ToughButterCup

Its called retirement innit Gary? ?

But they do change. And thats the point. As you say elsewhere, in their practice - as opposed to what they write - the only thing that's consistent, is inconsistency. That's what brings a red mist across the eyes of anyone who tries to conform to a set of written rules. I got as far as I did in my professional career by reading instructions carefully, and giving the author of the question or the rule exactly what they want(ed). And reading the answers to questions I in turn put to others with great care and attention (Licences to Practice were at stake) . I'm good at it. When I got things wrong, I always had to be open and honest about it. Here we have an organisation so obviously sick that they can't admit to any failing. For an organisation like the HMRC to knowingly, wilfully flout their own rule set makes for a culture among its customers of Well-if-you-are-going-to-fook-me-don't-be-suprised-if-I-try-hard-to-shaft-you. Its outrageous. Disgusted of Lancashire.

'... that talk to the others ...' not really sure what that means. Might you have a recommendation please?

When, in written communications, professional people start using the passive voice, summat's up. They want to hide something. My question here is who is correct? We have our fire alarm certificate - submitted to the BCO earlier this year. Our BCO came to visit and - among other things - we talked about our Fire Alarm. I reminded him that the Certificate was already on file in his office. Here, verbatim, is the BCO's written feedback; Who do I believe, the BCO or the Fire Alarm Company that designed, and fitted the system? Its the '... After peer Review it has been determined ...' that makes my nose twitch. My instinct is to say that the BCO wants to shunt responsibility for denying the validity of the certificate onto others. What do I do now? Stick twist , or up the ante and tell him to fight it out with the competent provider?

Just checking -- detail matters here : You mean (she) sends you a copy of the VOA letter ('notification' above) telling you about the Notice of making a New Entry to the Valuation List don't you? She will take no notice of the date you say you are going to inhabit the house. It makes no difference to her. She will have achieved her aim (if her role extends only the the Council valuation office) ; namely to have added your property to the number of chargeable properties in her area. How much to charge is nothing to do with her office. Its not her role to ask about who is living in the house. Her focus is: is it habitable? We started paying up-front before the valuation was known to avoid a thump of a bill this July. No reason you can't pay a little now..... Tell your son to start saving.?

Because that's negative. Demonstrating a negative is difficult and sometimes impossible. The opposite - a nett gain to use their terminology - implies (demands ? ) audit to establish the baseline. Hence the massive incentive to destory well before the audit takes place. Christ-On-A-Bike I see enough of it happening every month locally already. Its OK, Thoroughly Modern Matron will be along in a minute with my tablets.

I accept @dnb that all too often sight of the end-in-mind is lost , but - in relation to the concept (bureaucracy) - do you have a better answer? Because if you have, lets hear it. Benign Dictatorships work well for a bit, but then there's the issue of succession: on top of which our partners will be asked at interview for a high level post - straight faced - whether the partnership intends to have children. Its fashionable to knock bureacracy - I do it too. But what else is there that's even hints a fairness? That organ (Natrual England) is full of people whose one remit is to focus on Nature. Not look at the wider picture of the need for sites in relation to the local wildlife population Lets say I'm a BuildHubber. I'm determined, hard working, running a successful business and politically savvy. Looking for sites for my next self-build. By 2022, I'm going to have to be putting money aside to pay someone to; drop every last big tree around my prospective site pollute every pond for a mile or two around pay for a bat survey that finds no bats for some reason make sure the farmer sprays his fields nearby - to buggery. appoint my ecologist to advise me on the minimum I can do just get over the threshold of the NA (Natural England) criteria. I could have done all of that for less than the £5000 it cost me to exclude our GCNs a few years ago. BTW, I love our GCNs: once you see a baby GCN I defy anyone not to: in the sunlight, they're like a piece of jade sparkling on you finger.

I'm not sure about that (self-sustaining) , without bureaucracy we had something worse. Without it, many of us would have (well, I would have) been dead some time ago . It's how that bureacracy is operationalised that is the key. And, in this context, it seems all the more likely that the target - a Net Gain in BioDiversity - will be achieved easiest by artificially reducing relevant markers first, and then 'adding value' .

We were writing the same thing at the same moment. '.... kill any local wildlife ....' above. Well disposed to the local ecology or not, its hard not to be cynical.

Just occured to me to itemise the lessons learned on our build. As as result of my experience and reading , were I to build again at a location where ecology is a factor to be considered, I would; a full year before talking to anyone about planning permission, kill any local wildlife that interfers with the build process appoint an ecology adviser who did as I instructed read all the other ecology reports for planning applications within 2 miles of the intended build copy every single one of them and from those reports, make plans to compensate for the outcomes negative to my intended build make grandiose offers of 'compensation' renage on those offers at the end of the build Thats what happens - has happened (references available on request) - locally for the last 5 years at least. In terms of ecology, we have paid several thousand pounds in effort and money for no outcome that can be measured. Naive no longer.

Quick Heads Up! The degree of interference (as some would have it) that ecology inserts in the planning cycle is sometimes substantial. Thats is why we need to keep an eye on the Environment Act 2021. And who better to boil it down than Martin Goodhall. On our build, lack of awareness of the detail of ecology legislation and processes resulted in excess expenditure - of about £5000 or so. Can't take a joke? Don't self build.

BCO. I symapthise with your other half. The question of moving and legality is slightly 'wrong' Wrong's not the word I want but its close enough If you have PP, there is nothing - except practicality - to stop you moving in. Our next door neighbour has been living in his Dwelling House (block built structure that the Inspector called '... on the balance of probability a dwelling house...' and it counts for Council Tax as a house even though it's built INSIDE a perfectly good caravan. I kid you not) . He has been paying Council Tax for years (4) But very few men and even fewer of the other persuasion would call it a house. He has water, electricity and an illegally sited open cess pit (within honking distance) as foul drainage. All mod cons then..... So you can tell her, on your evidence as presented above, its perfectly legal to live in it today. If you look at the VAT form, there are a series of other 'markers' which have the equivalent status to BCO sign off - as far as HMRC are concerned My suggestion is that you consider the issue in the round, rather than focus on just the VAT refund or just the Council Tax bill or just moving in. We started paying our Council tax bill in advance (3 or four months) because of the time gap between formal notification from the (local Council) Valuation Office and our notification that the property had be listed by the VOA (Valuation Office Agency) (5 months as detailed in an earlier post). Long may your dropped kerb remain on the back of a lorry, and your water locked in a pipe.

@scottishjohn , @TerryE's blog describes the water process : from memory its called 'Fun with Levels ' or something close.... Here you are.... nearly had a go myself, but chickened out. Bit of a boffin our Terry ?

If there were such a thing, you'd find it on this site. We haven't got one because it's too complicated a job - they vary too much. Customers want to reduce risk, and builders know that. So they build in obscurity. So you build in specificity. So they build in their margin in more hidden ways. All you can do is follow the Due Diligence Process, and be as specific as you can. Its a messy uncomfortable process. Good luck. Ian

A dyke is a dyke. Discharge to it. Our BCO couldn't have cared less about where we discharged. Your BCO might care, but you'd be unlucky .

Forget the safety hat. Get a Bump Cap. You are much more likely to wear one than a safety hat. For me, most bumps occured when the scaffolding was up. Rain? You can get different covers for the hat, or if you are as mean as I am, a Lidl plastic shopping bag will do. My wife thought it would be fun to put tea-cosy over my cap - and I stuck some gold-braid over the peak part of it - show her who's boss. Yeah right.

OK, my opinion of you is that you are a cantakerous irritating little fart. That's fine is it?

And that's the key thing - filtering. Data can be handled and or mishandled. Which is why the peer review process is so crucial. It's an intensely uncomfortable process - which I'm now begining to think should be made more uncomfortable.

Kick the ball. Not the man.

Just a thought, why has it taken (say) 6 full years to 'move' ? Have you looked at the foundations? Might that (as well as poor workmanship higher up) be a contributory factor? I ask, because if my suspicion is right, then sorting the foundation could well be as important as the other issues pointed out above. And if I were a roofer, I'd want to argue that the foundations had moved, not the roof. So its worth a careful look at least.

I wonder, do they publish the fundamental assumptions for that calculation ? Who knows, they might have underestimated the efficiencies. ? Thought I'd better ask before @SteamyTea blows a fuse.......

And I thought we had problems. Its hard not sound trite responding to a post like yours but - to me - not responding to express sympathy would be unkind. At this remove, staying on site looks the best alternative. £100 of crusher run stone, carefully laid and levelled will reduce the mud bath. Then buy a massive off-cut of synthetic grass (Astro Turf), curt to shape and lay it along the most used walking route. When the mud dries, use a blower to get rid of it. Or an industrial vac will do the same. Systematise common houselhold chores : storage, washing - making those easy and quick releases energy for other more difficult tasks. Dogs are mess-balls. But it won't be for long. Washable mats are a great help. My sincere sympathy to you both and especially your husband . Lets hope for a rapid recovery. Kind regards Ian

How I agree! Ignorance is the most compelling reason to avoid Fallacy in presentating a point of view. And when Fallacy becomes endemic, invent Alternative Facts. Easy!

Ok, briefly as I can. Examining any reasoning for Logical Fallacy is important because any Fallacy contained in that reasoning undermines the validity of any arguement, scientific or otherwise.

So it's OK to present fallacious argument ?