kevinjohnsonmbe

That's the one Jon, check it when it goes away & check it as it comes out!

No way Matt! You're "Devil in the detail" and it's good stuff!

You capture the exact point I was expressing. A 6/12 month independent LOLER check is an administrative requirement that, in my opinion, will never be as critical and strenuous as the user checks (if done critically) because the user has a vested interest in checking the kit they are about to swing in. There are good points in the thread about protecting employees from using "tired" or shared company kit and I guess we're all coming at the discussion from an individual viewpoint / perspective. I don't borrow / share / loan my kit and I don't outsource responsibility for checking it to someone else.

Curious to know the "why", is there a need to fell or is it to "improve the view." What county is it?

MoT test, maybe a poor example but actually, maybe it's perfectly appropriate because just like an MoT test, a LOLER test is valid on the day it's done and unless the user checks are done before each use, you could just as easily be climbing on treacherously dangerous kit with an in date LOLER ticket.

That's right! Who's best placed to check kit.... The person who's life depends on it! (So long as they are sufficiently knowledgable and critical)

Is that a euphemism????

Whoops, bit at the bottom shouldn't have been there!

It's a good thread and I'm following the to-and-fro with some personal interest. A while back I asked a similar question when faced with a boundary tree conundrum. One party wanted to fell (small garden, tree totally dominating, touching facias and windows, starling poop covered garden etc, house up for sale. The other party, large detached house with extensive garden, same tree but in a distant corner didn't want to fell but neither could categorically state where the true boundary was and the tree appeared to straddle that which best available info indicated was the boundary. With one house up for sale you'd think between the solicitors, estate agents & land registry it should have been definable but it seemed impossible. That situation was resolved by negotiation - it rankled me a little though, the wealthy ex building soc manager in his detached house paid nothing, the elderly couple trying to sell a little terraced estate house copped for the whole bill but were desperate to resolve so they could relocate closer to family. I have another impending situation between 2 of our friends / neighbours. Boundary hedge trees, farm one side holiday park the other. Had both sides remained agricultural, no doubt general hedgerow maintenance would have ensured the trees were kept in good order. Now we have field one side, holiday chalets the other and trees that have been allowed to become unwieldy / potentially hazardous. Neither party appears too concerned about maintaining or reducing but I can see it coming into focus with the potential for a fall out if they continue to ignore it and there's a mishap. Maybe we'll get a definitive answer after the court case! I like your point in #69 about the fluid nature of knowledge, these discussions are great opportunities to learn & test & broaden knowledge. 'coffee table reading'

I'd say there's very little value added in installing a system on the basis of what you can put back into the grid although it might be seen as morally upstanding. It's the leccy you generate (in our case 47.673p per unit) that adds value. The 'assumed' 50% export uplift of 3.363p is fairly irrelevant. The secret is to use every drop you make!

I can't see that you'd own 'half' a tree. 2 (or more) people would jointly own the whole tree wouldn't they???

I'm thinking along similar lines to Ed (above) but acknowledge your points in law & references. Reasonableness is perhaps where the "hedge" example used above falls over. Would it not be perfectly reasonable for 2 parties to independently trim their respective faces & top of a hedge that is jointly owned (maybe crossing the centre line could be a mute point if the parties were in conflict!) Similarly (reasonable) trimming - a particular branch or branch tips of a jointly owner tree might be reasonable. Whereas cutting back so far as to significantly alter the shape / form or adversely affect long term viability might not be considered reasonable and an infringement upon the other parties rights as a joint owner.

Bloody shameful!

Brilliant summary, I wouldn't be surprised if you sagely and purposely avoided the thorny issue of ego and pride as further complicating factors!

Makes sense!

But he's not on Arbtalk Bear (unless he's secretly masquerading as craigo93???)

Way to go! You'll hook in the masses with your preliminary scripts.... I'm sure I'll be captivated.....

Sorry, my typo! I (think) I meant vapour barrier / radon sump... That'll all get sorted anyway, it was the concrete/insulation v insulation/concrete issue I was interested in.

Just seen yr post Steve! That's exactly the question I'm trying to decide on! I've got an architect mate but I tend to glaze over after he's been techno-babbling for 10mins!

I'm just about dig out old concrete slab in cow shed (now workshop) and replace with effective DPC, radon barrier, slab & insulation etc. been looking at the various options... Question: why did you decide to do slab on top of cellotex rather than cellotex on top of slab? Understand the thought that slab may act as a 'storage heater', but surely that'll take a lot of warming esp in winter? Wouldn't cellotex on top of slab be better?? This is a question I'm mulling prior to starting mine.

Fair one...... I'm sure you're safe but if not, god help us all!

You need to ask??

Is that a brownie point for my forthcoming assessment Paul??? Or just another piece of admin I'll need to get squared away! I don't do fires!!

:thumbup:

What do you think about this......?? Kamal Meattle: How to grow fresh air | Talk Video | TED.com