Car damaged by roadworks

harrys_dad

Mercdriver wrote: »

In fact it is only in London where parking on the pavement where not specifically allowed is illegal.

Hence why I said "It appears that in most, but not all, of the country it is illegal to drive on the pavement but not park on it. I wonder how your car got there". We do not know if the OP lives in London or not.

Manxman_in_exile

sorry OP but you might be taken more seriously if you wrote "have" instead of "of".


The two words have completely different meanings and some posters here might take a somewhat antagonistic view of your situation

warehouse

usefulmale wrote: »

So, despite advanced warnings, you decide to park your car within 2 foot of heavy machinery chewing up the road surface and now your car is damaged, it's someone elses fault?

Take responsibility for your own inaction. Why would the workmen 'knock on your door to move your car'? Do you expect someone to tell you to wipe your own arrse after using the toilet?

Wow, if ever a username was totally inappropriate.

boliston

Mark23 wrote: »

.....
The road I live on is a main road, where the pavement is suitable to park on (not every house has a driveway) its large enough to fit a car on and allow pedestrians enough room to walk past...

I would perhaps check first if the pavement is legal as well as "suitable" to park on before going guns blazing to the council for compensation.

Would a wheelchair user of mobility scooter easily get past with room to spare, or would they literally have to "squeeze" past with only an inch or two to spare?

Mercdriver

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

sorry OP but you might be taken more seriously if you wrote "have" instead of "of".


The two words have completely different meanings and some posters here might take a somewhat antagonistic view of your situation

If people take an antagonistic reaction to a bit of poor grammar, then I suggest they see a shrink. Are you and those who have grammar OCD in any confusion as to what the OP means? No? I thought not. Grow up and help or not help: the choice is yours. If what the OP was saying was unclear because of poor grammar, then fair enough. But it doesn't change the meaning here. But to stand there and say you are going to be unhelpful because the OP says 'would of' instead of 'would have' is quite frankly childish. Grow the heck up.

paddedjohn

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

sorry OP but you might be taken more seriously if you wrote "have" instead of "of".


The two words have completely different meanings and some posters here might take a somewhat antagonistic view of your situation

No capital 's' to start your sentence and no full stop at the end of your post and you have the bare faced cheek to pull the OP on their grammar? Cheeky idiot.

Manxman_in_exile

Mercdriver wrote: »

But to stand there and say you are going to be unhelpful because the OP says 'would of' instead of 'would have' is quite frankly childish. Grow the heck up.

I'm not aware that I did say I was going to be unhelpful. I think I suggested that the OP might get a less antagonistic response if they used English properly. Isn't that good advice? After all they've come on here asking for help. There may be posters on here who could give excellent advice but may choose not to do so because they disapprove of the OP's grammar. If I was on here asking for help (as I have in the past) I'd want to cast my net as widely as possible and try to set out my situation as clearly and correctly as I could.


A couple of posters thanked me so I presume that some people (perhaps of a certain age) agree with me.

Manxman_in_exile

paddedjohn wrote: »

No capital 's' to start your sentence and no full stop at the end of your post and you have the bare faced cheek to pull the OP on their grammar? Cheeky idiot.

Yes, you are right. But punctuation is one thing and the meaning of words is another. I will follow your advice to punctuate correctly, but I would also advise the OP not to type "of" when they really mean "have" (or more likely " 've").

Mercdriver

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

I'm not aware that I did say I was going to be unhelpful. I think I suggested that the OP might get a less antagonistic response if they used English properly. Isn't that good advice? After all they've come on here asking for help. There may be posters on here who could give excellent advice but may choose not to do so because they disapprove of the OP's grammar. If I was on here asking for help (as I have in the past) I'd want to cast my net as widely as possible and try to set out my situation as clearly and correctly as I could.


A couple of posters thanked me so I presume that some people (perhaps of a certain age) agree with me.

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

Yes, you are right. But punctuation is one thing and the meaning of words is another. I will follow your advice to punctuate correctly, but I would also advise the OP not to type "of" when they really mean "have" (or more likely " 've").

The OP's use of of instead of have didn't change the meaning of what they wrote. To me it came across as a rather condescending way of dealing with a non issue.

I repeat that anyone that gets antagonised by poor grammar really needs to make an appointment with a psychiatrist.

Manxman_in_exile

Yes. But my point is that as you never know when the grammar polizei are watching you are perhaps more likely to get useful help from users of an internet forum (whom you know nothing about) if you use the correct words.


You may not like that sad fact, but in my experience it is a fact.