surly that only applies if it falls within your tenancy agreement?
Just hit the motherload
- Thread starter wannabedamned
- Start date
surly that only applies if it falls within your tenancy agreement?
Soldato
I'm interested. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I've admitted to being wrong before and I'm more than willing to accept it again. Oh and it's 4 pages you and your n00b settings.
No, he is still a rent paying occupent. Tenancy agreement or no tenancy agreement.
In that case enjoy the money!
Soldato
Soldato
Oh come on, you can say something better than that.
Say
"im sorry for jumping on you without thinking it all through first, i acted like a bit of a clown"
Soldato
Last edited:
"im sorry for jumping on you without thinking it all through first, i acted like a bit of a clown"
Well no, because I still think it's silly. But not as bad as I first thought.
we've all been there, you can put your soapbox back in the shed now
Soldato
Must be nice to be down off your highhorse, ya been on it long enough.
rofl
rofl
Must be nice to be down off your highhorse, ya been on it long enough.
rofl
Don't worry I'm still on my high horse, just wait until someone asks about how to get JSA or some one posts a news article about a scrounging family with 9 kids and have never worked.
Soldato
Lol mate.
at least you are taking the beating like a man! haha
at least you are taking the beating like a man! haha
some one posts a news article about a scrounging family with 9 kids and have never worked.
You see the show on channel 4? With the guy who had like 15 kids, and no job. But got a fortune monthly in Child Benefit... And then accused the English government of being racist on top of that.
That show made my blood boil...
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
God i love it when someone brings in facts to shoot down the foolish ones
Well done Evangelion
WEll the thing Evangelion linked isn't really proof in any way or form. It simply says the council and some other people have the right to buy the land out from underneath you with you not being able to say no essentially.
It does not anywhere in it say they have to recieve compensation, it says they provide, it doesn't say the have to provide compensation. They also do not in any way state what form this compensation has to be in. NO where does it mention money in this situation and no where does it say replacement housing has to be offered. TO most, a upgrade to a better HOUSE is compensation in and of itself. Paying for them to move is compensation, paying for reinstallation of services is compensation. No where does it say that it has to give money , in a situation where its already making someones situation better which is clearly how the OP felt his situation was changing.
IF you can find the same "proof" where it says, monetary compensation HAS to be provided even if other housing is provided and they are paying for the move.
As soon as anyone in this country see's the word compensation they all instantly see this as how much money can I get. INfact the last part seems to not directly, but semi indicate that compensation in the way of helping you get rehoused and moved is normal, but any extra compensation would be down to your situation, with renting being lowest on the chain you'd least expect someone renting to get additional compensation and someone who owned their house fully to be most likely to get additional compensation, again it makes no mention of what form it could take.
Soldato
Selfishness pure and simple.
No one on here would turn down 5K compensation for moving house if it was offered. They haven't got it or would be given it, so it's wrong that the O.P should get it.
No one on here would turn down 5K compensation for moving house if it was offered. They haven't got it or would be given it, so it's wrong that the O.P should get it.
Last edited:
who hasnt got it?
Soldato
everyone in this thread apart from the OP.
but I've clarified my post a little.
but I've clarified my post a little.