kevinjohnsonmbe

1 option I used to use quite a bit in the Sprinter (internal conversion to camper) and current Transit custom with no more than an air bed was to find a decent looking pub, pop in, talk to Guv’nor, say I want to have a few beers, OK if I kip in the van and shove off after a coffee in the morning. It’s an option but may not suit your needs. If that doesn’t fit the bill, just drive, find a spot, park, get your head down. Quiet spots don’t tend to have busybodies (otherwise they wouldn’t be quiet spots!). Just go go for it!!

Fight it then yome saying M?

Yome roight on there ?!! As consumers, weem shouldn’t have been placed in position where the UK manufacturing base was denuded to such a degree that weem forced to buy imports because the only comparable UK product is noisy, cramped, leaks, drips oil, breaks down, can’t turn in a field and has no modern safety features. (PS and yome can’t even buy a new one anymore even if you were mad enough to want to) Bloody foreigners, staying over there making better stuff than weem! Maggie would have fixed that for us!

So, the continuing underbody paint saga of the MK8 Hilux: Goes in to dealer for first annual service Nov 17. On return I notice the paint degradation within the wheel arches - assumed they'd pressure washed and blast some paint off (first 2 pics) After a particularly unhelpful absence of acknowledgement and response from service manager, escalated the complaint through dealership management Dec 17. Waited until Apr 18 to chase it up again - just happened to be in Plymuff so I went in to see them. Service manager comes out all apologies and "you'll never guess what, I was just about to call you." He was right, I hadn't guessed that. So now (Apr 18) they have a solution and Toyota UK have told them what paint they need to effect the repair. May comes and goes, no follow up. I happen to be in Plymuff again so I drop by, again. "We can't get the paint so it'll have to go back to Southampton to the main body shop, you can have an Aygo whilst it's away." "If I wanted / needed a 'king Aygo, I'd have bought an Aygo" was something like my response. Waited til Jun until they had a Hilux with tow hitch (no Elec pack mind you) so that I could let mine go. It's been gone best part of 4 weeks and came back today. Imagine my surprise... They have patch repaired the obvious spots that I pointed out but completely failed to do the rest of the areas that were similarly affected. I kind of expected that would happen though, I just wanted my natural pessimism and lack of faith in humankind to be proven wrong for once in my miserable existence. In the meantime, the service manager has told me he has 5 other Hilux with exactly same problem and that Toyota UK are not acknowledging or accepting it as warranty work. So the dealership paid for the partial remediation of mine. So here's my dilemma: The whole underbody is affected by rust and paint degradation (in my opinion) The dealership have acknowledged and covered the cost of repair for some areas but not others. Since it was bad enough for them to do some, they have kind of acknowledged that it ought to be bad enough to do all (in my opinion) Dealership won't do anymore, Toyota UK won't do any. For the more mechanically minded - are my concerned unreasonable?? What do the AT massive think? What do other Hilux owners think? I'm going for an independent assessment and might consider a Trading Standards approach.

You use the term ‘estimate’ rather than ‘quote’ - estimate is as it says on the tin, an estimate, not fixed but subject to change according to circumstances. No moral dilemma there. Even if it was a quote, it would be subject to change if circumstances change. But more importantly, after providing a quote, there is absolutely no obligation to deliver the service (on your part) or to accept the quote (on the part of the customer). Circumstances change - estimate / quote / price may change. Dont get get sucked into thinking the customer is always right and that they are somehow doing YOU a favour by letting you do the work. Tell them what you would be content to exchange your time / equipment / expertise for (£) and let them decide.

? security setting won’t allow embedded link.... That the ‘official’ story at least, personally, I think he kept it on the QT because he didn’t want his cameo role exposed! ill find it though, I’ve made it a life mission to search all internet sources until I find it. He he packed up in the UK not long after, him & wife moved to Mexico to set up a dive school. Maybe there was a sudden cash windfall???

Give ‘em an inch....

Mate bought a big house in Ringwoid. His Mrs was away at sea when he went for first visit after exchange of contracts Nobody had told the film crew & “actors” that had had an open house sort of arrangement with the previous absent owner. He he walked in on a full on porn shoot! After the initiate shock, introductions and explanations were proffered he allowed them to continue (since they were full swing as it were) whilst he settled down with a beer to consider his ‘options.’ No good making a hasty decision under such circumstances!!

Too late! You’re not making it any less appealing!! ?

Dibs on the tape measure! Can never find one when needed!

Useful for the “hard of comprehending!” ?

https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/perranporth-couple-told-cant-anything-1747921 Slow news day in Cornwall....

Yes understood.... I mis-read what I thought I thought you meant in what you wrote...

The bolt (presumably it was bolt and cable) is evident in the upright stem. Hoping to get a pic tomorrow when the remaining crown is removed.

Not following you on that one...??

Small village in Berkshire in my yoof (0-16), maybe's why it has been so easy to settle in Cornwall!!

Agree with Marks point - never seen it happen - it’d have to be a big bucks (or bloody minded action of the more money than sense brigade) but did you mean “Present” a case of negligence, Party (alleged to have) caused the damage to defend??

Pondering your very valid point about ‘sign’ of a previous brace. Ive only known the tree for 10 years and have no recollection of a brace in that time frame. That said, and noting your comment about being state side, I’m not sure if you’d be familiar with a typically idiosyncratic characteristic of English village life? People have an uncanny ability (and take great delight) in recounting the most apparently irrelevant and minute detail of village history. It would, for example, come as no surprise if, completely out of the blue, someone recounted, in spectacular detail, how Jago Benburthy was to blame for Liskeard Young Farmers losing the tug-o-war to St Neot in 1967 because he didn’t have the right change and was delayed at the bar of the Liskeard show. Its insane! Sometimes it’s just as a result of 1 person saying something (with conviction) and it being repeated so many times it ‘becomes’ fact, and sometimes it really is a gem of local history. Knowing 1 from the other is the key!! The other stem & crown is coming out tomorrow with both stems due out by Tuesday next week - might get a closer look-see then.

It's only a problem if you don't enjoy it.....

If only I could stop doing stuff that doesn’t pay and focus on the stuff that does.... ?

There wasn’t an actionable nuisance. It was big, it was over the building but not touching or interfering with it (prior to the limb failure). As such, since it was TPO’d, the neighbours hands were tied, nothing they could do, apart from write in to LA and say “we’re worried about it.” There are some cracking previous threads about actionable / non actionable nuisance with TPO trees on this site - you’d need to set a nice fit aside to read them ? 3 people have told me today it was braced previously. On the one hand, it would seem logical and they were all, independently, adamant. But on the other, I haven’t seen any tell tales - might be easier when the stems are on the ground.

Reduce / remove - whole separate subject! It was said today by 1 resident that a "representative of the LA" had said it hadn't been removed previously because of financial restrictions.... Not what you want to hear when your roof has just been stoved in and perhaps a little tactless by said representative. We all know how people latch on to certain comments that may have been thought out loud or muttered in haste... That one is going to be impossible to recover from!

I'm guessing, the inspections either didn't recognise or didn't apply sufficient significance to the signs of potential compression fork fracture (Research for Amenity Trees N0.4 The Body Language of Trees page 60) It appears, from local knowledge from several different sources, that steel bracing rod had previously been installed but isn't there now and hasn't been for the past 10 years I've known the tree. If true, it would indicate that the potential weakness was, previously identified and action taken, and that, possibly, the lack of continuation / replacement of the previous brace (which the limb may have come to partially rely upon) could have hastened the current failure? Just guessing. Not clueless at all, good questions! The tree stands in a closed cemetery. It 'belongs' to the church but is managed by the LA. It is TPO'd (obviously works are authorised by LA.). LA inspect, LA authorise appropriate works. So neighbour (without roof) could have taken action to abate a nuisance, but there wasn't an actionable nuisance. Check-mate!

Well yes, but the same is true of every tree, if you live long enough, at some point you will be proved right! The main campaigned against this tree died a couple of years back so never got to say - told you so ?

Weekend work = on call contractor, turned up, did the job, used the available assets on site, got the road open. Job done. (private sector) The remainder, I suspect, will now fall (ha) to the LA to resolve. LABC unsafe structures bod was on site Sat night & Sun. There have been a steady stream of 'Cormac' vans "having a good look at it" ever since (Cormac is LAs arms length contractor (100% share owned and staffed by ex-LA staff) - so LA pay it's own contractor to do it's own work and charge the job + profit margin back to LA which comes out of tax payers pocket!) Probably be weeks / months, and many more visits by Cormac to "have a good look at it" before anything further actually HAPPENS. (public sector) There are others! Brilliant!! That's an easy one to answer! Its LA!! There are many years (9 or 10) of email history from local residents and Trustees of the community hall expressing concern (notably the majority of it poorly informed and without basis in observation, record, likelihood of failure knowledge.) One local resident even tried to con me into reducing it many years ago by telling me the Vicar had OK’d it and said any work was fine (did he really think I wouldn’t talk to the Vicar, the PCC, check for TPO and understand the additional complexities of trees in churchyards?) The vicar, now departed, actually swore when I told him about this chap's attempts to get the tree reduced / removed by illicit means (I mention that because he was such a lovely man and a true gent so it was quite a shock to hear him swear - unlike the vicar from my childhood village who propelled himself around at great speed in one of the light blue plastic 3 wheelers due to his wooden leg (speed seemed excessive but given the scale of things was all much bigger when I were a yoof it's obvious now that it will have been no more than 10 mph), he had to drive due to being too pi55ed to walk, was banned from all 3 pubs for lewd and riotous behaviour, and was having an illicit affair with the previous vicar's daughter - any way, I digress! Fact remains, there are fairly obvious indicators of potential vulnerabilities in the main stem. There is a long documented history of resident concern. The tree was in the direct care of the LA. There are notable high value / risk targets in the failure area. Inspections were insufficient to identify and ameliorate the potential for harm / damage. Failure has occurred and damage has resulted (luckily, yes just luck, no injury / death was sustained.) So for all the talk of probability of failure and risk of harm (which really only interests arb types anyway) the perpetual complainers can now say "told you so" and the ability to try and educate people to the actual risk of harm is totally lost along with the credibility of anyone that tries to make a reasoned argument for retention and management of trees. There is another documented example of inadequate care and attention by the LA for the trees in this cemetery which, although probably not directly associated with this failure, will provide evidence of poor general stewardship. I'll keep that one under wraps for the time being. Upshot of it all - people will now be even more risk averse to trees in their vicinity probably leading to a further reduction in amenity, LA will take the costs for not doing what they should have done from council tax payers, putting everything back to rights will be contracted to the company that is owned by the LA. A so the cycle will continue with nobody taken to account.