The Nice People Thread, No.16: A Universe of Niceness.

Pyxis

If I were to buy another property to live in at any stage, I think I would be very loth to have a shared anything with a neighbour, however clear the deeds were.

Of course, it can work very well if everyone is reasonable, but then you might get the unreasonable idiot, and I couldn't bear the stress.

I once had a house with a shared drainage system, and that was bad enough. Luckily, the biggest problem was eventually resolved (a blockage, where the cost of clearing it had to be shared amongst 11 or 12 properties), but it was a lot of hassle, with some people initially taking the 'not my problem' view (people higher up the system!). Even got one person saying 'Why should I pay when you earn more than me?'
And one person got so nasty that I had to call the police. He was arrested but then released, and he then paid his share.

I think the amount owed by each house was less than £40, can't remember the exact amount, and it was nappies that caused it, so that narrowed it down to two or three houses who might have been responsible, but we still all shared the cost.


So, for me, it's a defined boundary, individual everything, and preferably also a moat, 10ft high stone wall and a drawbridge and portcullis! :rotfl:



Goodness, when you think about the fuss people make about others parking on the public road outside their house, over which they have no rights whatsoever, what hope would there be for a peaceful life with a shared drive or somesuch? :eek: shudder!

Jazee

Unfortunately we have to share a driveway. Their 'half' was alway overgrown with weeds so we paid to have the whole lot jet washed etc. They promised to keep it tidy after that, but currently there are mattresses, other rubbish and an old car rotting away on there.

PasturesNew

Jazee wrote: »

Unfortunately we have to share a driveway. Their 'half' was alway overgrown with weeds so we paid to have the whole lot jet washed etc. They promised to keep it tidy after that, but currently there are mattresses, other rubbish and an old car rotting away on there.

Their half they can allow to have weeds, so long as that doesn't restrict your right to pass over it in the ways determined in the deeds ... but is simply unsightly, that's their "choice". You have the right to pass over the land to access your property ... not to arbitrarily enter their property and to change the environment with your powerwashing

You powerwashing it could be seen as a trespass if you'd just decided to do it without asking them if they minded. Because it would be your choice to keep the area looking nice, then that's your choice.

Their mattresses/junk is just wrong, wrong, wrong and is the only thing you could take them to task over.

I appreciate you'd want to powerwash it - and had the skills/budget to get the equipment and do it ... but they might've liked to see the pretty butterflies landing on the dandelions on their land.

Jazee

They agreed to the power washing PN. HA are on to them about everything else.

PasturesNew

Jazee wrote: »

They agreed to the power washing PN. HA are on to them about everything else.

The mattress would worry me most as it's so obviously "chavvy"
And I'd worry about rats.
You're lucky to have an HA onto them; if it were a private rental or privately owned you'd have fewer options.

Pyxis

Also, I suppose it depends on whether you each own your half and have a right of way over the other half, or whether one person owns it and the other has a right of way, or whether a third party owns it e.g. HA or freeholder of leasehold properties, and both neighbours just have a right of way over it all.

vivatifosi

LydiaJ wrote: »

Several years ago, on a long journey in the car, I listened to a fascinating programme on radio 4 by a woman who was a psychologist or sociologist or something, who'd done research into the way people carve out niches for themselves in shared spaces and personalise them. She'd done a lot about what people do with their desks at work (the things in the desks and on top of them and on the walls around them, if any) to make them their own space, and some other work on the way that theoretically "shared spaces" usually end up with "everybody knowing" that this bit belongs to those people, while these other people always sit over there etc.

I think open plan is also very far from ideal on the inside of the house once the children get beyond the "need to have an eye on them every minute they're awake" stage, but I know other people feel differently.

The main motivation for open plan offices is undoubtedly cost. You can get pretty much double the number of people in an office if it does not follow a cellular design. However communication is also an issue. People ho are sitting in cellular offices need to move to interact with colleagues,whereas is a well designed open plan environment, collaboration can be encouraged. The best environment will be a hybrid of both, with plenty of open plan collaborative space, but also offices that enable contemplation, deeper thinking and individual work, as well as spaces in which confidential meetings can be held.

Hot desking is a different concept again, and far more unpopular than having your own space in an open plan office. Not only because people are creatures of habit, but also because it places an increased burden on that worker to keep their own things separate and transport them to the hot desk, then pack them away at the end of the day.

If the net sqft per person drops from c200 per person in cellular to 100 in open plan, then it's possible to squeeze a further 20% off that by desk sharing or by making desks tiny and with space only for minimal items such as a pc and phone.

I don't think open plan in and of itself is a bad thing, certainly in terms of offices, it is when it is driven beyond the realms of good design in order to save money without taking the workers into consideration.

It is almost fifty years since the concept of a paperless office was introduced, yet it still hasn't happened, and the relentless march towards space saving sometimes needs to take a break to remember this.

Jazee

It's a complicated situation as four properties actually have access rights over it to get to their back gardens. Only two can use it for parking.

PasturesNew

Jazee wrote: »

It's a complicated situation as four properties actually have access rights over it to get to their back gardens. Only two can use it for parking.

One bizarre behaviour I observe is that a visitor to XYZ house will drive into the area and instead of parking in the number spot of the house they are visiting will arbitrarily park in another numbered spot and/or somewhere else they have no rights to.

The other day I saw a car turn up to a particular house that has two marked/numbered parking bays right in front of their numbered front door. Instead of parking in either of them.... he arbitrarily chose to drive round to my freehold land area, block my car in.... and walk to their door.

Why?? Just why?? What sort of normal thinking behaviour is that all about?

Pyxis

PasturesNew wrote: »

One bizarre behaviour I observe is that a visitor to XYZ house will drive into the area and instead of parking in the number spot of the house they are visiting will arbitrarily park in another numbered spot and/or somewhere else they have no rights to.

The other day I saw a car turn up to a particular house that has two marked/numbered parking bays right in front of their numbered front door. Instead of parking in either of them.... he arbitrarily chose to drive round to my freehold land area, block my car in.... and walk to their door.

Why?? Just why?? What sort of normal thinking behaviour is that all about?

It is weird. I guess they think that they won't inconvenience the house they are going to by parking in their spots!

Instead, they inconvenience someone else who doesn't even know them! :mad:

What might mitigate their action a bit, is if they left a note on their dashboard saying what property they would be in if anyone needed them to move the car.

That presupposes they have a degree of empathy, though, which their very act of parking there kinda refutes!