the (sensible) assumption that people aren't in the habit of reserving a parking space daily with a wheelie bin just for their car, and are doing for good reason like the one above (or perhaps a heavy delivery or for a skip), then it's certainly inconsiderate. Whether it's the house's 'space' or not is besides the point in this instance, the act of reserving the space with a bin is not selfish (if done for good reason), movnig it is. But I also agree with Seabag's sentiment, the spaces don't belong to anyone but, if reserved on a rare occasion for good reason, then why would people not respect that. On the rare instances one of our neighbours has done that, I've parked giving them as much space as possible because I thought that was the decent thing to do.