We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Good Old Fergus!
Comments
-
Graham_Devon wrote: »After that outburst of yours trying to suggest the accidental cracking of a cistern lid was criminal damage?
It was not an outburst, just trying to educate you.
And it is indeed criminal damage. Probably not intentional in this cistern case, but nevertheless, criminal damage.Don't blame me, I voted Remain.0 -
Accidental cracking...Graham_Devon wrote: »I should stay on topic?! Me?!
After that outburst of yours trying to suggest the accidental cracking of a cistern lid was criminal damage?
Jeez...I'll just walk away slowly if you dont mind
Where you there to know it was accidental or have you just made that up for dramatic effect?0 -
Accidental cracking...
Where you there to know it was accidental or have you just made that up for dramatic effect?
Chucky, stop trying so darn hard. It's beyond pathetic.
It went to court. The court case is available in the public realm.The basis of her case was that the particular colour and design of the toilet lid, which was accidentally damaged, had been discontinued. Therefore the entire bathroom suite would need to be replaced.
The court was told how it was actually a friend of the tenants who accidently damaged the toilet during a visit to the property in Hawkinge, Kent. At the time the two tenants were unaware of the damage and were only told of the situation when they tried to get their deposit back after being asked to move out of the two bedroomed house.
http://www.landlordsguild.com/no-joy-for-buy-to-let-king-and-queen-in-case-of-the-missing-toilet-lid/0 -
PasturesNew wrote: »If there were LL licensing that'd be the last carriage on his gravy train.
It could have been oh so different….A man who made a multi-million pound fortune on the property market says he has the financial skills to help run Kent Police.
Fergus Wilson, 63, made his name with his wife Judith building a large portfolio on the buy-to-let market.
The former maths teacher from Maidstone now wants to be elected as the new police commissioner for the county.
He said: “I was concerned about the amount of petty crime that was affecting our properties that was not being cleared up. It may have been low level crime but the police just don’t have the resources.”
http://www.kentnews.co.uk/news/buy_to_let_millionaire_stands_for_kent_police_commissioner_1_1219708
:rotfl:0 -
What a shock the defendant in a case is going to say the damaged item was accidentally damaged.Graham_Devon wrote: »Chucky, stop trying so darn hard. It's beyond pathetic.
It went to court. The court case is available in the public realm.
http://www.landlordsguild.com/no-joy-for-buy-to-let-king-and-queen-in-case-of-the-missing-toilet-lid/
Did you not know that's what defendants do?
And when you try to get something to back up your pointless point, a random blog on the internet usually isn't the best...0 -
Instead of posting your typical wind up posts Chucky elighten us all on how much the average "cistern lid replacement" should cost?...........
As its Friday Chucky I will save you the effort. To replace a cistern lid it would cost £125-00 +vat max and I'm guessing this would be deducted from the tenants deposit. This is based in the fact that Fungus buys mass produced site houses which are built to a low spec using basic quality products. Price breakdown is below:
Cost of replacement cistern lid £50-00
Labour to fit (including £50-00 call out fee) £75-00
Sub Total £125-00
+vat @20% £25-00
Total Due £150-00
Not quite £2k is it.In fact a whole new bathroom would be sub £2k easily..................;)0 -
What a shock the defendant in a case is going to say the damaged item was accidentally damaged.
OK I apologise.
I don't know for absolute sure that it was accidentally damaged. I was not physically there. Secondly I was not physically there at the precise time of the damage, or in any of the moments proceeding the damage or following said damage.
Indeed, for all I know some tiny weeny little martians from uranus could have popped down on their dinky winky little spacecraft with cistern remover on board and dropped it while half way out of the bathroom window....all with the renter scums permission.
Therefore, it may not have been an accident at all, and you are right, I don't actually know that it wasn't an accident.
Silly me!0 -
I have practiced martial arts since I was 5 years old, and I can cause serious damage without leaving a mark, so your comment is rubbish!mayonnaise wrote: »Must have been quite violent.0 -
The last line sums you up especially posting this complete nonsense.Graham_Devon wrote: »OK I apologise.
I don't know for absolute sure that it was accidentally damaged. I was not physically there. Secondly I was not physically there at the precise time of the damage, or in any of the moments proceeding the damage or following said damage.
Indeed, for all I know some tiny weeny little martians from uranus could have popped down on their dinky winky little spacecraft with cistern remover on board and dropped it while half way out of the bathroom window....all with the renter scums permission.
Therefore, it may not have been an accident at all, and you are right, I don't actually know that it wasn't an accident.
Silly me!
The tenants should be responsible for their friends actions instead of hiding behind the law instead of taking responsibility themselves. Why should the Wilson's be responsible for damage caused by the tenants friends?!0 -
The last line sums you up especially posting this complete nonsense.
The tenants should be responsible for their friends actions instead of hiding behind the law instead of taking responsibility themselves. Why should the Wilson's be responsible for damage caused by the tenants friends?!
Hold on tight. Someone beneath you is going to point out an inconvinient truth.
The tenants obliged and accepted that they would have to pay for the cistern lid. Judith Wilson would not accept the replacement of the cistern lid and was not happy with simply removing the cost from the deposit.
Judith wanted a whole new bathroom costing £2,000+
THAT is why it went to court. NOT because the tenants did not, or would not replace the damaged cistern lid.
I await your next tyrade.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards