Jump to content

Prudential Ride London, July 29th 2018


Recommended Posts

If you didn?t secure a ballot place for Ride London 2018, you can still join the Starfish team! Starting in Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, the 100-mile route will take you on closed roads through the capital and into Surrey?s stunning countryside. If you?re looking for a challenge, look no further! By cycling for Starfish you can support us in providing life-saving healthcare, education and child protection to vulnerable children in South Africa.


As part of the Starfish team you will receive a free starfish jersey, training tips and nutritional advice, a fundraising pack with tips to help you reach your sponsorship target, and cheering support and finish line refreshments on the day!


The fundraising target is ?500, and registration fee is ?20.


For more information, you can contact us at [email protected]


To register, please visit our website: https://www.starfishcharity.org/get-involved-uk/run,-cycle,-jump/prudential-ride-london-surrey-100-29072018.aspx


Hope to see you there!

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Latest Discussions

    • Had council stock not been sold off then it wouldn't have needed replacing. Whilst I agree that the prohibition on spending revenue from sales on new council housing was a contributory factor, where, in places where building land is scarce and expensive such as London, would these replacement homes have been built. Don't mention infill land! The whole right to buy issue made me so angry when it was introduced and I'm still fuming 40 odd years later. If I could see it was just creating problems for the future, how come Thatcher didn't. I suspect though she did, was more interested in buying votes, and just didn't care about a scarcity of housing impacting the next generations.
    • Actually I don't think so. What caused the problem was the ban on councils using the revenues from sales to build more houses. Had councils been able to reinvest in more housing then we would have had a boom in building. And councils would have been relieved, through the sales, of the cost of maintaining old housing stock. Thatcher believed that council tenants didn't vote Conservative, and home owners did. Which may have been, at the time a correct assumption. But it was the ban on councils building more from the sales revenues which was the real killer here. Not the sales themselves. 
    • I agree with Jenjenjen. Guarantees are provided for works and services actually carried out; they are not an insurance policy for leaks anywhere else on the roof. Assuming that the rendering at the chimney stopped the leak that you asked the roofer to repair, then the guarantee will cover that rendering work. Indeed, if at some time in the future it leaked again at that exact same spot but by another cause, that would not be covered. Failure of rendering around a chimney is pretty common so, if re-rendering did resolve that leak, there is no particular reason to link it to the holes in the felt elsewhere across the roof. 
    • Hey, I am on the first floor and I am directly impacted if roof leaks. We got a roofing company to do repair work which was supposed to be guaranteed. However, when it started leaking again, we were informed that the guarantee is just for a new roof and not repair work. Each time the company that did the repair work came out again over the next few years, we had to pay additional amounts. The roof continues to leak, so I have just organised another company to fix the roof instead, as the guarantee doesn't mean anything. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...