rendelharris

flocker spotter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is a valid plate - but old. Before 2001 year > of registration was indicated by a letter at the > start of the numberplate. This is a Y reg car > from the year 2000. Think not - Y was March to August 2001, but anyway when they had that system there was a single letter age identifier, then three numbers, then three letters, e.g. Y 123 ABC. ETA Cross-posted before your edited explanation.

That sounds pretty excessive. This Which page https://local.which.co.uk/advice/cost-price-information-painters-decorators is a few years old but reckons an average of ?350 for your job excluding doors, so call it ?450 for inflation, double it for doors - I'd say a grand would be about right.

If you've given the correct reg it's not a valid one - possibly reporting it to the police as a false plate might increase their interest? Also, how do you know it's taxed? If it has a tax disc showing that it has tax up to date, that's fake too - nobody's had a paper disc issued since September 2014, so maybe that might interest police as well.

rch Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The whole Quietways 7 project that's about to > start causing problems in the Village next week is > funded by the Mayor, so I'm assuming that there > are other "funds" for local councils to apply for > in order to be "supported" by the Mayor for > London's Vision for Cycling. That's rather a massive assumption given that you've offered no evidence for it, and that without that evidence your "astonishing update" is completely erroneous. Happy to be proved wrong but I can find no evidence that the Mayor is providing funding for cycle hangars. "...about to start causing problems in the Village" - good to see the positive attitude!

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sally Eva appears to be involved in the highly > proactive group, Southwark Cyclists, and seems to > be responsible for their blog page. There's no need to say it as if there's something sinister that she's hiding! Sally has frequently posted on here about Southwark Cyclists' bike trains, training and other cycling issues, making no secret of her role in Southwark Cyclists - you make it sound as though they're a shadowy organization of which she's trying to hide her membership - neither is the case!

I can't see anything on that page which implies there's external funding from the Mayor, Robin: it says "This is supported by the Mayor for London?s Vision for Cycling." I take that to mean it is the policy of City Hall to support (i.e. cheer on) boroughs which are installing hangars, not that they are funding them, surely it would use the words "funded by" rather than "supported by" if that were the case? Googling I can only find things saying the Mayor's policy is to have more cycling planning, no mention of funding for it.

Jacqui5254 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Is there a > demand for one in that particular location? Yes, they're placed where people have asked for them. I don't believe that removing one car parking space is going to make a ha'porth of difference one way or the other to congestion on the road, as I said above, if there wasn't a cycle hangar there would be a car in that space - as has been stated by others, it's people driving their children to school that are causing the congestion and a cycle hangar won't make any difference to that. As I said, I think front garden storage provided by the council in the same way they've been providing motorcycle anchors could in many cases be a better and more cost-effective option, but lots of houses round here are divided into flats with the upstairs flat, which would have most need of bike storage, not always having a say over what does and doesn't go in the front garden.

hammerman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Reading the original post as 'hangar' seems > interesting as a lot of people have followed on > using the 'a' instead of 'e' including James > Barber! > > Hope you get the cycle hanger sorted. "Hangar" is quite correct, used in the sense of a storage area for vehicles as in aircraft hangar: it's not a place one hangs bicycles up.

Jacqui5254 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Goodrich Road...where there are already parking > challenges due to it being right outside a school, > the road being > clogged up twice a day already. > Where's the sense in that? Two or three streets > away would have made more sense... Would you be happy if to unclog the road - for it's surely multiple cars, not one bike hangar the size of a car, that clog the road - residents were told they had to park their cars two or three streets away? Can't say I'm entirely convinced by bike hangars - I think the money would be better spent on in-garden bike storage - but it's a bit rich to complain about one car-sized facility and not the hundred car-sized, um, cars, blocking the road. If the bike hangar wasn't there the space would be used by a car, so no quantitative difference to the congestion in the road.

The PDF available on this page: http://www.2.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/2305/a-z_of_services_for_older_people_in_southwark is an A-Z of all services for older people in Southwark - perhaps you could point her to it or if she's not tech'ed up print it out for her, then maybe she could look through and choose any groups or services which might be suitable for her?

If it can tilt back at all get a pair of these and slip them underneath and it will slide out easily: http://www.argos.co.uk/product/8411220

It's not a genuine question, DL, you say yourself that you can't find it anywhere. No, it's not a cycle lane, OK. The majority of your post, as with your posts elsewhere, is taken up with whingeing about how crap cyclists are.

When I was cycling down Dog Kennel Hill on Friday, a motorcyclist cut in front of me at very high speed, missing me by a couple of feet, while his mate simultaneously shot up the metre-wide gap on my inside. I didn't post about it on here though, because I recognise that the vast majority of motorcyclists are sensible and law abiding and I'm not obsessively anti them.

Don't know about that, the insurer's stance would be that the driver is not at fault as there is no negligence on his/her part, if that applies to insurance one assumes it applies in any other related legal proceeding. Not at all sure though!

There are lawyers who will take on the MIB for the original damage on a no-win-no-fee basis - they take a hefty chunk (25%) if you win but still, 75% of your damages at no risk, worth a go? Good luck, feel for you. ETA The MIB say on their website that they are there to compensate for untraceable culprits, so worth badgering - assume like most similar agencies their default response is to say no and see if you give up!

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > (I have mentioned this several times)- when the > local council is of a different political > persuasion than the government, then money will be > diverted from the front line at every > opportunity...you voted for them Yes yes, the loony lefties are deliberately wasting government money out of spite, there are reds under the bed, the Eastern Europeans are stealing our benefits, blah blah blah. You don't half talk some utter cobblers. Mentioning something several times does not make it any less nonsense.

Unfortunately, and unfairly, I think the other party's insurers are within their rights, a stroke coming under "Act of God" and involving no negligence (unless the driver had a pre-existing condition which should have prevented him driving). A friend once had a lady who had an epileptic seizure crash through his garden wall: her insurers refused to pay as it was her first episode and so was in no way foreseeable or negligent. In that case the lady herself nobly stumped up for the repairs, but she was under no obligation to do so. I thought (could well be wrong) that insurers had an informal agreement to settle each other's claims in this sort of case...if you're fully comped your insurers will pay for repairs, but if I'm right and they can't get it back from the other party's insurer that'll be your no-claims gone for a burton and higher premiums on renewal. As I said, it really doesn't seem fair but that's how I understand the position.

Angelina Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The technologies are compatible across devices and > depending on how they are used they can be very > effective. Do you mean they can all work together as they're all Apple? Surely all Android devices can work together too?

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Shame about tax payers money already spent but > finally a result > > http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/9361?utm_sou > rce=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook Excellent. Now how about a proper enquiry into Boris Johnson's corrupt role in all this and surcharging him for the loss to the public purse?

I'm not hugely au fait with the latest telephones but I would have thought something like the new Sony Experia at ?230 would be fine. In terms of tablets, I can't think of anything that Southwark employees would need that an Asus ZenPad at ?300 couldn't do just as well as an iPad.

hammerman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Didn't see what you did there, but saw you spelt > recognise with a z! Which is the correct "Oxford" spelling as used by the Oxford University Press and the Oxford English Dictionary. The "ize" suffix has been in use in English since the fifteenth century; "ise" is an eighteenth century variant.

Good heavens. I'm an Apple tart (see what I did there?) but I recognize that my possession of several of their devices is an indulgence and that there is plenty of non-Apple stuff which could do the job just as well. Am I alone in finding it quite extraordinary that our council is spending our money on the most expensive kit available when perfectly good alternatives are readily available for half the price?

Sorry, not au fait with prices! Just happened to notice the other week that it was open on a Sunday!

Mrs Feelgood on LL is open until 4PM.

Massively not, in some instances: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/aug/11/peckham-tower-blocks-may-have-been-at-risk-of-collapse-for-decades