Plough Man

I'm trying to see the way forward on the registered title to a portion of land. Can anyone give a bit of clarification before I splash out on solicitors fees and then later find out that it was a lost cause in the first place. This is an issue where the proprietorship of the title (as registered with HM Land Registry) differs from that of the beneficial ownership. The property is leasehold land with 75 years remaining on the original 286 year lease. The last assignment was made in 1975 which gave title to two individuals. Lets call them Mr Brown and Mr Green. Mr Brown, died in 2004 before re-assigning his proprietorship to his son. Mr Brown?s son (Brown Jnr) was the sole beneficiary of his estate so he inherited the beneficial interest. He also requested Mr Green to arrange for him (Brown Jnr) to be recorded on the title as a proprietor. Green declined to do so because he wanted to buy out Brown?s interest on the cheap. Come December 2020, Green aged 92 is taken into a care home and gives his daughter (Green Jnr) legal power of attorney. Green Jnr agrees to Brown Jnr being made a proprietor on the Land Registry title. Both instruct their solicitors to arrange this. Come February 2021 and Green dies of Covid without re-assigning his proprietorship to his daughter (Green Jnr) who is the sole beneficiary of his estate. When Green Jnr and Brown Jnr last spoke last week , the former said that everything was at a stand still because of the death of Green and Green Jnr was awaiting Probate. The question is what can be done to get an assignment to Brown Jnr and Green Jnr as the new proprietors to the legal title? Both are the sole heirs to their parent's estates.

Over the years, there's been lots of posts about problems caused by:- 1. Parents dropping off their kids outside the local schools causing congestion & disruption to traffic on EDG and Calton Ave. 2. Foundation coaches clogging Townley Road. So, I shall float a suggestion that would well alleviate both these issues. It is to pave over the vacant site that was the old SG Smith workshop. It's up for sale at a bargain price. It's within easy walking distance of all the public schools and both Charter sites. Coaches could terminate there and park up all day.

Must be serious if the Boomers are out protesting! Bet he was on the CND marches. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So this is what they are supporting, just to be > clear: > > https://twitter.com/cleanairdulwich/status/1398750 > 505501872128?s=21

@ heartblock, With you all the way. A very succinct and accurate assessment of the real consideration. Keep going and don't be put off by the spurious utterings of the minority who live in the newly created "gated" communities that have been created by LTN measures. There are thousands of of kids walking to schools in Dulwich (7 schools & preps in total). It is these young folks who are most vulnerable to the effects of increased pollution. The privileged wealthy residents of Court Lane, Calton Avenue and Gilkes Crescent are benefitting at the expense of the school pupils. Shame on them. They are soo, so selfish. heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Honestly it is so frustrating to be constantly > labelled by people like rahrahrah as wanting the > status quo. Many of us follow Rosamund Kissi > Debrah, Choked Up and Green accounts because we > want...demand a reduction in pollutants, > especially in areas that have illegal levels of > pollution historically. > This straw man argument that we want things to > stay the same...no reduction in pollution or car > use is flawed. > > Why do I oppose the current LTNs.. because I > believe they increase pollution, increase idling > and do not contribute to active travel in this > area. > > If people like Mums for Lungs and other pressure > groups really cared about pollution and green > spaces, they would be down at Bells, Greendale > etc, campaigning against building on open, green > spaces. > > It is about privileged, gated communities.. we all > know it..and nothing about pollution reduction. > > So take out the LTNs > Monitor levels of traffic and pollution > Cease building on green spaces > Come up with a plan that is fully consulted and > EqI assessed and number one priority - reduce > pollution on rds with illegal levels of pollution

@legalalien I am with you all the way. You have a certain clarity of though whereas Rah3 I think just works at being deliberately obtuse. I no longer read his/her contributions. legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rx3 is it really hard to understand? I can't > speak for OneDulwich, but I'd suggest: > > (i) the point I make above. OD are unimpressed by > the way the council have "spun" survey results in > the past, and can see the potential for a "divide > and conquer". They won't be saying "80% oppose > the existing scheme", they'll be saying "the > existing scheme is the most popular option of > eight different options" (for example, say where > only 20% want the existing scheme, 10% want to go > back to the old scheme, and everyone else wants > some kind of variant) > > (ii) one of the key concerns about the existing > scheme is that consultation was inadequate, those > in the wider area were not properly consulted, > those not digitally engaged were not properly > consulted, there was no proper EqIA, no > objectively measured data - the list goes on. How > can OD be expected to put up a proposal that is > adequate/sufficient without going through that > sort of process? It's not their job to do so, and > if they do come up with a proposal it is subject > to challenge on all the same grounds as the > current scheme. > > So it makes sense to adopt a "let's go back to the > drawing board and try to come up with a solution > with a legal/ adequate/ properly informed by data" > process this time around. > > That makes sense to me. I don't think you can > take that approach to mean that OD (or others like > me who will choose the "reverse the changes" > option) don't support measures to improve air > quality/ active travel etc.

Can't figure out why the usual keyboard warriors have not mentioned this matter yet. No anguish and not even "I told you so" Is there any difference between (a) UK bivalves not meeting new EU regulations and (b) French fishing vessels not complying with the regulation on having tracking equipment?

For those of us who like techie solutions to this age old problem then this is what you want. https://goodnaturetraps.co.uk/

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Treating myself to a shed, now I?ve time to build > one in lockdown. > Putting a base down once I?ve levelled the ground > this week. > Question is what kind of shed base: concrete slab, > pavers, brick pillars, whatever ? > And why/advantages/benefits ? > Any suggestion welcome/appreciated. > Probably will be an 8x10ft shed, if that has a > bearing (pun not intended). > Cheers ! Take guidance from Bob Buzzard. He's knows all about spoof wind-ups threads :0

I'm not a 100% dedicated twitcher but fairly convinced we had a nuthatch on the feeder yesterday, Could this be possible? It had the very distinctive narrow eye stripe and rosy chest. It was clinging on tail up/head down whilst feeding.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > FFS.... > > > Rant over. Your little rant is fully justified.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you can't see the derogatory and inflammatory > elements in his comments Plough Man then you are > as bad as he is. Why don't you cut him a bit of slack? He is only exercising his right to free speech. Y'all don't have to gang up on him every time he posts on the forum.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wow indeed.....Uncle just sank to a whole new > level. Why the outrage? UG quoted accurate statistics and drew a conclusion that was a fair reflection on the opportunism of politicians. Why should you attempt to condemn UG?. His opinion was not prejudiced against any ethnic/religious minority. Rather it was an personal observation on the behaviour of politicians.

My understanding is that the underlying justification is it reduce vehicular pollution. Without doubt, the vehicles causing most pollution are those on short journeys where the engine and catalyser have not reached optimum temperature. This means local traffic - in particular the school run, with yummy mummies taking their kids to and from school, are the biggest polluters. In this technological age it is extremely easy to set up an ANPR monitored system in the area concerned. One could make it entirely free for 100% electric vehicles and a progressive charge thereafter depending on pollution rating. It could even be fine tuned to vary the charge depending on the time of day. In fact it could be fine tuned in a whole number of ways - e.g. by local residents postcode to give exemption.

Let's face it. Barnier has overplayed his hand. He thought he could maintain the dominance enjoyed by the EU when Theresa May was dithering in office and when David Davis was bumbling along.

Are you buying or selling?