On Jul 11, 10:43*pm, Baz wrote:
Steerpike wrote :



If you have all you have been told denoted in writing with indications
of the statutes covering this, then you can probably feel relatively
assured. If you have nothing in writing, then what you have been told
is pretty much worthless, and it was a waste of time seeking legal
advice in the first place.

If, by any chance, I wanted to hear from an a*sehole, I would have farted..
Now, be a good boy and get the **** to bed, you have school (skool) in the
morning. Nighty Night and dont clean your man bits too fast and mess up
your nice clean jimjams. Mammy wont like that, she will have to send you
off to get scraped again.

Night night
Baz

Baz I just hope you dont get into a situation where your property is
pretty much worthless, and you then understand first hand the reasons
why you have been given nothing in writing!

The person being an arsehole here is is you.............. No one
should never ever take any sort of advice from anyone on such an
important matter, without it being in writing and denoting the
statutes which might apply!

And in your case any advice from a solicitor is going to be a complete
waste of time anyway, as the law surrounding recurrent flood damage,
insurance, liability etc etc is very complex, and its highly unlikely
he/she will have much knowledge of this area of law in any case.

You need to seek legal advice from council specialising in this area,
which will be accurate and provided to you in writing. However this
wont alter the fact that future changes in the law in favour of the
interests of insurers, are very likely, which will make current
accurate legal advice of as little value as the chat you had with your
solicitor.