robbin

Louisa - don't you live in a flat? If so, how is the space outside your building 'your' space which you can keep for yourself with a bin? How would that be neighbourly behaviour? What about the other 3 or 4 families/residents living in the same building? If you don't, then I ask my question more generally regarding flats.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ... Yes I have reserved a space with wheelie bins when > I?ve been back and forward to hospital and need a > space outside my property without being forced to > walk miles to my front door. I have also reserved > a space when I have been expecting big deliveries > from the likes of B&Q or Homebase. I am not > ashamed of that fact. > > Louisa. Hmmm, you have certainly changed your tune then, Louisa! It didn't used to be just on hospital trips! message Re: One hour free parking in the area... Posted by Louisa 26 January, 2015 15:55 StraferJack I personally believe it is common decency that a person shouldn't park outside someone's house - regardless of how desperate they are for the space. I drive almost everywhere, with the exception of around here because it is primarily residential and I walk so as not to inconvenience people. I've been at the wrong end of a selfish space stealer outside my own place many a time and I wouldn't want to do the same to someone else. A space is outside your house for good reason, it is technically your space (regardless of it being on a public road), and it should be public convention that this space is only occupied by the people (persons) who occupy the property in front of it. Louisa.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > flocker spotter Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I am not wrong. read the RTA sections I > mentioned. > > I did, it mentioned liabilities, but it did not > mention contracts. Not unsurprisingly as the RTA > really isn't concerned with contract law. A > liability is not a contract. > Also, that's not correct - the relevant provisions of the RTA do specifically address contracts - in that they render invalid/unenforceable any contractual terms that would otherwise permit an insurer to avoid such part of a contract that may oblige them to pay out to a third party.

To be fair Loz, although FS seems like a bit of a rude n*b, the issue of whether or not there's a contract between the insurer and the third party seems to be irrelevant in the context of this particular conversation isn't it? I agree that there isn't any privity of contract between the two, but notwithstanding this, the effect of the RTA (as amended) is to prevent an insurer from avoiding liability to pay a third party, albeit only after that third party has obtained a court judgment against the insured. The insurer can, of course then pursue the insured for reimbursement of the judgment sum and costs.

Not very - hence my comment!

To be Frank, I think he's trolling.

ianr Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thank you. That's not "invalidated" as I > understand it. Ah, spot the lawyer?! I agree - as I said yesterday... whether or not letting an MOT expire would cause problems with a policyholder's insurance cover depends upon the terms of each individual policy. Having no valid MOT will not render a policy void ab initio (unless you have no MOT at the outset and you misrepresent to the insurer that you have). If you let your MOT expire after the policy commences, this means that the policy would be voidable at the election of the insurer, so much would depend upon whether or not the insurer decided to repudiate (avoid) the policy. The chances are, of course, that they would repudiate if it was going to cost them a lot otherwise.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don?t get why anyone would feel the need to park > their vehicle outside someone else?s house, and > potentially leave it there for days or weeks at a > time. Often large vans which block out the light > to a persons home too. It?s just pure ignorance. > > I get that parking is at a premium, and if you > live on nearby roads you often need to park your > vehicle in places you wouldn?t normally because so > few spaces are available near your own front door. > But, there is absolutely no excuse for parking > your vehicle outside someone else?s house for > extended periods. It may not be illegal, but it is > highly ignorant and confrontational. > > Louisa. I agree with that first paragraph if you are talking about all the 'businesses' (often sole traders) that park their crummy used cars/large vans on the street instead of on business premises. However, if someone happens not to be driving their private car for a few days and it stays outside my house then I can't see that it is objectionable or confrontational (it may be a bit irritating or inconvenient but that's a different thing and I would have no valid grounds for complaint). I can see that it might be considered objectionable or confrontational by any resident whose house a car is parked outside considers that part of the public highway to belong to them - but not otherwise. I think that may be where you are coming from Louisa? I recall you posting several times on the EDF that you routinely put bins outside to 'save' 'your' parking space.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No it doesn't really matter in the greater scheme > of things, but it happens to be being discussed, > so... > > You rather make my point - nobody blocking off a > space can know the needs of other people who might > need that space, so I just think it's fairest for > nobody to do it. > > Skips are an entirely different matter, they're > licensed by the council. I agree with Rendel.

I don't think I'll be adding their website to my 'favourites'!

Damn - my first time back for several months and I find myself agreeing with Rendel. My understanding is that whether or not letting an MOT expire would cause problems with a policyholder's insurance cover depends upon the terms of each individual policy. Having no valid MOT will not render a policy void ab initio (unless you have no MOT at the outset and you misrepresent to the insurer that you have). If you let your MOT expire after the policy commences, this means that the policy would be voidable at the election of the insurer, so much would depend upon whether or not the insurer decided to repudiate (avoid) the policy. The chances are, of course, that they would repudiate if it was going to cost them a lot otherwise.

I'm betting it didn't sell for a million. It's not even anywhere close to ED centre or to Dulwich Village. Mind you, if it did, while I cannot stand Foxtons, if they could get me way over the odds for my gaff I'd be tempted!

lol. So no rational answer then! At my old school we had one or two teachers who thought they were special and who could never (ever) be wrong about anything! I think teaching standards have improved greatly since the 70s though and those teachers are retired and probably now confined to sniping on internet forums or shouting at their pets. Their old reactionary style of 'communication' and their approach of 'it's right because I say it's right' thankfully is not so prevalent in more recent generations of teachers who are still teaching.

Applying your logic to the legal system, any lawyer that thinks we should have a civil law system (like in most of Europe) as opposed to a common law system should cease working in the 'wrong' system? What about all the prison officers employed in private prisons who think the running of prisons should not be privatised? Should they stop working in their chosen career? What about people working in knackered old state run prisons who think that the private run system would be better?

That may be the lamest, most contrived excuse for a gratuitously rude post that I've seen so far this year - and it's nearly the end of November!

It's the greengrocers almost opposite the Co-op on Lordship Lane.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > uncleglen Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > DuncanW Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > uncleglen Wrote: > > > ***...especially > > > > since Labour got rid of grammars - thereby > > > > depriving all poor bright kids of a decent > > > > education.*** > > > > > > The abolition of grammars does not deprive > all > > > poor kids of a decent education. Quite the > > > opposite is true. > > Well, I am speaking from my own experience- > > Grammar school kid made good from a very poor > > background in Newham. Then 25 years teaching in > > various south London comps... > > This country, as a whole, has severely suffered > > from a lack of REAL academic education- the > truth > > of which is borne out by the way we have > plundered > > clever skilled people from very poor countries > > So you think the system's wrong and doesn't offer > bright kids the opportunities you had...but you > continue to work in it. Nice to see the > principles...I wonder how good an education kids > receive from someone who doesn't believe in the > system... RH, I'm interested in your apparent contempt for anyone who thinks the system is wrong but continues to work in it - does that apply across the board, or just to one person on this forum for the purposes of your personal insult? If all the numerous dedicated teachers who think the school system is underfunded, and/or that the curriculum concentrates too much on box ticking and point scoring were to stop teaching in the 'system' many schools would have to close wouldn't they? Or is it ok for those other teachers who think the system's wrong to carry on working within it? Just wondering.

Imagine my angst then - my username is entirely based upon bin robbers and now they have stopped coming to look into my bins. The last time the sandal wearing 'shoe hunter' came to visit, I was leaving the house just as he had finished rummaging through one of my bins, chucking anything he wasn't interested in out of the bin and all over my front garden. I told him I didn't care if he looked in my bins, but I didn't see why he should feel free to chuck rubbish all over my garden leaving it for me to pick up, otherwise it would attract rats and foxes. To be fair to him, he picked all the rubbish up from my garden and put it back in the bin, while apologising. Although he comes to our street still, I have noticed he now passes us by - presumably because the mean man made him pick up the rubbish last time. I did notice that he still tends to leave a right mess behind though.

Their cheese and their knowledge of it/customer service are all top rate, IMO.

Seriously John L? It is obvious from this thread that you have a 'remain' agenda (more than, or as much as pretty much anyone else on this forum) but you can't really be holding him and his organisation out as saying anything other than something self-serving (for their own ends). Can you? I would be happy placing a bet that in any other context you would say 'no, don't be daft'! Although I shouldn't need to say this - in case of (and before) and reactionary response that I am some sort of rabid Brexiteer, I will say again that I did not vote to leave - it is just that I am extremely wary of nonsense, or propaganda.

I don't think cheating on your school work should be your first choice - how will that help you learn? To improve your English vocabulary and grammar skills you need to do the work yourself, make mistakes (which is fine - that's how you learn) and improve. If you don't understand a point, I would urge you to ask your English teacher and to say you don't understand and I would have thought they will explain things to you and maybe try to line up some extra help in areas you find difficult. Also, explain this to your parents - they should help you as well. Good luck - I hope it goes well. Keep trying!

That's how I read it too. Not everyone gets sarcasm though.

ED History - This is the reasonable question you never responded to... Posted by katanita August 31, 08:52PM Sigh, is this seriously a suggestion that SNARL might be fabricating these incidents? Would the police (who I have personally spoken to regarding this case) be devoting this level of resource to it if that were the case? Is this woman making it up?... Is this what you were suggesting, because that's how your post reads and how others interpreted it?

That's one of several. Do you have an answer to this reasonable question from Katanita (if you have, you didn't post it)- Posted by katanita August 31, 08:52PM Sigh, is this seriously a suggestion that SNARL might be fabricating these incidents? Would the police (who I have personally spoken to regarding this case) be devoting this level of resource to it if that were the case? Is this woman making it up? [www.bbc.co.uk] If you mean regarding the description, it came from Surrey Police, as stated in this article [metro.co.uk]. So, in answer to your question, yes, many. Apologies I've misunderstood the implication of your post, but not sure why it was necessary. edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Has anyone yet identified a single report that can > not be traced back to SNARL as the sole source?

Very annoying, but I suggest you put it behind you. An oral tenancy is possible, but if there's an argument that there was never an unequivocal meeting of minds and final agreement (which the original intention to reduce the agreement to writing suggests), or no consideration provided, then its not worth the aggro or expense. Count it as a lucky escape from the clutches of a potentially troublesome and untrustworthy landlord.