Jump to content

danielr

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    333
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

49 Excellent

About danielr

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. mg = milligrams = x10^-3 ug = micrograms = x10^-6 That makes the article make no sense. 80mg per 100ml in Scotland. 80ug per 100ml in England. You can't possible be within the limit in England and over the limit is Scotland!
  2. So I decided that I had a 2 year old phone, 2 versions behind the current, and could be happy swapping to an older phone that I already had... I followed these instructions. ifixit-guide-pdfs.s3.amazonaws.com/guide_22167_en.pdf and the phone now works. so hardware issue it definitely was, but since it's now fixed there isn't a huge worry about how I'd have proved that to the phone vendor and had them fix it.
  3. Hello, Yes, I found a thread on Apples support forum, where a person had a good icloud backup, the apple support agent (as they must have paid for after 1 year support) suggested that they reset network settings, and it didn't work, then suggestted that they reset the phone back to factory. when they have reset they cannot connect to wifi and hence cannot restore... (the apple person at this point said that they should just buy a new phone!) I made (and would suggest anyone trying this makes) a backup in Itunes first! I tried resetting my network settings -no change I tried re
  4. My phone has developed a bit of an issue, Basically the situation is that I applied the IOS 7.1.1 update to an Iphone 4s and just like a lot of (though not all) iphone models this update has somehow changed something and caused the WIFI chip/module to "burn out". The update was installed about a month ago, and in that time the phone has become progressively more unusable, freezing, randomly restarting, dropping off of wifi networks, until now it just won't connect. To say it's burned out is probably a bit wrong, as I've found that if I turn off the WIFI for a few days, when I turn it
  5. The scheme (at least the Acpo one run by Drivetech) has a two year time restriction. so for example, I was caught speeding in March 2008. I went on a speed awareness course. I was caught speeding in August 2011, I went on a speed awareness course. (as it was more than two years since my last offence I was eligiable for the course. I was caught speeding in January 2012, so I get points on my license. (because it's less than two years since I went on the course) Does that make sense?
  6. the only thing that I'd add and I will pre-face this with saying it's hearsay, and might not be a fact. I'm sure I read somewhere that some insurers don't like helmet cameras, a search of you tube for helmet cam shows that these are mostly used by people who think that they are some kind of racing driver on the public roads. Much the same as insurance companies don't like car drivers having dash mounted stop watches or timing gear. Check your insurance small print, you could find use of some sorts of equipment invalidates your insurance. -and that would make it illegal because usin
  7. it depends doesn't it. what if the original fabric was Italian? what if the fabric was end of line, and the only remaining fabric in the world were in Italy? what if the fabric used was actually second hand or end of line? -so it's not like the landlord even has a new sofa out of this, -that'd avoid claims of betterment also. You're right, IF I were adjudicating this, I wouldn't look favourably upon the landlord... it seems very open/shut... that's not to say it is though. and that's why I've suggested making sure that anything you do is whiter than white, make sure that there isn't a
  8. that is basically saying that when you cause them to do work, you would pay for it. so if it takes them 2 hours to photocopy and mail out renewal contracts then you'd expect to pay 2x hourly rate. (because you admin fee only covered the ones signed when you moved in.) If you consistently are late with rent payments, causing them to have to send you letters, or causing them to have to do some work, means that the work would be paid for by you, not by the landlord -since it's you that has caused the work to need to be done. What I don't understand though, if that they've agreed that
  9. I might be misunderstanding, but since they are all just the same company under lots of different banners, why did you want to go with one part of a big organisation but not a different part of the same big organisation. You're being taught by the same instructors, in the same sort of cars, in the same area under the same conditions.
  10. That's what I was alluding to earlier, the trouble is that you (OP) already sent emails agreeing to a deduction of £75 agreeing that the damage was done. if/when the landlord brings this proof that you agree that damage has been done, what do you think this will do to your claim for all the money back? what light will you be seen in if you've agreed that you damaged the place/furniture/fittings, yet a little later you're saying that you want all the deposit back? what I'm saying is that the magistrates are just normal people, it's their opinion, and what they believe that they see that
  11. That original inventory is going to be vital to your landlord to show the condition of the property when you moved in. if he can't show the state of the property when he moved in, then he can't really have a claim to keep any of the money. (without an idea of the state of the place when you moved in, how can he prove that you damaged it). I guess that the landlord gave you a typed copy and you amended that copy with hand written notes and gave it back to him. did you keep a copy for yourself? (you want a copy because what if he produces only the un-amended copy?) The emails you
  12. Except he's not at all at risk of that any more. your tenancy started in September 2010 and the inventory from this time is the one that matters, the second inventory is pretty pointless. indeed how could a decent inventory have been performed during a time that you were living there? (how can they see the condition of the furniture (say wardrobe) when it's full of your clothes, etc) If you were to take the guy to court, it's not tremendously likely that you're going to get all your deposit back, after all, you say that there is an original inventory, and that there is damage beyond
  13. good news and bad news... Good news is, if you were still the tenant you probably could sue for the deposit and the 3x penalty for non-protection, it's only failing for so many people now as when you move out you stop being the tenant. apparantly it still might succeed if you were still the tenant. -the idea is that for it to succeed you'd have to start proceedings when you were the tenant. Bad news is that you're arguing black and blue that you're not the tenant! so you don't want to start an argument that you are the tenant! AND if you were taken to court the landlord could just
  14. perhaps because their fines are imposed with accordance to the law, and your fines are, well... exactly the same as parking "fines" you're saying you'll be sending them a fine if you come knocking on your door, if they come onto your land, after you have removed their access. it's just like a parking "fine"... if you bring your car to my property... except you say agent where private parking firms say car. which is what makes me pretty sure... Oh, and that. it was that part, that tipped me off, it makes no sense, it's circular... you letter promises juicy fines against th
  15. I disagree. There is no provision that there has to be a written agreement at all (which is why the ex isn't on the agreement) In all other ways the ex is the tenant and has been treated as such by the estate agents and landlord.
×
×
  • Create New...