The stats on collisions are current figures based upon how things are now. Motorists who drive with increased known risk don't do so to deliberately cause a collision. People I have met who have been randomly breath tested and lost their licenses had their driving standard assessed by the Police. An old college friend of mine was random breath tested back in 1985 and found to be slightly over the alcohol limit and lost his licence. The Police officer told him that he couldn't fault his driving standard and said it was excellent. During the court case the Police stated that his driving standard was impaired which is why they pulled him in. The Police were telling lies to a Magistrate to secure a conviction. Naughty, naughty. Car insurance companies still pay out if a driver has a collision whilst over the limit and are legally required to provide such cover. Therefore such an incident is considered to be an accident. I agree that people who cause a major accident and are knowingly driving without due care and attention are genuinely prosecuted, however, in such cases there is no automatic disqualification. I am therefore still convinced that according to the law, risking an accident is considered far more serious than actually having an accident.

There seems to be something wrong with the laws regarding the use of mobile phones whilst driving. Research found that driving whilst using a mobile phone was twice as risky as driving whilst just over the legal alcohol limit. Despite this there is no automatic disqualification for driving whilst using a mobile phone. Therefore punishments aren't based upon the level of known increased risk. The driving whilst using a mobile phone laws don't make sense. These laws only apply to radio devices who operate in either the 900MHz or 1800MHz frequency bands. I am a fully qualified radio amateur licensed to use radio equipment that operates on frequencies other than the mobile phone frequencies. Whilst driving it's legal for me to use my amateur radio equipment even though it's far more difficult and distracting to operate compared to a mobile phone. I can even legally use a Morse key whilst driving !! I could be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention however that's difficult to prove unless I was driving obviously badly. I therefore conclude that the mobile phone laws were brought in to secure easy bookings and rubber stamp convictions. Automatic disqualification of mobile phone offenders would result in the treasury loosing enormous amounts of tax revenue which implies that punishments are based upon money rather than road safety.

95% of vehicle collisions in the UK are not drink related. Only 5% of collisions are drink related. The vast majority of the carnage is caused by motorists who haven't been drinking at all. I therefore wonder why motorists who don't drink but cause accidents don't receive an automatic disqualification for incompetence. or driving without due care and attention. Over the years I have known people who have lost their licence due to failing a random breath test by a small margin without any detectable impairment of their driving standard. These people were risking an accident but never had an accident. I have also known people who have caused fairly serious accidents who don't drink and were not disqualified. I therefore conclude that according to the law, risking an accident is far more serious than actually having an accident. Now surely if the government wish to reduce injuries and deaths on the roads then motorists who cause accidents should be treated equally as severely as motorists who are caught just risking an accident.

Yes I will, after all I have nothing to loose. The job center might even find me a job lol

Pension credit = no jsa, yes you are correct. However I'm too young to receive pension credit and I only have a small private pension. Therefore signing on may entitle me to warm home discount.

Hi Mike, it does seem absurd that receiving a private pension roughly equal to pension credit doesn't entitle a person to the warm home discount. However, my energy supplier did say that I would be entitled if I was receiving income based job seekers allowance. Maybe I could sign on and despite not actually receiving any money, I would still be classed as receiving job seekers allowance. Perhaps then I might be entitled to warm home discount.

I contacted my energy supplier and was told that I wasn't entitled because I don't receive any benefits. They told me that I would be entitled if I received benefits as long as my income didn't exceed £16,200. I am 57 and live alone on a private pension of £7,563. I therefore conclude that the scheme will do nothing for very poor people who have worked and claim no benefits. Something wrong somewhere.

I have just received another threat letter from Bristol & Wessex Water stating if I don't pay the debt they will take further enforcement action. I wrote back and asked them what further enforcement action do they intend to take despite them stating previously that they would not apply for an order for sale. The letter also states that I am not allowed to sell my house until the debt is paid. I told them that no court would grant an order for sale for a debt less than £10,000. I also said that I would enter into a repayment plan as long as they remove the charge order. Bristol & Wessex Water haven't replied.

The home rights notice remains on the land registry of this house even if my wife won the lottery. The home rights notice says nothing regarding my wife's wealth. This house is worth less than the house she will inherit. She gets half of mine because she has claimed against the family home. I can't get half of hers because her inherited house was never our family home. When she inherits her mothers house I am not allowed to slap a home rights notice on it which proves my point. She has secured her right to half the value of this house but I can't secure the right to half the value of the house she inherits. Therefore the law stinks.

Hi BazzaS. You said "You can't avoid giving your wife her share of the property". OK fair enough. However my wife's mother has just passed away and my wife will inherit her mothers house when the probate is completed in the following months. OK so I have to pay her half the value of this house even though she will soon own her mothers house. I have also heard that my wife can have half of my private pension even though she has her own private pension. I was told by a solicitor that any money I save up during the separation period will have to be shared with my wife upon divorce. However my wife won't have to share her inheritance with me even though she will soon be worth more than me. Yes indeed "woe is me", I loose no matter what. I get the following impression from my free half hour with a solicitor: If I won the lottery I would have to pay my wife half of my winnings because I still live in the family home. However if she won the lottery she can keep all her winnings because she isn't living in the family home. I thought my wife's inherited wealth and my wealth would have been added together and then shared 50/50 but apparently not. Yes, woe is me, the law stinks.

The Wikivorce divorce advice forum said something about the Home Rights Notice does not protect the person named on the deeds who owns the house. That's why I assumed that the law protects everybody and everyone except the person who worked and paid for the house. I am only married to one woman, you seem to be implying that I am into bigamy.

Well she ran off with another man. I never ran off or had any involvement with another woman. The law seems to be against me on all aspects. The home rights notice protects everybody and everyone except the person who worked for 30 years to buy and extend the house in good faith. Seems that the only way forward is to marry another woman who has money, then divorce her and take her to the cleaners. That is against my principles but the law thinks otherwise.

Well if she wanted to reside here she wouldn't have left in the first place. The home rights notice does give the right to reside here however, there is a problem. I now have a new lady living here so I can see a nasty punch-up happening if my wife wishes to return here. I have watched women fighting and it's quite amusing. I am looking forward to witnessing such an incident.

I have done some research on the legal implications of a home rights notice. My wife is now legally responsible for 50% of the maintenance and insurance expenses on this house. She has failed to adhere to these and paid nothing towards these expenses. Therefore surely the home rights notice should be legally removed. I don't see how she can have it both ways. If you enter into a contract agreement and then break the agreement you loose the contract.

I have no reason to believe that my wife is happy with the status quo. Therefore expecting her to apply to court for a sale is perfectly realistic. She obviously wants her half so why shouldn't she persue that and get it sorted? If things were the other way around and she owned the house, I would apply for a home rights notice and then go to court to get my money. Under such circumstances I wouldn't ignore any communication from her. She also ran up large debts behind my back before she left, that were later dumped on me. Sorry you have such a poor opinion of me.

Have you not considered my wife's attitude to be inflexible and worthless by her refusing to communicate with me? I am living on a small private pension, my wife has a well paid full time job. Therefore I consider it's her job to apply to the court for splitting the assets, after all she applied for the home rights notice. Thanks for thinking I have a worthless attitude. Perhaps you also think me working full time for 30 years, bringing up four children, paying all the bills, paying the mortgage off, double extending the house and incurring no debt means I have a worthless attitude. I did all that on one income. Sorry you seem to have such a low opinion of married men who work hard to keep a wife and family.

Ok I will put the house on the market and see what happens. If the home rights notice makes it impossible to sell then the house is worthless as I mentioned before. This will be the acid test to discover what my house is worth. I will report back the results.

I mentioned legal aid because a couple near here started divorce proceedings about three years ago. There were differences of opinion between them regarding splitting of assets etc. They both attended many mediation meetings to resolve their differences of opinion. The mediation meetings cost £300 per hour. Legal aid covered the cost back then but is not available now. Knowing that my wife won't comunicate with me then mediation is the only way forward and £300 per hour makes mediation out of the question. Having been the only earner during my 34 years of marriage and my wife running off with another man, yes I do feel a victim of the law. I never ran off with another woman but sadly the law doesn't take that into account.

I have recently said that I can't afford a divorce or a solicitor due to living on a small private pension. Why do you BassaS find that so difficult to understand? I have said that legal aid has been withdrawn from divorce cases. You don't seem to even understand that!

Thanks chaps for your comments. I assume because any effort to sell my house would be pointless then my house is worthless. The value of anything is based upon how much someone is willing to pay. I am astonished that through a simple and free process, the Land Registry can reduce my house value to zero and make it totally impossible to sell. I seem to have no rights at all to the property that is in my sole name. The Land Registry seem to have more legal influence than a high court judge !! Rather that work hard to buy my house outright perhaps I should have lived in a Council house, gone to the pub every night and then claim benefits.

Despite me writing to my wife, she won't reply. I therefore cannot negotiate anything with her. That means that I cannot sell the house. My idea regarding demolishing the house was to prevent my wife and her boyfriend from getting any money from the wealth I have accumulated over the past 37 years. OK I may be cutting off my nose to spite my face. However it seems the only way to cut off my wife's and her boyfriend's nose to spite their faces. Should a divorce come about I would end up with enough money to buy half a house. The state would then expect me to use up the money paying rent. There is an old saying based upon the benefits system in this country. If you've got anything you get nothing. If you've got nothing you get everything.

BazzaS thanks for your reply. Divorce her, yes I agree. However, there are a few problems. I am living on a very small private pension and cannot afford to divorce her. Around two years ago, all legal aid was withdrawn from divorce cases. I took some legal advice recently and discovered that my wife is fully entitled to move back in here any time she wishes. The home rights notice gives her exactly that entitlement. I therefore wonder why you think she can't insist on moving back in.

I obtained my wife's address from the Land Registry and sent her a letter by recorded delivery. She has received the letter and failed to reply. I asked her for permission to sell the house so she can have her half of it's value. Her ignoring me means that I can't sell the house despite me offering her half the value. Therefore being legally unable to sell, it must be worth nothing. Would my wife have a financial claim against me if I were to demolish the house? I assume not because half of nothing is nothing. I know a chap who lives locally who ownes a large JCB. He is willing to demolish the house for a modest fee.

About 1 litre every 400 miles. Car is a Ford Mondeo 2 litre petrol with the Duratec engine.

I don't know what cord rings are. Do you mean piston rings?