For Newbies, as much as anybody ...

by **emerald city** » Sun Apr 04, 2010 9:54 am

To Kliff:
With the enforcement order, they suggested a list of colours : Guess what - they were all shades of cream !!!

If Veronica, moves this from here, as it is a bit off topic - (I have suggested: THE COLOUR BLUE as a heading) I shall keep you posted from them. Please support me.
And Thanks

To: EMG:
Your template letters are mind boggling: I shall attempt the arguments within them, over the holiday.
My main anger is really that they ignored all my questions when I applied for retrospective "permission". Then again they just didn't answer my questions when I appealed.
Then after not complying with their "enforcement order", and re-asking those questions and more, saying that I conditionally accept subuct.....they flatly refused to answer any questions. Still they are in dishonour, as I noticed them many times. They don't answer because they know that all the other houses that are painted, they have not taken action against. Only me !!!!!
You can get a Listed building Officer in one County, that will "allow" you to paint a listed building and then one in another County that will not. Also obviously they decide to take action against one person and not another, as is the case here.
I painted a listed building pink in a different county, with full listed building consent !! different man (human being),
I am up against a "person" in this county.
Who decides in one county it is O.K. and not in another, Who decides if some people can paint their house, and not others: The Listed Building Officer thats who. So it is only his subjective whim. IF IT WERE CRIMINAL AS THEY SUGGEST THEN WHY ARN'T ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE ARRESTED IMMEDIATELY. It's a load of b.ll.cks. :clap:

by **kliff** » Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:05 am

I'll support you all the way :shake:

As a thought has the house EVER been pale blue in its history?

by **emerald city** » Sun Apr 04, 2010 11:24 am

Kliff: not to my knowledge, but who knows, it was only listed in l974. And then it was white. It could have, and probably was, a number of colours, between l740 and l974. Bye the way, whatever monstrosity was in the house after listing, then that is what stays, without the "permission" of LBO to remove it. It could be anything, including woodchip paper, and artex ceilings, you still have to "ask". I have asked the LBO if the former colour of lemon cream had planning permission, (which I know it didn't) they ignored the question. So although it had been changed since l974 from white to cream without their "permission" they raised no objection !!! I suppose it was because cream/magnolia is such a corporate colour, that they love it so.
Oh! it is all so bloody bizzare, I could go on forever. COMPLETE CORPORATE MADNESS. You should see (and pro bably know of) the most awful allterations by banks and buildings societies to listed buildings, no problem there apparently. :police:

I have a friend who is not going to be "allowed" to pull down a particition wall of hardboard (that the council had erected by the way ,in a former council offices housed in a once a lovely Georgian house, (which my friends then bought) Awful windows put in that were not of the same Georgian period..... etc. :puzz:

Need I say more. They are obviously rate themselves above the law.

by **kliff** » Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:00 am

emerald city wrote:I have asked the LBO if the former colour of lemon cream had planning permission, (which I know it didn't) they ignored the question. So although it had been changed since l974 from white to cream without their "permission" they raised no objection !!! I suppose it was because cream/magnolia is such a corporate colour, that they love it so.

Make a request under FOIA, something along the line of confirm or deny would be best. PM me if you like I'll explain.

by **Veronica** » Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 pm

emerald city wrote:Veronica, I am sorry to have taken over this post, its the most response I've had in ages. But although I am a newby, and an old laldy fighting for my rights (I could give you 6 years!) I think it only fair, that it should go under a separate heading now. What about The Colour Blue, or something. If you wish to post it now under general I have no objection. Just let me know.
I feel I am among friends now. Thank you.

Yes ... I would have been better in a Topic of its own ... but it is too entertwined here to separate out now.

That's the way these Forums go ...

The main thing is that it's been brought to some attention.

by **Veronica** » Mon Apr 05, 2010 8:42 pm

... posted tonight ... to TWO sets of Bailiffs:

Arseholes,

I will say this in words of a few syllables as possible.

If I discovered that you, yourself, had received a demand, and I paid it off for you - at a knock-down price - what would you say to me if I then write to you, demanding to be paid back the original amount, added extra amounts at my whim, and issued menacing threats along with it?

And came knocking on your door, or phoning you up without your say-so?

Would you tell me to fuck off?

I think you would and … by the way … quite rightly too!

Why?

Because I would be attempting Blackmail/Fraud/Extortion/Racketeering.

Wouldn't I?

If, on the other hand, I had:

1. Contacted you, and established that you really owed the money, and
2. Offered to pay it on your behalf, and you had accepted my offer, and
3. Agreed with you - BEFOREHAND - via BINDING CONTRACT - that you would pay me back, and
4. Only claimed my outlay, possibly with a small administration surcharge

… then things would be slightly different.

Wouldn't they?

I would have your written OBLIGATION. We would have been in the position of civilised behaviour, good faith, and honour.

Wouldn't we?

But that's not the situation, is it?

You waltzed in of your own accord, without so much as a by-your-leave, and then started issuing unsupported demands & threats. Well, I told you that - in the first letter I wrote back to you. But that didn't stop you, did it?

Oh no! You just went ahead and conjoined some moron at HMCS in your disgusting chicanery, to produce a Toilet Paper so-called "warrant". Didn't you? (Feel free to pass this letter to whichever moron you conjoined)

Furthermore, if I had left a vehicle unattended, you would have STOLEN it and sold it, wouldn't you?
Without a second's thought.

Wouldn't you?

Or left my place unattended, in which case you would have broken in and done even more THIEVERY (even though you have no idea how many people live there, and who owns what. But that sort of thing never stops arrogant arseholes like you, does it?)

Your behaviour would disgust any decent, reasonable, person.

Well, you can scrub your dirty, disgusting, fifthly, revolting, scrawny, hands until the end of time … but you'll never get them clean.

Will you?

Your only possible redemption would be to hand back everything you had ever STOLEN … PLUS COMPENSATION.

Can't do that now, though, can you?

Heaven alone knows what you tell your friends, relatives, and Grandchildren. You must constantly lie through your teeth.

Quite simply, when you buy any so-called 'debt', the debt is paid off, and no longer exists. If you don't want trouble like this, leave well alone, and don't stick your nose in where it is not wanted.

This is nothing more than plain Common Sense, and if you - or the moron who signed your Toilet Paper "warrant" cannot understand, then you must be mentally retarded.

Sincerely,

Veronica: of the Chapman family (as commonly called). English Sovereign, and without any admission of any liability whatsoever, and with all Natural, Indefeasible, Rights reserved.