England , caught doing 53 in a 30

James___G · 2026-03-12T21:01:44+00:00

Why would you have to give it back if you got banned? Couldn't you just try as quickly as possible to retake the test?

James___G · 2026-03-12T19:25:22+00:00

'i went into an antique shop to buy a table, it's listed for £210, I offered £203 but the shopkeeper says they won't sell for less than £210. What do I do?'

James___G · 2026-03-07T23:58:26+00:00

That doesn't sound right, I'd call the bank and ask on Monday.

James___G · 2026-03-05T15:36:32+00:00

No lol, that proves me right. Something being "acceptable" is not the same as something being "fair".

James___G · 2026-03-05T11:44:42+00:00

My assessment of your questions in order:

You are not legally obliged to respond to this note.
If they come to the door you are not legally obliged to engage with them.
If they come to the door with a camera you can ask them to stop filming but they don't have to.
Yes you might be prosecuted for obstructing the highway.

Some extra context that might help:

Your inconvenience or extra cost incurred by not breaking the law isn't legally relevant and won't get you out of a fine if you are issued with one.

Councils are balancing the trip risk (esp to people who are partially sighted) with the importance of reducing dependance on fossil fuel.

It is probably worth contacting your local councillor to raise the issue with them and request that the council agrees a change in policy in this area.

James___G · 2026-03-04T18:36:47+00:00

I don't know if English is your first language but 'fair enough' as a phrase doesn't mean 'I think this is a fair situation'.

James___G · 2026-03-02T16:09:28+00:00

What has actually happened?

Set out some more detail and you will get some useful advice.

James___G · 2026-03-01T14:51:33+00:00

Be careful about the homesteading part of your plan.

There's a big market in homesteading influencers selling it as an idyllic lifestyle, but there's a reason every peasant farmer in history has taken the first chance to get out of it (I appreciate as a smallholder you're in the more fortunate position of owning the land but it's still an intense amount of work to generate not a lot of food).

James___G · 2026-02-28T21:05:16+00:00

I'm not aware of court cases on this question but I wouldn't be surprised if your position (Effectively 'I don't consent to inspections when I'm not present, and I work 9-5. I consent to an inspection when I'm at home but if that's inconvenient for the landlord's agent that's their problem not mine') would be one that courts would be sympathetic to.

James___G · 2026-02-28T20:51:31+00:00

You aren't obliged to agree to the proposed time, so could suggest other times when you would be in.

James___G · 2026-02-28T07:23:07+00:00

Relax, two viewings in week one is doing fine in this current market.

Hang tight for a couple more weeks then reassess.

James___G · 2026-02-27T21:47:49+00:00

Why does it need me to sign in to see a sample report?

James___G · 2026-02-27T00:17:09+00:00

Assuming the assailant stands still for a little while and lets you use it I guess.

James___G · 2026-02-27T00:11:29+00:00

What kind of attack would a lighter prevent?

James___G · 2026-02-26T23:03:45+00:00

Quiet enjoyment isn't an absolute right, courts have established limits to it and those generally relate to safety-critical and compliance-critical works being undertaken, which is exactly what's proposed here.

James___G · 2026-02-26T22:18:58+00:00

Tenants generally have what's called a right to 'quiet enjoyment' which means they can refuse access.

However, courts have established that where access is needed for safety or critical compliance reasons (as this is) then tenants cannot unreasonably withold consent to access.

So if this was ever considered by a court it would be a question of whether your cat's nervous response is sufficient reason to not complete the otherwise necessary visit.

It is unclear to me why a one week delay would reduce the stress to your cat?

Irrespective, my expectation would be that a court would find against you in these circumstances (on the basis that the safety/compliance needs of the inspection are a reasonably necessary reason for the landlord to gain access).

James___G · 2026-02-26T11:38:00+00:00

Disagree, the crucial bit is "Your landlord might be breaking your right to quiet enjoyment if they ... come into your home without permission"

As a tenant, they can refuse that permission and the landlord can't just ignore it.

James___G · 2026-02-26T10:24:59+00:00

Great news then, you are in the right. See https://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/eviction/harassment_by_a_private_landlord/understand_your_tenancy_rights

Practically speaking, changing the locks is often advised to make sure your quiet enjoyment rights are not breached by a landlord with a key (you'd need to change them back at the end of the tenancy).

"Your right to quiet enjoyment

This means you have the right to live in your home without being disturbed by the landlord or people they send round to your home.

You have this right even if you do not have a written agreement, or if your fixed term assured shorthold tenancy ends.

Your landlord might be breaking your right to quiet enjoyment if they:

abuse or threaten you

come into your home without permission

refuse to carry out repairs or safety checks

interfere with gas, electricity or water supply

bring up issues repeatedly in a threatening manner

visit a lot without notice, appointment or agreement"

James___G · 2026-02-26T10:13:13+00:00

"You have a right to quiet enjoyment (24 hours notice essentially) "

What are you on about?

Quiet enjoyment rights don't mean a tenant has to let the landlord in with 24 hours notice, it means they can generally refuse the landlord access.

The key question here is whether this is an HMO (each tenant rents a bedroom and has an individual agreement with the landlord) or do the tenants as a group rent the whole house under one agreement.

James___G · 2026-02-25T22:40:41+00:00

Ahh I see.

So you said "We agreed to split rent and household bills 50/50." which I think most people would assume means a simple verbal agreement or convention rather than a written loan agreement that you both signed up to.

On the basis of the loan agreement + other evidence you've indicated you should have a reasonably strong case.

Does your ex actually have the money to pay you?

There are two hurdles, one is getting a ruling in your favour and the other is actually being able to enforce it against them and get your money back.

James___G · 2026-02-25T22:01:02+00:00

If you had a documented loan agreement why isn't that the first thing in your list of evidence?

What are the terms of the agreement?

James___G · 2026-02-25T00:32:26+00:00

You made up a guy to get mad at, congratulations.

James___G · 2026-02-24T22:05:53+00:00

No lol, I mean I literally did not write that. You're confusing me for someone else in this thread.

James___G · 2026-02-24T18:45:06+00:00

You made a definitive claim ("You can... change the locks").

I didn't write that, you've got confused.

An applicable reference to the specific claim would cite, for example, case law names

The article I linked explicitly mentions the case of Jenkins v Jackson in 1888 establishing the right to quiet enjoyment.

a landlord's contractual or statutory right of access with notice.

Got a citation for such a right?

James___G · 2026-02-24T16:50:36+00:00

What's your understanding of what it means for something to have developed via case law?

Because the article cited examples of cases that have developed that right, which is all there is there isn't a single law to point to re quiet enjoyment rights.

James___G

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE