Anonymous nasty neighbour...

webhamster

Doozergirl wrote: »

Did this thread start off in discussion time? I know we can be rude on the property board but whoah! How obnoxious is that post!?

you see an honest "grab reality" post as obnoxious , "woah".

Proves my points really "blame others culture" and the rights of the ignorant selfish person outway any legal and moral behaviour respsonsibility and you think they shouldnt be challenged or they are called obnoxious.

well i find the poor me i am the victim when im doing wrong obnoxious , those that reinforce that behaviour are worse than them by backing it and continuing this countries moral declination.

Now if realism offends people thats something im never going to be sorry for , nor be ashamed of offending feelings of those that never cared in the first place about others anyway.

Doozergirl

olly300

minimoocow wrote: »

Hi!
I do know how annoying it is to find a rude note though! I was really annoyed when I had parked outside my house - terraced street, no drives/garages and parking on both sides. Cars on one side of the street have to pull up onto the pavement otherwise the road would be blocked - not really an issue as far as I can see - pavement is clear on one side of the road but not the other. Anyway the note read:

"THIS IS A PAVEMENT NOT A PARKING SPACE. PLEASE PARK SO PEOPLE CAN GET AROUND WITH BUGGIES AND STICKS!"

Er, well I could do that but I suspect the police might tow it away for obstructing the highway. I wouldn't have minded but the pavement the other side was clear and there were other cars parked where I was and they didn't get notes!!!!

My husband thought it was really funny though so we did have a chuckle about it.

MMC

Actually unless there are road signs otherwise you shouldn't park on the pavement and the buggy owner was in the right. If they wanted to be really horrible they would have called the police or the council to tow your car away/give you a ticket. Plus they said "please" on the note unlike the OP note. Also remember it is hard work pushing a buggy particularly if it contains two children or you have more than the child in the buggy with you, so crossing a road wouldn't be an option.

BTW I get grief from some buggy owners when I'm parking even though I am allowed to park completely on the pavement as they think I'm either not allowed to park there when there are clear road signs stating you can park on the pavement, or I'm going to run over their child. (Texting adults not looking where they are going tempt me, children never do. ) Unfortunately some other vehicles, always non-residents, do park on the pavement and block the path so there is not enough room for buggy owners etc. as they don't know where they are suppose to park to avoid doing this. Luckily this will be sorted out in a month.

webhamster

you resort to insults , enough said dg.

Has no one spotted the irony of the original post yet , he/she has complained about an anonymous note on what I can now assume is a motorbike and has actually admitted to posting anonymnously themselves about it on here.

Point two they "know" that its a private communal acess yet want to lock it up?

the lack of identity in this post can only draw its own negativity.

privatepath

Thanks all - I've read all of your posts, and think there are really good ideas in them for getting to know the neighbours - I really like the christmas card one.

I moved the bike an hour or so ago, and will be careful not to block access again.

So Hamsterboy, I do take others feelings into consideration, and have learned by this. I don't think you actually read any of the posts between my first post and your first post when I had already taken a lot on board so you possibly missed my transformation from 'poor me I am the victim' to a 'from now on paragon of virtue'.

Have a good evening.

privatepath

webhamster wrote: »

you resort to insults , enough said dg.

Has no one spotted the irony of the original post yet , he/she has complained about an anonymous note on what I can now assume is a motorbike and has actually admitted to posting anonymnously themselves about it on here.

the lack of identity in this post can only draw its own negativity.

Point one: I wasn't directly attacking anyone in my post whereas the note definitely was aggressive towards me. For all I know, you could be my nasty neighbour, and after knowing how you think I'd deserve having my head ripped off, I'd rather not give you any way of identifying me by reading other posts I have on here under my other username.:eek:

Point two: You give your name and address on here and I'll do the same (after you receive a codeword in the post and publish it on here of course).:D

Debt_Free_Chick

privatepath wrote: »

I don't know for sure, but I don't think there's anything in the ta about the path, I was just told about this by the agent.

there's no flipping way I'd clear the rest of the path.....

But you signed a TA - irrespective of what the agent said. You may well have agreed to clear the path, so surely it would be best to be sure?

olly300

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

But you signed a TA - irrespective of what the agent said. You may well have agreed to clear the path, so surely it would be best to be sure?

I agree.

Unfortunately lots of landlords and letting agents don't make it clear to the tenants that when they sign a tenancy agreement that they are:
1. liable for clearing paths and front gardens particularly if the agreement states they are liable for the upkeep of the garden or are allowed to use the garden
2. they have to obey the restrictive convenants placed on the property

The letting agent could use the fact that you didn't clear the path as an excuse to keep your deposit i.e. they get a quote for someone to do the work, deduct the money from your deposit and likely don't bother doing it but try it on with the next tenant.

webhamster

privatepath wrote: »

Point one: I wasn't directly attacking anyone in my post whereas the note definitely was aggressive towards me. For all I know, you could be my nasty neighbour, and after knowing how you think I'd deserve having my head ripped off, I'd rather not give you any way of identifying me by reading other posts I have on here under my other username.:eek:

Point two: You give your name and address on here and I'll do the same (after you receive a codeword in the post and publish it on here of course).:D

you choose to make another account for a reason , hiding a forum identiy and creating another if not at least gross paranoia then reeks of dishonesty.

your note from the other anonymous entity .If you found it nasty then it was meant to be that way.It was their direct response (a mirroring if you will) to your deliberate actions , so it WAS directed at you personally you are right , as is the contempt shown to them just as directly by you.

Now they might be contemptable , they most probably are (insert deletive here) , but that doesnt change that you both have legal rights and legal responsibilities.

You probably have learned here today from other posters reccomendations on keeping neighbours freindly 1 on 1 , theres always neighbours that think they can do what they want ..... whether thats you or them I have made a decision on already based on your own statements.Ive had two on the trot that treat my property as their own , give an neighbourly inch and that,

as for agression , one persons assertive is another persons agressive , another persons passive is just as weak as assertive.I havent stated anywhere you deserve to have your head ripped off , nor that I am the type to so , instead only warned you that the kind of person whom does "agressive notes" may though escalate if their rights are violated..... ignorant people whom arent heard think shouting louder and louder gets results , not turning off the tv to be heard.

Neighbour disputes are despite government (reported) crime figures to the contrary are on the rise.The rise in the killing of neighbours from anything like hedge wars or street gangs being confronted is a sad fact in our society today that can be averted with a selfishectomy in most cases.

minimoocow

olly300 wrote: »

Actually unless there are road signs otherwise you shouldn't park on the pavement and the buggy owner was in the right.

Yes I know this is LEGALLY the case but if the police were called about this they would have to tow away half the cars in about a mile radius :rotfl: The houses are all crica 1900 so the roads aren't wide enough for cars to drive let alone to park - most people realise this and get on with it as we're all in the same boat! I could have parked on the road - they could then have claimed I was blocking the highway but they'd have to prove it was me that blocked it and not the car parked on the other side :rotfl:

I do think common sense should prevail - I don't have a buggy but do have a wheely trolley for work (full of books, files etc) and choose to cross the road so using the pavement that is available - it's really not that tricky!!!