In article ,
Derek Turner wrote:
On Wed, 14 May 2014 13:35:48 +0200, Martin wrote:

The huge advantage to many allotmenteers is that the wormery can sit
outside the back kitchen door (or in the utility room in cold weather)
whereas the compost heap might be a couple of miles away

You have the problem of moving the output to the allotment instead of
the input to the wormery.

Yes, but we are talking of a HUGE reduction in volume and smelliness A
2-litre bottle of liquid manure and a carrier-bag full of worm-droppings
(compost) every few weeks is no real problem.

Whereas it would be ridiculous for someone like me, who has my
heaps 70 yards away at the bottom of the garden. Using a wormery
because you 'can't compost cooked food' is ridiculous - using one
because it is a great convenience is entirely sensible. You pays
your money and you takes your choice ....


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 13 May 2014 14:50:11 GMT, Derek Turner wrote:

On Mon, 12 May 2014 10:56:02 +0200, amme wrote:

I am after a composter that i can throw anything in such as- left over
food off the diiner plates including gravy, rabbit droppings and hay,
Lots of flowers ( I am a florist so have lots of stems and leaves etc to
go in)

The problem with cooked food in a composter is not that it won't compost:
it will - if it stays there long enough to do so. More likely it will
attract every mouse, rat, fox and badger to your composter and it will be
eaten before it rots down. Look at wormeries instead for cooked food and
keep the compost heap for hay (???), rabbit droppings, grass clippings,
flowers etc.etc.


Indeed: I put lots of cooked food - including meat - in my wormery with no
problems.

On Tue, 13 May 2014 17:52:25 +0100, Sacha wrote:

snip


Our rodent man came round today and says there's a bit increase in the
rat population - around 40% in places. Such a cheery thought!


Perhaps he was just self-promoting and hoping that you will have him round more
frequently.

On 2014-05-16 22:51:39 +0000, Judith in England said:

On Tue, 13 May 2014 17:52:25 +0100, Sacha wrote:

snip


Our rodent man came round today and says there's a bit increase in the
rat population - around 40% in places. Such a cheery thought!


Perhaps he was just self-promoting and hoping that you will have him round more
frequently.

He's on a 6-weekly visit contract in the season and has been for more
years than I can remember.
--

Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon
www.helpforheroes.org.uk

In article ,
Sacha wrote:
On 2014-05-16 22:51:39 +0000, Judith in England said:

Our rodent man came round today and says there's a bit increase in the
rat population - around 40% in places. Such a cheery thought!

Perhaps he was just self-promoting and hoping that you will have him round more
frequently.

He's on a 6-weekly visit contract in the season and has been for more
years than I can remember.

The reason is simple and has been known for decades - mild winters.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 2014-05-17 08:22:30 +0000, Nick Maclaren said:

In article ,
Sacha wrote:
On 2014-05-16 22:51:39 +0000, Judith in England said:

Our rodent man came round today and says there's a bit increase in the
rat population - around 40% in places. Such a cheery thought!

Perhaps he was just self-promoting and hoping that you will have him round more
frequently.

He's on a 6-weekly visit contract in the season and has been for more
years than I can remember.

The reason is simple and has been known for decades - mild winters.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Exactly what he said and this last winter has been particularly mild
here. The Echiums are looking fabulous! ;-)
--

Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon
www.helpforheroes.org.uk

On 2014-05-17 08:35:40 +0000, Martin said:

On Sat, 17 May 2014 09:22:30 +0100 (BST), (Nick
Maclaren) wrote:

In article ,
Sacha wrote:
On 2014-05-16 22:51:39 +0000, Judith in England said:

Our rodent man came round today and says there's a bit increase in the
rat population - around 40% in places. Such a cheery thought!

Perhaps he was just self-promoting and hoping that you will have him round more
frequently.

He's on a 6-weekly visit contract in the season and has been for more
years than I can remember.

The reason is simple and has been known for decades - mild winters.

The floods can't have done them much good in places where there were floods.

The danger is them swimming into houses and outbuildings, aiui. In
some of the worst flooded areas, farmers are going to have to buy worms
to re-stock their land with them. All the ones that were there drowned.
A friend of my daughter, whose house had never flooded before, had to
be evacuated along with several horses, dogs, cats and chickens. She
moved back in a few weeks ago but is still coping with sludge and the
vile smell of wet plaster and flooring. Hers was one of the villages
totally cut off and accessible only by boat.
--

Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon
www.helpforheroes.org.uk

In article ,
Sacha wrote:
On 2014-05-17 08:35:40 +0000, Martin said:

Our rodent man came round today and says there's a bit increase in the
rat population - around 40% in places. Such a cheery thought!

Perhaps he was just self-promoting and hoping that you will have him round more
frequently.

He's on a 6-weekly visit contract in the season and has been for more
years than I can remember.

The reason is simple and has been known for decades - mild winters.

The floods can't have done them much good in places where there were floods.

The danger is them swimming into houses and outbuildings, aiui. In
some of the worst flooded areas, farmers are going to have to buy worms
to re-stock their land with them. All the ones that were there drowned.
A friend of my daughter, whose house had never flooded before, had to
be evacuated along with several horses, dogs, cats and chickens. She
moved back in a few weeks ago but is still coping with sludge and the
vile smell of wet plaster and flooring. Hers was one of the villages
totally cut off and accessible only by boat.

And, as someone said on television, the one consolation is that the
rats will also have been severely reduced. But rats can swim, so
the number of places where they will have been unable to survive
isn't all that large. Several people reported that their lofts
became full of rats during the floods.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 2014-05-17 11:42:38 +0000, Martin said:

On Sat, 17 May 2014 12:09:16 +0100, Sacha wrote:

On 2014-05-17 08:35:40 +0000, Martin said:

On Sat, 17 May 2014 09:22:30 +0100 (BST), (Nick
Maclaren) wrote:

In article ,
Sacha wrote:
On 2014-05-16 22:51:39 +0000, Judith in England said:

Our rodent man came round today and says there's a bit increase in the
rat population - around 40% in places. Such a cheery thought!

Perhaps he was just self-promoting and hoping that you will have him round more
frequently.

He's on a 6-weekly visit contract in the season and has been for more
years than I can remember.

The reason is simple and has been known for decades - mild winters.

The floods can't have done them much good in places where there were floods.

The danger is them swimming into houses and outbuildings, aiui. In
some of the worst flooded areas, farmers are going to have to buy worms
to re-stock their land with them. All the ones that were there drowned.
A friend of my daughter, whose house had never flooded before, had to
be evacuated along with several horses, dogs, cats and chickens. She
moved back in a few weeks ago but is still coping with sludge and the
vile smell of wet plaster and flooring. Hers was one of the villages
totally cut off and accessible only by boat.

Has she applied for the £5,000 that was promised by DC to all flood victims?

I don't know but I'd imagine so. One very greedy pair of people charged
a huge sum of money to transport and 'rescue' the horses just a few
hours before the Parrett broke its banks and flooded her property, so a
big chunk of that £5k will have been spent already. She'd been living
with water in the house but then the animals were endangered. She's
applied to have her house compulsorily purchased because of the neglect
of the waterways which contributed so largely to the problem. She
doubts she'll be able to sell it otherwise! She only moved in two years
ago and her surveyor assured her the house had never flooded.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon

On 2014-05-18 09:20:11 +0000, Martin said:

On Sat, 17 May 2014 14:31:04 +0100, sacha wrote:
snip
Has she applied for the £5,000 that was promised by DC to all flood victims?

I don't know but I'd imagine so. One very greedy pair of people charged
a huge sum of money to transport and 'rescue' the horses just a few
hours before the Parrett broke its banks and flooded her property, so a
big chunk of that £5k will have been spent already. She'd been living
with water in the house but then the animals were endangered. She's
applied to have her house compulsorily purchased because of the neglect
of the waterways which contributed so largely to the problem. She
doubts she'll be able to sell it otherwise! She only moved in two years
ago and her surveyor assured her the house had never flooded.

According to the BBC Local News for Lincs & E Yorkshire, many whose houses were
damaged by floods in Humberside haven't applied for the £5,000. Aren't
surveyors
legally responsible for their surveys? AFAIK like architects they are insured
against claims.

Afaik, surveyors are responsible for their surveys, yes. But he
couldn't report a hazard from something which had never happened.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon

In article ,
lid says...

sacha wrote

She only moved in two years
ago and her surveyor assured her the house had never flooded.

Aren't surveyors
legally responsible for their surveys?

Yes, but if he reported the truth he can't be faulted. A survey report
only reflects the current status of the property, it's not a future
guarantee.

Janet.

On 2014-05-20 07:46:52 +0000, Martin said:

On Sun, 18 May 2014 12:13:42 +0100, Janet wrote:

In article ,
lid says...

sacha wrote

She only moved in two years
ago and her surveyor assured her the house had never flooded.

Aren't surveyors
legally responsible for their surveys?

Yes, but if he reported the truth he can't be faulted. A survey report
only reflects the current status of the property, it's not a future
guarantee.

The flood maps provided by the EA show potential flooding areas, with
probabilities of flooding, not just historic flood areas. Both my children used
the maps when buying their houses. It could be why they both live on top of
hills. http://apps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/37837.aspx

Nonetheless, the property had never flooded and a surveyor can only
comment on current conditions in the property. He can't say e.g. you've
got wooden beams in the kitchen, so you might get woodworm one day!
--

Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon
www.helpforheroes.org.uk

On 20/05/14 10:25, Sacha wrote:
On 2014-05-20 07:46:52 +0000, Martin said:

On Sun, 18 May 2014 12:13:42 +0100, Janet wrote:

In article ,
lid says...

sacha wrote

She only moved in two years
ago and her surveyor assured her the house had never flooded.

Aren't surveyors
legally responsible for their surveys?

Yes, but if he reported the truth he can't be faulted. A survey report
only reflects the current status of the property, it's not a future
guarantee.

The flood maps provided by the EA show potential flooding areas, with
probabilities of flooding, not just historic flood areas. Both my children used
the maps when buying their houses. It could be why they both live on top of
hills. http://apps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/37837.aspx

Nonetheless, the property had never flooded and a surveyor can only comment on current conditions in the property. He can't say e.g. you've got wooden beams in the kitchen, so you might get woodworm
one day!

Of course they can - and should, particularly as it is a
simple prudent way for them to avoid the possibility of
future claims.

The surveyors of my houses have done exactly that kind of
thing and more - and I'd be miffed if they hadn't.

Of course a "house valuation survey" (to convince a lender
that they would get their money back if they had to sell
the property) is pretty vestigial. I'm sure there are cases
where it was sufficient for them to merely drive past the
property without stopping.

On 2014-05-20 09:49:11 +0000, Tom Gardner said:

On 20/05/14 10:25, Sacha wrote:
On 2014-05-20 07:46:52 +0000, Martin said:

On Sun, 18 May 2014 12:13:42 +0100, Janet wrote:

In article ,
lid says...

sacha wrote

She only moved in two years
ago and her surveyor assured her the house had never flooded.

Aren't surveyors
legally responsible for their surveys?

Yes, but if he reported the truth he can't be faulted. A survey report
only reflects the current status of the property, it's not a future
guarantee.

The flood maps provided by the EA show potential flooding areas, with
probabilities of flooding, not just historic flood areas. Both my children used
the maps when buying their houses. It could be why they both live on top of
hills. http://apps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/37837.aspx

Nonetheless, the property had never flooded and a surveyor can only
comment on current conditions in the property. He can't say e.g. you've
got wooden beams in the kitchen, so you might get woodworm
one day!

Of course they can - and should, particularly as it is a
simple prudent way for them to avoid the possibility of
future claims.

The surveyors of my houses have done exactly that kind of
thing and more - and I'd be miffed if they hadn't.

Of course a "house valuation survey" (to convince a lender
that they would get their money back if they had to sell
the property) is pretty vestigial. I'm sure there are cases
where it was sufficient for them to merely drive past the
property without stopping.

I don't know how many houses you've had surveys on but for me, it's
four. I've never encountered a surveyor who deals in things that don't
exist and have never happened. If he or she starts that, the house
seller may well sue them.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon

On 2014-05-20 10:36:56 +0000, Martin said:

On Tue, 20 May 2014 10:25:19 +0100, Sacha wrote:

On 2014-05-20 07:46:52 +0000, Martin said:

On Sun, 18 May 2014 12:13:42 +0100, Janet wrote:

In article ,
lid says...

sacha wrote

She only moved in two years
ago and her surveyor assured her the house had never flooded.

Aren't surveyors
legally responsible for their surveys?

Yes, but if he reported the truth he can't be faulted. A survey report
only reflects the current status of the property, it's not a future
guarantee.

The flood maps provided by the EA show potential flooding areas, with
probabilities of flooding, not just historic flood areas. Both my children used
the maps when buying their houses. It could be why they both live on top of
hills. http://apps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/37837.aspx

Nonetheless, the property had never flooded and a surveyor can only
comment on current conditions in the property. He can't say e.g. you've
got wooden beams in the kitchen, so you might get woodworm one day!

He could have looked at the EA map and said the EA say the probability of
flooding is X%.

I don't know if he did, obviously but the fact is that the house had
never flooded and the reason it did was lack of maintenance by the
authorities, not lack of diligence by the surveyor or the buyer.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon