Surveyors claim house prices under Southend Airport have dropped

Echo: Jon Fuller, of campaign group Stop Airport Expansion and Noise, addresses a meeting in Eastwood about claiming compensation Jon Fuller, of campaign group Stop Airport Expansion and Noise, addresses a meeting in Eastwood about claiming compensation

HOUSE prices under the flight path of Southend Airport have dropped by up to 15 per cent, surveyors claim.

Agents preparing compensation claims say homeowners have cut their asking price by 10 to 15 per to sell their property following the expansion of the airport.

Bosses at Southend Airport revealed six claims for compensation had been revealed so far and said they would be assessed when house price data becomes available.

Chartered surveyor Chris Hunt, of Hunt Scott in Dorking, said: “I know of other people on the market who cannot sell but these are people who have been prepared to bite the bullet, lower their price and lose the shortfall.

“For these people, obviously they are dotted around, but as far as I’m concerned it’s 10 to 15 per cent, depending on location.”

Mr Hunt has submitted three “advanced claims”, where a homeowner who has sold their property within the first year of a development – such as the airport runway extension - registers an intention to seek compensation for a loss in value as a result when claims are considered at the end of the year.

Alastair Welch, managing director of the airport, said: “While recent evidence reinforces the strength of house prices in the Southend area, a total of six claims have been made for compensation from agents acting on behalf of people who have recently sold properties in the area.

“We anticipate that as further house price data becomes available, their validity will be appropriately assessed.”

Comments (73)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:13pm Tue 29 Jan 13

Nebs says...

If prices on average are up by 14%, and theirs are down by 15%, does that mean they will get 29%?
Seems reasonable, it must have been built into the business plan.
If prices on average are up by 14%, and theirs are down by 15%, does that mean they will get 29%? Seems reasonable, it must have been built into the business plan. Nebs

5:16pm Tue 29 Jan 13

mys842 says...

I can imagine it would have reduced prices. I've considered moving to areas of Leigh in the past such as the Marine Estate, but this has definitely put me off. The easyJets aren't that loud, or that frequent. But there's one road on the map NE of the current runway, which, if removed like Eastwoodbury Lane, would allow the runway to become even larger.

In my opinion, the risk of it getting worse in the future is what worries some homebuyers, rather than the current situation.
I can imagine it would have reduced prices. I've considered moving to areas of Leigh in the past such as the Marine Estate, but this has definitely put me off. The easyJets aren't that loud, or that frequent. But there's one road on the map NE of the current runway, which, if removed like Eastwoodbury Lane, would allow the runway to become even larger. In my opinion, the risk of it getting worse in the future is what worries some homebuyers, rather than the current situation. mys842

5:17pm Tue 29 Jan 13

Max 269 says...

They have dropped because the owners felt they had a problem which they needed compensateing for. even if a claim is not sucessful it will always be registered that there was a problem. Short time gain (or not) will turn out long turn pain. The surveyors will cash up and be long gone. goolge the chap and you will see where I am coming from
They have dropped because the owners felt they had a problem which they needed compensateing for. even if a claim is not sucessful it will always be registered that there was a problem. Short time gain (or not) will turn out long turn pain. The surveyors will cash up and be long gone. goolge the chap and you will see where I am coming from Max 269

5:40pm Tue 29 Jan 13

SARFENDMAN says...

The airport has been there since WW1 and once the 3rd busiest in the 1960s with far less environmentally friendly aircraft than today. House searches would have revealed all this during purchases. Can't see where these people are coming from. Seems to be in the claim culture rather like the accident no fault merchants.
The airport has been there since WW1 and once the 3rd busiest in the 1960s with far less environmentally friendly aircraft than today. House searches would have revealed all this during purchases. Can't see where these people are coming from. Seems to be in the claim culture rather like the accident no fault merchants. SARFENDMAN

5:46pm Tue 29 Jan 13

Cosmo Spring says...

are all those people in the picture trying to sell their houses then?
are all those people in the picture trying to sell their houses then? Cosmo Spring

6:08pm Tue 29 Jan 13

jolllyboy says...

Its absolute tosh that it was quieter now than in the 60's - the runway is longer therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Engines are larger and I promise you the noise is horrendous when they pass overhead. It will vary road to road considerably so when one road says it is not too bad they should try another !I dont care a fig about the loss of value of the house I care about the noise in my garden when you cannot hear what someone is saying ! I agree there is nothing to stop the airport getting a longer runway. i wish they would improve the roads around there though . the Tesco roundabout is a nighgtmare incredibly dangerous and it is not clear the route through to rochford.
Its absolute tosh that it was quieter now than in the 60's - the runway is longer therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Engines are larger and I promise you the noise is horrendous when they pass overhead. It will vary road to road considerably so when one road says it is not too bad they should try another !I dont care a fig about the loss of value of the house I care about the noise in my garden when you cannot hear what someone is saying ! I agree there is nothing to stop the airport getting a longer runway. i wish they would improve the roads around there though . the Tesco roundabout is a nighgtmare incredibly dangerous and it is not clear the route through to rochford. jolllyboy

6:34pm Tue 29 Jan 13

al coniston says...

jolllyboy wrote:
Its absolute tosh that it was quieter now than in the 60's - the runway is longer therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Engines are larger and I promise you the noise is horrendous when they pass overhead. It will vary road to road considerably so when one road says it is not too bad they should try another !I dont care a fig about the loss of value of the house I care about the noise in my garden when you cannot hear what someone is saying ! I agree there is nothing to stop the airport getting a longer runway. i wish they would improve the roads around there though . the Tesco roundabout is a nighgtmare incredibly dangerous and it is not clear the route through to rochford.
two things you idiot . . . .

firstly, the noise of an aircraft passing overhead lasts all of 20 seconds at most

secondly, if the crap you churn out on here is anything to go by, the person with whom you were having a conversation would probably take much relief from the 20 seconds they are unable to hear you
[quote][p][bold]jolllyboy[/bold] wrote: Its absolute tosh that it was quieter now than in the 60's - the runway is longer therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Engines are larger and I promise you the noise is horrendous when they pass overhead. It will vary road to road considerably so when one road says it is not too bad they should try another !I dont care a fig about the loss of value of the house I care about the noise in my garden when you cannot hear what someone is saying ! I agree there is nothing to stop the airport getting a longer runway. i wish they would improve the roads around there though . the Tesco roundabout is a nighgtmare incredibly dangerous and it is not clear the route through to rochford.[/p][/quote]two things you idiot . . . . firstly, the noise of an aircraft passing overhead lasts all of 20 seconds at most secondly, if the crap you churn out on here is anything to go by, the person with whom you were having a conversation would probably take much relief from the 20 seconds they are unable to hear you al coniston

6:47pm Tue 29 Jan 13

Nebs says...

al coniston wrote:
jolllyboy wrote:
Its absolute tosh that it was quieter now than in the 60's - the runway is longer therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Engines are larger and I promise you the noise is horrendous when they pass overhead. It will vary road to road considerably so when one road says it is not too bad they should try another !I dont care a fig about the loss of value of the house I care about the noise in my garden when you cannot hear what someone is saying ! I agree there is nothing to stop the airport getting a longer runway. i wish they would improve the roads around there though . the Tesco roundabout is a nighgtmare incredibly dangerous and it is not clear the route through to rochford.
two things you idiot . . . .

firstly, the noise of an aircraft passing overhead lasts all of 20 seconds at most

secondly, if the crap you churn out on here is anything to go by, the person with whom you were having a conversation would probably take much relief from the 20 seconds they are unable to hear you
I don't live under the flightpath, but I used to several years ago and the two big planes at weekends were noisy enough that you had to stop a conversation. The first rumours of airport expansion and I sold up and moved.
20 seconds is about right, maybe slightly less. If you think that is not a problem then randomly turn off your TV for 20 seconds while your wife is watching her favourite program. Do not talk to her for the 20 seconds. Then turn it back on again. Do this every day. If your thoughts are correct then she won't mind.
There are lots of good things about the airport that will benefit everyone, but there are also a few bad things that will inconvenience a few, and those few should be compensated.
[quote][p][bold]al coniston[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jolllyboy[/bold] wrote: Its absolute tosh that it was quieter now than in the 60's - the runway is longer therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Engines are larger and I promise you the noise is horrendous when they pass overhead. It will vary road to road considerably so when one road says it is not too bad they should try another !I dont care a fig about the loss of value of the house I care about the noise in my garden when you cannot hear what someone is saying ! I agree there is nothing to stop the airport getting a longer runway. i wish they would improve the roads around there though . the Tesco roundabout is a nighgtmare incredibly dangerous and it is not clear the route through to rochford.[/p][/quote]two things you idiot . . . . firstly, the noise of an aircraft passing overhead lasts all of 20 seconds at most secondly, if the crap you churn out on here is anything to go by, the person with whom you were having a conversation would probably take much relief from the 20 seconds they are unable to hear you[/p][/quote]I don't live under the flightpath, but I used to several years ago and the two big planes at weekends were noisy enough that you had to stop a conversation. The first rumours of airport expansion and I sold up and moved. 20 seconds is about right, maybe slightly less. If you think that is not a problem then randomly turn off your TV for 20 seconds while your wife is watching her favourite program. Do not talk to her for the 20 seconds. Then turn it back on again. Do this every day. If your thoughts are correct then she won't mind. There are lots of good things about the airport that will benefit everyone, but there are also a few bad things that will inconvenience a few, and those few should be compensated. Nebs

7:01pm Tue 29 Jan 13

sensiblelos says...

once again, Mr Welch makes out he is an expert in House Prices in the vicinity he is not, he is referring to recent house price trends from the Hailfax. This analysis in itself is not a comprehensive method of determining house values in specific area, say under a flight path, also the increase in house prices stated by the Halifax is based on their own lending and not that of the wider Market. For a more comprehensive comparison http://houseprices.l
andregistry.gov.uk/ this shows values based on all sales prices in the a certain area i.e southend borough(not under a flight path), from the information provided by the House Price calculator of the land registry the increase of values in the southend area increased by 2% from Dec 2011-Dec 012, in the same period the area of the South East house prices increased by 3% based on the data provide by the Land Registry. So "expert" Mr Welch, this is hardly resounding evidence of "strength" in the area.

This compensation issue is not about whether anyone wishes to sell their house at any particular time , it is not about whether there was or is an airport in the area before the purchase of their house in the vicinity of an airport, it is not about a claim culture, it is about those who have been disadvantaged by the expansion of the airport and whether they have a right to make a claim and protect themselves. The claim relates to being in a no better or no worse position, 99% of claimants do not wish to make a claim which causes additional stress and anxiety in their lives, they would rather do without it.

The Council has a responsibility as owner of the airport not to affect the well-being of its residents especially those who live under the flight path, perhaps they will answer the following questions or perhaps those concerned residents will ask the same questions of the Council or the members who voted or agreed to the expansion of the Airport, copy and paste as you see fit;

"Dear Council

You have affected my financial well being, i have a number of questions i would hope you could answer:

1. Before the expansion, Did you ever consider in any way the effects the airport expansion would have on house values under the flight path, if you did please disclose all reports relating to the same.

2. If you did not consider the effects the expansion of the airport why not, did you not consider this was an important issue.

3. The Council has stated on many occasions that the expansion would benefit the area, how can this statement be considered correct if you have not considered that potentially hundreds of thousands of pounds has been wiped off the value of houses under the flight path. How can you establish and prove that the expansion financially benefits the residents of the borough, especially the residents under the flight path if no reports have ever been undertaken.

4. Have you considered the effects the reduced values would have on the income the Council would receive in reduced council tax under the flight path.

You owe a duty of care to me as a resident to protect my general well-being, it is my belief that if you have not considered in any way the effects the expansion would have to those under the flight path, you are failing in that duty.

I look forward to your response"
once again, Mr Welch makes out he is an expert in House Prices in the vicinity he is not, he is referring to recent house price trends from the Hailfax. This analysis in itself is not a comprehensive method of determining house values in specific area, say under a flight path, also the increase in house prices stated by the Halifax is based on their own lending and not that of the wider Market. For a more comprehensive comparison http://houseprices.l andregistry.gov.uk/ this shows values based on all sales prices in the a certain area i.e southend borough(not under a flight path), from the information provided by the House Price calculator of the land registry the increase of values in the southend area increased by 2% from Dec 2011-Dec 012, in the same period the area of the South East house prices increased by 3% based on the data provide by the Land Registry. So "expert" Mr Welch, this is hardly resounding evidence of "strength" in the area. This compensation issue is not about whether anyone wishes to sell their house at any particular time , it is not about whether there was or is an airport in the area before the purchase of their house in the vicinity of an airport, it is not about a claim culture, it is about those who have been disadvantaged by the expansion of the airport and whether they have a right to make a claim and protect themselves. The claim relates to being in a no better or no worse position, 99% of claimants do not wish to make a claim which causes additional stress and anxiety in their lives, they would rather do without it. The Council has a responsibility as owner of the airport not to affect the well-being of its residents especially those who live under the flight path, perhaps they will answer the following questions or perhaps those concerned residents will ask the same questions of the Council or the members who voted or agreed to the expansion of the Airport, copy and paste as you see fit; "Dear Council You have affected my financial well being, i have a number of questions i would hope you could answer: 1. Before the expansion, Did you ever consider in any way the effects the airport expansion would have on house values under the flight path, if you did please disclose all reports relating to the same. 2. If you did not consider the effects the expansion of the airport why not, did you not consider this was an important issue. 3. The Council has stated on many occasions that the expansion would benefit the area, how can this statement be considered correct if you have not considered that potentially hundreds of thousands of pounds has been wiped off the value of houses under the flight path. How can you establish and prove that the expansion financially benefits the residents of the borough, especially the residents under the flight path if no reports have ever been undertaken. 4. Have you considered the effects the reduced values would have on the income the Council would receive in reduced council tax under the flight path. You owe a duty of care to me as a resident to protect my general well-being, it is my belief that if you have not considered in any way the effects the expansion would have to those under the flight path, you are failing in that duty. I look forward to your response" sensiblelos

7:05pm Tue 29 Jan 13

jantone says...

the airport has been in southend since the 30s. there was not all the uproar then, so why is every body going crazy now?
the airport has been in southend since the 30s. there was not all the uproar then, so why is every body going crazy now? jantone

7:07pm Tue 29 Jan 13

Max Impact says...

jolllyboy wrote:
Its absolute tosh that it was quieter now than in the 60's - the runway is longer therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Engines are larger and I promise you the noise is horrendous when they pass overhead. It will vary road to road considerably so when one road says it is not too bad they should try another !I dont care a fig about the loss of value of the house I care about the noise in my garden when you cannot hear what someone is saying ! I agree there is nothing to stop the airport getting a longer runway. i wish they would improve the roads around there though . the Tesco roundabout is a nighgtmare incredibly dangerous and it is not clear the route through to rochford.
WALLY ALERT WHOOP WHOOP WALLY ALERT.

You do not have a clue, listen to a moden jet engine like thise fitted to the A319 on takes off, then listen to what a Carvair sounded like with it's four piston engines at full power on take off tell me what is louder and what lasts longer.

No doubt you will say the moden engine as you are one of those people that hate to admit you are wrong.

The early jets such as a Boeing 707, 727 and Bac111 would wake the dead.

As for the aircraft being too loud for you to hear somebody standing right next to you talking what rot, where abouts do you live?
[quote][p][bold]jolllyboy[/bold] wrote: Its absolute tosh that it was quieter now than in the 60's - the runway is longer therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Engines are larger and I promise you the noise is horrendous when they pass overhead. It will vary road to road considerably so when one road says it is not too bad they should try another !I dont care a fig about the loss of value of the house I care about the noise in my garden when you cannot hear what someone is saying ! I agree there is nothing to stop the airport getting a longer runway. i wish they would improve the roads around there though . the Tesco roundabout is a nighgtmare incredibly dangerous and it is not clear the route through to rochford.[/p][/quote]WALLY ALERT WHOOP WHOOP WALLY ALERT. You do not have a clue, listen to a moden jet engine like thise fitted to the A319 on takes off, then listen to what a Carvair sounded like with it's four piston engines at full power on take off tell me what is louder and what lasts longer. No doubt you will say the moden engine as you are one of those people that hate to admit you are wrong. The early jets such as a Boeing 707, 727 and Bac111 would wake the dead. As for the aircraft being too loud for you to hear somebody standing right next to you talking what rot, where abouts do you live? Max Impact

7:08pm Tue 29 Jan 13

Max Impact says...

Nebs wrote:
If prices on average are up by 14%, and theirs are down by 15%, does that mean they will get 29%?
Seems reasonable, it must have been built into the business plan.
How, if prices went up 14% because of the airport and then down 15% that equates to 1% why whould the airport pay the increase?

Nimbys thick and getting thicker.
[quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: If prices on average are up by 14%, and theirs are down by 15%, does that mean they will get 29%? Seems reasonable, it must have been built into the business plan.[/p][/quote]How, if prices went up 14% because of the airport and then down 15% that equates to 1% why whould the airport pay the increase? Nimbys thick and getting thicker. Max Impact

7:17pm Tue 29 Jan 13

emcee says...

If there is free money up for grabs, people will do and say anything to make sure they get a peice of the action. This, I fear, is what is happenning here and there will, no doubt, be others trying to jump on the compensation bandwagon. I just hope that the airport does, indeed, fight each and every case and not settle any case just because somone says someone else has lost out.
The home owners will only recieve any shortfall in the true value of their property and should not expect anything over and above that. However, these "compensation chasers", or "agents" as they seem to call themselves, are middle men and the only ones set to gain if any claim is successful. Whether their fees come from the settlement value (in which case the property owner loses this amount from the settlement) or whether it is awarded seperately is neither here nor there to these "agents". Is it any wonder, therefore, that they are willing to submit claims on behalf of anyone who will allow them to, regardless of the true value of the property, in speculation of some kind of payout
If there is free money up for grabs, people will do and say anything to make sure they get a peice of the action. This, I fear, is what is happenning here and there will, no doubt, be others trying to jump on the compensation bandwagon. I just hope that the airport does, indeed, fight each and every case and not settle any case just because somone says someone else has lost out. The home owners will only recieve any shortfall in the true value of their property and should not expect anything over and above that. However, these "compensation chasers", or "agents" as they seem to call themselves, are middle men and the only ones set to gain if any claim is successful. Whether their fees come from the settlement value (in which case the property owner loses this amount from the settlement) or whether it is awarded seperately is neither here nor there to these "agents". Is it any wonder, therefore, that they are willing to submit claims on behalf of anyone who will allow them to, regardless of the true value of the property, in speculation of some kind of payout emcee

7:40pm Tue 29 Jan 13

sensiblelos says...

sensiblelos wrote:
once again, Mr Welch makes out he is an expert in House Prices in the vicinity he is not, he is referring to recent house price trends from the Hailfax. This analysis in itself is not a comprehensive method of determining house values in specific area, say under a flight path, also the increase in house prices stated by the Halifax is based on their own lending and not that of the wider Market. For a more comprehensive comparison http://houseprices.l

andregistry.gov.uk/ this shows values based on all sales prices in the a certain area i.e southend borough(not under a flight path), from the information provided by the House Price calculator of the land registry the increase of values in the southend area increased by 2% from Dec 2011-Dec 012, in the same period the area of the South East house prices increased by 3% based on the data provide by the Land Registry. So "expert" Mr Welch, this is hardly resounding evidence of "strength" in the area.

This compensation issue is not about whether anyone wishes to sell their house at any particular time , it is not about whether there was or is an airport in the area before the purchase of their house in the vicinity of an airport, it is not about a claim culture, it is about those who have been disadvantaged by the expansion of the airport and whether they have a right to make a claim and protect themselves. The claim relates to being in a no better or no worse position, 99% of claimants do not wish to make a claim which causes additional stress and anxiety in their lives, they would rather do without it.

The Council has a responsibility as owner of the airport not to affect the well-being of its residents especially those who live under the flight path, perhaps they will answer the following questions or perhaps those concerned residents will ask the same questions of the Council or the members who voted or agreed to the expansion of the Airport, copy and paste as you see fit;

"Dear Council

You have affected my financial well being, i have a number of questions i would hope you could answer:

1. Before the expansion, Did you ever consider in any way the effects the airport expansion would have on house values under the flight path, if you did please disclose all reports relating to the same.

2. If you did not consider the effects the expansion of the airport why not, did you not consider this was an important issue.

3. The Council has stated on many occasions that the expansion would benefit the area, how can this statement be considered correct if you have not considered that potentially hundreds of thousands of pounds has been wiped off the value of houses under the flight path. How can you establish and prove that the expansion financially benefits the residents of the borough, especially the residents under the flight path if no reports have ever been undertaken.

4. Have you considered the effects the reduced values would have on the income the Council would receive in reduced council tax under the flight path.

You owe a duty of care to me as a resident to protect my general well-being, it is my belief that if you have not considered in any way the effects the expansion would have to those under the flight path, you are failing in that duty.

I look forward to your response"
details of house price increases

http://houseprices.l
andregistry.gov.uk/p
rice-calculator

sold prices up 2%

http://www.zoopla.co
.uk/house-prices/bro
wse/southend-on-sea/
?q=southend%20on%20s
ea&search_source=hou
se-prices

asking prices down .22%

house prices did not go up in southend by 14%, shown by Land Registry data
[quote][p][bold]sensiblelos[/bold] wrote: once again, Mr Welch makes out he is an expert in House Prices in the vicinity he is not, he is referring to recent house price trends from the Hailfax. This analysis in itself is not a comprehensive method of determining house values in specific area, say under a flight path, also the increase in house prices stated by the Halifax is based on their own lending and not that of the wider Market. For a more comprehensive comparison http://houseprices.l andregistry.gov.uk/ this shows values based on all sales prices in the a certain area i.e southend borough(not under a flight path), from the information provided by the House Price calculator of the land registry the increase of values in the southend area increased by 2% from Dec 2011-Dec 012, in the same period the area of the South East house prices increased by 3% based on the data provide by the Land Registry. So "expert" Mr Welch, this is hardly resounding evidence of "strength" in the area. This compensation issue is not about whether anyone wishes to sell their house at any particular time , it is not about whether there was or is an airport in the area before the purchase of their house in the vicinity of an airport, it is not about a claim culture, it is about those who have been disadvantaged by the expansion of the airport and whether they have a right to make a claim and protect themselves. The claim relates to being in a no better or no worse position, 99% of claimants do not wish to make a claim which causes additional stress and anxiety in their lives, they would rather do without it. The Council has a responsibility as owner of the airport not to affect the well-being of its residents especially those who live under the flight path, perhaps they will answer the following questions or perhaps those concerned residents will ask the same questions of the Council or the members who voted or agreed to the expansion of the Airport, copy and paste as you see fit; "Dear Council You have affected my financial well being, i have a number of questions i would hope you could answer: 1. Before the expansion, Did you ever consider in any way the effects the airport expansion would have on house values under the flight path, if you did please disclose all reports relating to the same. 2. If you did not consider the effects the expansion of the airport why not, did you not consider this was an important issue. 3. The Council has stated on many occasions that the expansion would benefit the area, how can this statement be considered correct if you have not considered that potentially hundreds of thousands of pounds has been wiped off the value of houses under the flight path. How can you establish and prove that the expansion financially benefits the residents of the borough, especially the residents under the flight path if no reports have ever been undertaken. 4. Have you considered the effects the reduced values would have on the income the Council would receive in reduced council tax under the flight path. You owe a duty of care to me as a resident to protect my general well-being, it is my belief that if you have not considered in any way the effects the expansion would have to those under the flight path, you are failing in that duty. I look forward to your response"[/p][/quote]details of house price increases http://houseprices.l andregistry.gov.uk/p rice-calculator sold prices up 2% http://www.zoopla.co .uk/house-prices/bro wse/southend-on-sea/ ?q=southend%20on%20s ea&search_source=hou se-prices asking prices down .22% house prices did not go up in southend by 14%, shown by Land Registry data sensiblelos

7:45pm Tue 29 Jan 13

Carnabackable says...

What's all the fuss about? it's all quiet here in Rayleigh...
What's all the fuss about? it's all quiet here in Rayleigh... Carnabackable

7:48pm Tue 29 Jan 13

Max Impact says...

emcee wrote:
If there is free money up for grabs, people will do and say anything to make sure they get a peice of the action. This, I fear, is what is happenning here and there will, no doubt, be others trying to jump on the compensation bandwagon. I just hope that the airport does, indeed, fight each and every case and not settle any case just because somone says someone else has lost out.
The home owners will only recieve any shortfall in the true value of their property and should not expect anything over and above that. However, these "compensation chasers", or "agents" as they seem to call themselves, are middle men and the only ones set to gain if any claim is successful. Whether their fees come from the settlement value (in which case the property owner loses this amount from the settlement) or whether it is awarded seperately is neither here nor there to these "agents". Is it any wonder, therefore, that they are willing to submit claims on behalf of anyone who will allow them to, regardless of the true value of the property, in speculation of some kind of payout
A friend took on the services of an Ambulance chaser on a no win no fee basis and it was true it wa no win no fee but...

before the Ambulance Chaser took the cas eon he had to take out an insurance policy to cover the costs should he loose...

No win no fee yes but they still get their money, they should NOT permit legal aid in these sort of cases as there are far far more important cases that could do with the funding.

Whilst they claim to have lost this percent or that percent they will have to prove it just just down to the airport and not just a gerneral devaluation due to the housing market, the poor condition of the house or any on going issues with neighbours.

Wonder just how many are true and how many as has been said free money, there was a bloke interviewed in the echo who said the increase in flights had not botherd him at all but the second the word compo was said to him he said he would be intrested in some!

Was it not one of the nimby protesters that said they do not want to close the airport but on some site he has.had wanted to bankrupt the airport?
[quote][p][bold]emcee[/bold] wrote: If there is free money up for grabs, people will do and say anything to make sure they get a peice of the action. This, I fear, is what is happenning here and there will, no doubt, be others trying to jump on the compensation bandwagon. I just hope that the airport does, indeed, fight each and every case and not settle any case just because somone says someone else has lost out. The home owners will only recieve any shortfall in the true value of their property and should not expect anything over and above that. However, these "compensation chasers", or "agents" as they seem to call themselves, are middle men and the only ones set to gain if any claim is successful. Whether their fees come from the settlement value (in which case the property owner loses this amount from the settlement) or whether it is awarded seperately is neither here nor there to these "agents". Is it any wonder, therefore, that they are willing to submit claims on behalf of anyone who will allow them to, regardless of the true value of the property, in speculation of some kind of payout[/p][/quote]A friend took on the services of an Ambulance chaser on a no win no fee basis and it was true it wa no win no fee but... before the Ambulance Chaser took the cas eon he had to take out an insurance policy to cover the costs should he loose... No win no fee yes but they still get their money, they should NOT permit legal aid in these sort of cases as there are far far more important cases that could do with the funding. Whilst they claim to have lost this percent or that percent they will have to prove it just just down to the airport and not just a gerneral devaluation due to the housing market, the poor condition of the house or any on going issues with neighbours. Wonder just how many are true and how many as has been said free money, there was a bloke interviewed in the echo who said the increase in flights had not botherd him at all but the second the word compo was said to him he said he would be intrested in some! Was it not one of the nimby protesters that said they do not want to close the airport but on some site he has.had wanted to bankrupt the airport? Max Impact

7:55pm Tue 29 Jan 13

Max Impact says...

sensiblelos wrote:
sensiblelos wrote:
once again, Mr Welch makes out he is an expert in House Prices in the vicinity he is not, he is referring to recent house price trends from the Hailfax. This analysis in itself is not a comprehensive method of determining house values in specific area, say under a flight path, also the increase in house prices stated by the Halifax is based on their own lending and not that of the wider Market. For a more comprehensive comparison http://houseprices.l


andregistry.gov.uk/ this shows values based on all sales prices in the a certain area i.e southend borough(not under a flight path), from the information provided by the House Price calculator of the land registry the increase of values in the southend area increased by 2% from Dec 2011-Dec 012, in the same period the area of the South East house prices increased by 3% based on the data provide by the Land Registry. So "expert" Mr Welch, this is hardly resounding evidence of "strength" in the area.

This compensation issue is not about whether anyone wishes to sell their house at any particular time , it is not about whether there was or is an airport in the area before the purchase of their house in the vicinity of an airport, it is not about a claim culture, it is about those who have been disadvantaged by the expansion of the airport and whether they have a right to make a claim and protect themselves. The claim relates to being in a no better or no worse position, 99% of claimants do not wish to make a claim which causes additional stress and anxiety in their lives, they would rather do without it.

The Council has a responsibility as owner of the airport not to affect the well-being of its residents especially those who live under the flight path, perhaps they will answer the following questions or perhaps those concerned residents will ask the same questions of the Council or the members who voted or agreed to the expansion of the Airport, copy and paste as you see fit;

"Dear Council

You have affected my financial well being, i have a number of questions i would hope you could answer:

1. Before the expansion, Did you ever consider in any way the effects the airport expansion would have on house values under the flight path, if you did please disclose all reports relating to the same.

2. If you did not consider the effects the expansion of the airport why not, did you not consider this was an important issue.

3. The Council has stated on many occasions that the expansion would benefit the area, how can this statement be considered correct if you have not considered that potentially hundreds of thousands of pounds has been wiped off the value of houses under the flight path. How can you establish and prove that the expansion financially benefits the residents of the borough, especially the residents under the flight path if no reports have ever been undertaken.

4. Have you considered the effects the reduced values would have on the income the Council would receive in reduced council tax under the flight path.

You owe a duty of care to me as a resident to protect my general well-being, it is my belief that if you have not considered in any way the effects the expansion would have to those under the flight path, you are failing in that duty.

I look forward to your response"
details of house price increases

http://houseprices.l

andregistry.gov.uk/p

rice-calculator

sold prices up 2%

http://www.zoopla.co

.uk/house-prices/bro

wse/southend-on-sea/

?q=southend%20on%20s

ea&search_source
=hou
se-prices

asking prices down .22%

house prices did not go up in southend by 14%, shown by Land Registry data
The survey that said house prices had gone up was not by the airport or SBC but by Halifax.

Did you know that as I did not spot it on the War and Peace beating length of boredom you spat out.

I might have missed it as after the third word I dozed off with my finger on the tracker ball and I only woke up when the misses prodded me thinking I had snuffed it.
[quote][p][bold]sensiblelos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sensiblelos[/bold] wrote: once again, Mr Welch makes out he is an expert in House Prices in the vicinity he is not, he is referring to recent house price trends from the Hailfax. This analysis in itself is not a comprehensive method of determining house values in specific area, say under a flight path, also the increase in house prices stated by the Halifax is based on their own lending and not that of the wider Market. For a more comprehensive comparison http://houseprices.l andregistry.gov.uk/ this shows values based on all sales prices in the a certain area i.e southend borough(not under a flight path), from the information provided by the House Price calculator of the land registry the increase of values in the southend area increased by 2% from Dec 2011-Dec 012, in the same period the area of the South East house prices increased by 3% based on the data provide by the Land Registry. So "expert" Mr Welch, this is hardly resounding evidence of "strength" in the area. This compensation issue is not about whether anyone wishes to sell their house at any particular time , it is not about whether there was or is an airport in the area before the purchase of their house in the vicinity of an airport, it is not about a claim culture, it is about those who have been disadvantaged by the expansion of the airport and whether they have a right to make a claim and protect themselves. The claim relates to being in a no better or no worse position, 99% of claimants do not wish to make a claim which causes additional stress and anxiety in their lives, they would rather do without it. The Council has a responsibility as owner of the airport not to affect the well-being of its residents especially those who live under the flight path, perhaps they will answer the following questions or perhaps those concerned residents will ask the same questions of the Council or the members who voted or agreed to the expansion of the Airport, copy and paste as you see fit; "Dear Council You have affected my financial well being, i have a number of questions i would hope you could answer: 1. Before the expansion, Did you ever consider in any way the effects the airport expansion would have on house values under the flight path, if you did please disclose all reports relating to the same. 2. If you did not consider the effects the expansion of the airport why not, did you not consider this was an important issue. 3. The Council has stated on many occasions that the expansion would benefit the area, how can this statement be considered correct if you have not considered that potentially hundreds of thousands of pounds has been wiped off the value of houses under the flight path. How can you establish and prove that the expansion financially benefits the residents of the borough, especially the residents under the flight path if no reports have ever been undertaken. 4. Have you considered the effects the reduced values would have on the income the Council would receive in reduced council tax under the flight path. You owe a duty of care to me as a resident to protect my general well-being, it is my belief that if you have not considered in any way the effects the expansion would have to those under the flight path, you are failing in that duty. I look forward to your response"[/p][/quote]details of house price increases http://houseprices.l andregistry.gov.uk/p rice-calculator sold prices up 2% http://www.zoopla.co .uk/house-prices/bro wse/southend-on-sea/ ?q=southend%20on%20s ea&search_source =hou se-prices asking prices down .22% house prices did not go up in southend by 14%, shown by Land Registry data[/p][/quote]The survey that said house prices had gone up was not by the airport or SBC but by Halifax. Did you know that as I did not spot it on the War and Peace beating length of boredom you spat out. I might have missed it as after the third word I dozed off with my finger on the tracker ball and I only woke up when the misses prodded me thinking I had snuffed it. Max Impact

8:06pm Tue 29 Jan 13

sensiblelos says...

Max Impact wrote:
sensiblelos wrote:
sensiblelos wrote:
once again, Mr Welch makes out he is an expert in House Prices in the vicinity he is not, he is referring to recent house price trends from the Hailfax. This analysis in itself is not a comprehensive method of determining house values in specific area, say under a flight path, also the increase in house prices stated by the Halifax is based on their own lending and not that of the wider Market. For a more comprehensive comparison http://houseprices.l



andregistry.gov.uk/ this shows values based on all sales prices in the a certain area i.e southend borough(not under a flight path), from the information provided by the House Price calculator of the land registry the increase of values in the southend area increased by 2% from Dec 2011-Dec 012, in the same period the area of the South East house prices increased by 3% based on the data provide by the Land Registry. So "expert" Mr Welch, this is hardly resounding evidence of "strength" in the area.

This compensation issue is not about whether anyone wishes to sell their house at any particular time , it is not about whether there was or is an airport in the area before the purchase of their house in the vicinity of an airport, it is not about a claim culture, it is about those who have been disadvantaged by the expansion of the airport and whether they have a right to make a claim and protect themselves. The claim relates to being in a no better or no worse position, 99% of claimants do not wish to make a claim which causes additional stress and anxiety in their lives, they would rather do without it.

The Council has a responsibility as owner of the airport not to affect the well-being of its residents especially those who live under the flight path, perhaps they will answer the following questions or perhaps those concerned residents will ask the same questions of the Council or the members who voted or agreed to the expansion of the Airport, copy and paste as you see fit;

"Dear Council

You have affected my financial well being, i have a number of questions i would hope you could answer:

1. Before the expansion, Did you ever consider in any way the effects the airport expansion would have on house values under the flight path, if you did please disclose all reports relating to the same.

2. If you did not consider the effects the expansion of the airport why not, did you not consider this was an important issue.

3. The Council has stated on many occasions that the expansion would benefit the area, how can this statement be considered correct if you have not considered that potentially hundreds of thousands of pounds has been wiped off the value of houses under the flight path. How can you establish and prove that the expansion financially benefits the residents of the borough, especially the residents under the flight path if no reports have ever been undertaken.

4. Have you considered the effects the reduced values would have on the income the Council would receive in reduced council tax under the flight path.

You owe a duty of care to me as a resident to protect my general well-being, it is my belief that if you have not considered in any way the effects the expansion would have to those under the flight path, you are failing in that duty.

I look forward to your response"
details of house price increases

http://houseprices.l


andregistry.gov.uk/p


rice-calculator

sold prices up 2%

http://www.zoopla.co


.uk/house-prices/bro


wse/southend-on-sea/


?q=southend%20on%20s


ea&search_source

=hou
se-prices

asking prices down .22%

house prices did not go up in southend by 14%, shown by Land Registry data
The survey that said house prices had gone up was not by the airport or SBC but by Halifax.

Did you know that as I did not spot it on the War and Peace beating length of boredom you spat out.

I might have missed it as after the third word I dozed off with my finger on the tracker ball and I only woke up when the misses prodded me thinking I had snuffed it.
if you can actually read others facts rather than your own made up tripe..

Halifax trends do not correspond with land registry facts which relate to all house prices. halifax values are based on their own mortgage data increases not the actual increase of values in the area which is noted in the land registry data.

oh yes i recall "max impact" the one who is an illegal landlord in the slums of this area, and while i was searching his 1 millionth quote on all matters concerning southend in the echo,loving the sound of his own voice..clearly having nothing better to do during his unemployed days off, i have seen a picture he posted of himself...

http://www.roopedog.
com/wp-content/uploa
ds/2011/02/nerd_comp
uter_repair.jpg
[quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sensiblelos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sensiblelos[/bold] wrote: once again, Mr Welch makes out he is an expert in House Prices in the vicinity he is not, he is referring to recent house price trends from the Hailfax. This analysis in itself is not a comprehensive method of determining house values in specific area, say under a flight path, also the increase in house prices stated by the Halifax is based on their own lending and not that of the wider Market. For a more comprehensive comparison http://houseprices.l andregistry.gov.uk/ this shows values based on all sales prices in the a certain area i.e southend borough(not under a flight path), from the information provided by the House Price calculator of the land registry the increase of values in the southend area increased by 2% from Dec 2011-Dec 012, in the same period the area of the South East house prices increased by 3% based on the data provide by the Land Registry. So "expert" Mr Welch, this is hardly resounding evidence of "strength" in the area. This compensation issue is not about whether anyone wishes to sell their house at any particular time , it is not about whether there was or is an airport in the area before the purchase of their house in the vicinity of an airport, it is not about a claim culture, it is about those who have been disadvantaged by the expansion of the airport and whether they have a right to make a claim and protect themselves. The claim relates to being in a no better or no worse position, 99% of claimants do not wish to make a claim which causes additional stress and anxiety in their lives, they would rather do without it. The Council has a responsibility as owner of the airport not to affect the well-being of its residents especially those who live under the flight path, perhaps they will answer the following questions or perhaps those concerned residents will ask the same questions of the Council or the members who voted or agreed to the expansion of the Airport, copy and paste as you see fit; "Dear Council You have affected my financial well being, i have a number of questions i would hope you could answer: 1. Before the expansion, Did you ever consider in any way the effects the airport expansion would have on house values under the flight path, if you did please disclose all reports relating to the same. 2. If you did not consider the effects the expansion of the airport why not, did you not consider this was an important issue. 3. The Council has stated on many occasions that the expansion would benefit the area, how can this statement be considered correct if you have not considered that potentially hundreds of thousands of pounds has been wiped off the value of houses under the flight path. How can you establish and prove that the expansion financially benefits the residents of the borough, especially the residents under the flight path if no reports have ever been undertaken. 4. Have you considered the effects the reduced values would have on the income the Council would receive in reduced council tax under the flight path. You owe a duty of care to me as a resident to protect my general well-being, it is my belief that if you have not considered in any way the effects the expansion would have to those under the flight path, you are failing in that duty. I look forward to your response"[/p][/quote]details of house price increases http://houseprices.l andregistry.gov.uk/p rice-calculator sold prices up 2% http://www.zoopla.co .uk/house-prices/bro wse/southend-on-sea/ ?q=southend%20on%20s ea&search_source =hou se-prices asking prices down .22% house prices did not go up in southend by 14%, shown by Land Registry data[/p][/quote]The survey that said house prices had gone up was not by the airport or SBC but by Halifax. Did you know that as I did not spot it on the War and Peace beating length of boredom you spat out. I might have missed it as after the third word I dozed off with my finger on the tracker ball and I only woke up when the misses prodded me thinking I had snuffed it.[/p][/quote]if you can actually read others facts rather than your own made up tripe.. Halifax trends do not correspond with land registry facts which relate to all house prices. halifax values are based on their own mortgage data increases not the actual increase of values in the area which is noted in the land registry data. oh yes i recall "max impact" the one who is an illegal landlord in the slums of this area, and while i was searching his 1 millionth quote on all matters concerning southend in the echo,loving the sound of his own voice..clearly having nothing better to do during his unemployed days off, i have seen a picture he posted of himself... http://www.roopedog. com/wp-content/uploa ds/2011/02/nerd_comp uter_repair.jpg sensiblelos

8:18pm Tue 29 Jan 13

Nebs says...

Max Impact wrote:
Nebs wrote:
If prices on average are up by 14%, and theirs are down by 15%, does that mean they will get 29%?
Seems reasonable, it must have been built into the business plan.
How, if prices went up 14% because of the airport and then down 15% that equates to 1% why whould the airport pay the increase?

Nimbys thick and getting thicker.
Thanks for your input Max, as always a cheery happy reply.
Have you spent your £20,000 election winnings yet?
[quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: If prices on average are up by 14%, and theirs are down by 15%, does that mean they will get 29%? Seems reasonable, it must have been built into the business plan.[/p][/quote]How, if prices went up 14% because of the airport and then down 15% that equates to 1% why whould the airport pay the increase? Nimbys thick and getting thicker.[/p][/quote]Thanks for your input Max, as always a cheery happy reply. Have you spent your £20,000 election winnings yet? Nebs

8:36pm Tue 29 Jan 13

Max Impact says...

sensiblelos wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
sensiblelos wrote:
sensiblelos wrote:
once again, Mr Welch makes out he is an expert in House Prices in the vicinity he is not, he is referring to recent house price trends from the Hailfax. This analysis in itself is not a comprehensive method of determining house values in specific area, say under a flight path, also the increase in house prices stated by the Halifax is based on their own lending and not that of the wider Market. For a more comprehensive comparison http://houseprices.l




andregistry.gov.uk/ this shows values based on all sales prices in the a certain area i.e southend borough(not under a flight path), from the information provided by the House Price calculator of the land registry the increase of values in the southend area increased by 2% from Dec 2011-Dec 012, in the same period the area of the South East house prices increased by 3% based on the data provide by the Land Registry. So "expert" Mr Welch, this is hardly resounding evidence of "strength" in the area.

This compensation issue is not about whether anyone wishes to sell their house at any particular time , it is not about whether there was or is an airport in the area before the purchase of their house in the vicinity of an airport, it is not about a claim culture, it is about those who have been disadvantaged by the expansion of the airport and whether they have a right to make a claim and protect themselves. The claim relates to being in a no better or no worse position, 99% of claimants do not wish to make a claim which causes additional stress and anxiety in their lives, they would rather do without it.

The Council has a responsibility as owner of the airport not to affect the well-being of its residents especially those who live under the flight path, perhaps they will answer the following questions or perhaps those concerned residents will ask the same questions of the Council or the members who voted or agreed to the expansion of the Airport, copy and paste as you see fit;

"Dear Council

You have affected my financial well being, i have a number of questions i would hope you could answer:

1. Before the expansion, Did you ever consider in any way the effects the airport expansion would have on house values under the flight path, if you did please disclose all reports relating to the same.

2. If you did not consider the effects the expansion of the airport why not, did you not consider this was an important issue.

3. The Council has stated on many occasions that the expansion would benefit the area, how can this statement be considered correct if you have not considered that potentially hundreds of thousands of pounds has been wiped off the value of houses under the flight path. How can you establish and prove that the expansion financially benefits the residents of the borough, especially the residents under the flight path if no reports have ever been undertaken.

4. Have you considered the effects the reduced values would have on the income the Council would receive in reduced council tax under the flight path.

You owe a duty of care to me as a resident to protect my general well-being, it is my belief that if you have not considered in any way the effects the expansion would have to those under the flight path, you are failing in that duty.

I look forward to your response"
details of house price increases

http://houseprices.l



andregistry.gov.uk/p



rice-calculator

sold prices up 2%

http://www.zoopla.co



.uk/house-prices/bro



wse/southend-on-sea/



?q=southend%20on%20s



ea&search_source


=hou
se-prices

asking prices down .22%

house prices did not go up in southend by 14%, shown by Land Registry data
The survey that said house prices had gone up was not by the airport or SBC but by Halifax.

Did you know that as I did not spot it on the War and Peace beating length of boredom you spat out.

I might have missed it as after the third word I dozed off with my finger on the tracker ball and I only woke up when the misses prodded me thinking I had snuffed it.
if you can actually read others facts rather than your own made up tripe..

Halifax trends do not correspond with land registry facts which relate to all house prices. halifax values are based on their own mortgage data increases not the actual increase of values in the area which is noted in the land registry data.

oh yes i recall "max impact" the one who is an illegal landlord in the slums of this area, and while i was searching his 1 millionth quote on all matters concerning southend in the echo,loving the sound of his own voice..clearly having nothing better to do during his unemployed days off, i have seen a picture he posted of himself...

http://www.roopedog.

com/wp-content/uploa

ds/2011/02/nerd_comp

uter_repair.jpg
I can asure you that I am not and illegal landlord and if you continue to make that remark I might get to meet you in court.

I am have cover that included, any damages should a tenant make a claim for personal injury or property damage arising from incidents connected with the rented property, there is fire cover, flood and theft.

The houses are all registed and are fully maintained, I get British Gas to inspect the boiler every year, there are smoke detectors in EVERY room and carbon monoxide detectors in the living room and all the bed rooms. Every window has a child safety lock which can be quckly removed should there be a fire, at least one window in each upstairs room has a roll up excape ladder underneath it (just open the windown and flip it out)

The front and back doors are double locked, with burglar alarms fitted.

To top it off a fire blanket is provided alongside the cooker as is a c02 fire extinguisher, a second c02 fire extinguisher is installed on the landing.

The electrics are also fully cehcked once a year as is the plumbing, I give tennants a mobile phone number that they can call 24 hours a day and it is always picke dup if not by me a mate who helps maintain the houses.

Now would an illegal landlord do all that?


Not going to use the link you say is me as I have not clue if it could lead to a virus attacking my computer.

Oh and before you ask NO you can NOT rent one of the four houses I have.
[quote][p][bold]sensiblelos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sensiblelos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sensiblelos[/bold] wrote: once again, Mr Welch makes out he is an expert in House Prices in the vicinity he is not, he is referring to recent house price trends from the Hailfax. This analysis in itself is not a comprehensive method of determining house values in specific area, say under a flight path, also the increase in house prices stated by the Halifax is based on their own lending and not that of the wider Market. For a more comprehensive comparison http://houseprices.l andregistry.gov.uk/ this shows values based on all sales prices in the a certain area i.e southend borough(not under a flight path), from the information provided by the House Price calculator of the land registry the increase of values in the southend area increased by 2% from Dec 2011-Dec 012, in the same period the area of the South East house prices increased by 3% based on the data provide by the Land Registry. So "expert" Mr Welch, this is hardly resounding evidence of "strength" in the area. This compensation issue is not about whether anyone wishes to sell their house at any particular time , it is not about whether there was or is an airport in the area before the purchase of their house in the vicinity of an airport, it is not about a claim culture, it is about those who have been disadvantaged by the expansion of the airport and whether they have a right to make a claim and protect themselves. The claim relates to being in a no better or no worse position, 99% of claimants do not wish to make a claim which causes additional stress and anxiety in their lives, they would rather do without it. The Council has a responsibility as owner of the airport not to affect the well-being of its residents especially those who live under the flight path, perhaps they will answer the following questions or perhaps those concerned residents will ask the same questions of the Council or the members who voted or agreed to the expansion of the Airport, copy and paste as you see fit; "Dear Council You have affected my financial well being, i have a number of questions i would hope you could answer: 1. Before the expansion, Did you ever consider in any way the effects the airport expansion would have on house values under the flight path, if you did please disclose all reports relating to the same. 2. If you did not consider the effects the expansion of the airport why not, did you not consider this was an important issue. 3. The Council has stated on many occasions that the expansion would benefit the area, how can this statement be considered correct if you have not considered that potentially hundreds of thousands of pounds has been wiped off the value of houses under the flight path. How can you establish and prove that the expansion financially benefits the residents of the borough, especially the residents under the flight path if no reports have ever been undertaken. 4. Have you considered the effects the reduced values would have on the income the Council would receive in reduced council tax under the flight path. You owe a duty of care to me as a resident to protect my general well-being, it is my belief that if you have not considered in any way the effects the expansion would have to those under the flight path, you are failing in that duty. I look forward to your response"[/p][/quote]details of house price increases http://houseprices.l andregistry.gov.uk/p rice-calculator sold prices up 2% http://www.zoopla.co .uk/house-prices/bro wse/southend-on-sea/ ?q=southend%20on%20s ea&search_source =hou se-prices asking prices down .22% house prices did not go up in southend by 14%, shown by Land Registry data[/p][/quote]The survey that said house prices had gone up was not by the airport or SBC but by Halifax. Did you know that as I did not spot it on the War and Peace beating length of boredom you spat out. I might have missed it as after the third word I dozed off with my finger on the tracker ball and I only woke up when the misses prodded me thinking I had snuffed it.[/p][/quote]if you can actually read others facts rather than your own made up tripe.. Halifax trends do not correspond with land registry facts which relate to all house prices. halifax values are based on their own mortgage data increases not the actual increase of values in the area which is noted in the land registry data. oh yes i recall "max impact" the one who is an illegal landlord in the slums of this area, and while i was searching his 1 millionth quote on all matters concerning southend in the echo,loving the sound of his own voice..clearly having nothing better to do during his unemployed days off, i have seen a picture he posted of himself... http://www.roopedog. com/wp-content/uploa ds/2011/02/nerd_comp uter_repair.jpg[/p][/quote]I can asure you that I am not and illegal landlord and if you continue to make that remark I might get to meet you in court. I am have cover that included, any damages should a tenant make a claim for personal injury or property damage arising from incidents connected with the rented property, there is fire cover, flood and theft. The houses are all registed and are fully maintained, I get British Gas to inspect the boiler every year, there are smoke detectors in EVERY room and carbon monoxide detectors in the living room and all the bed rooms. Every window has a child safety lock which can be quckly removed should there be a fire, at least one window in each upstairs room has a roll up excape ladder underneath it (just open the windown and flip it out) The front and back doors are double locked, with burglar alarms fitted. To top it off a fire blanket is provided alongside the cooker as is a c02 fire extinguisher, a second c02 fire extinguisher is installed on the landing. The electrics are also fully cehcked once a year as is the plumbing, I give tennants a mobile phone number that they can call 24 hours a day and it is always picke dup if not by me a mate who helps maintain the houses. Now would an illegal landlord do all that? Not going to use the link you say is me as I have not clue if it could lead to a virus attacking my computer. Oh and before you ask NO you can NOT rent one of the four houses I have. Max Impact

8:40pm Tue 29 Jan 13

Max Impact says...

Nebs wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
Nebs wrote:
If prices on average are up by 14%, and theirs are down by 15%, does that mean they will get 29%?
Seems reasonable, it must have been built into the business plan.
How, if prices went up 14% because of the airport and then down 15% that equates to 1% why whould the airport pay the increase?

Nimbys thick and getting thicker.
Thanks for your input Max, as always a cheery happy reply.
Have you spent your £20,000 election winnings yet?
That went ages ago, banked for future use.
[quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: If prices on average are up by 14%, and theirs are down by 15%, does that mean they will get 29%? Seems reasonable, it must have been built into the business plan.[/p][/quote]How, if prices went up 14% because of the airport and then down 15% that equates to 1% why whould the airport pay the increase? Nimbys thick and getting thicker.[/p][/quote]Thanks for your input Max, as always a cheery happy reply. Have you spent your £20,000 election winnings yet?[/p][/quote]That went ages ago, banked for future use. Max Impact

8:56pm Tue 29 Jan 13

sensiblelos says...

Max Impact wrote:
sensiblelos wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
sensiblelos wrote:
sensiblelos wrote:
once again, Mr Welch makes out he is an expert in House Prices in the vicinity he is not, he is referring to recent house price trends from the Hailfax. This analysis in itself is not a comprehensive method of determining house values in specific area, say under a flight path, also the increase in house prices stated by the Halifax is based on their own lending and not that of the wider Market. For a more comprehensive comparison http://houseprices.l





andregistry.gov.uk/ this shows values based on all sales prices in the a certain area i.e southend borough(not under a flight path), from the information provided by the House Price calculator of the land registry the increase of values in the southend area increased by 2% from Dec 2011-Dec 012, in the same period the area of the South East house prices increased by 3% based on the data provide by the Land Registry. So "expert" Mr Welch, this is hardly resounding evidence of "strength" in the area.

This compensation issue is not about whether anyone wishes to sell their house at any particular time , it is not about whether there was or is an airport in the area before the purchase of their house in the vicinity of an airport, it is not about a claim culture, it is about those who have been disadvantaged by the expansion of the airport and whether they have a right to make a claim and protect themselves. The claim relates to being in a no better or no worse position, 99% of claimants do not wish to make a claim which causes additional stress and anxiety in their lives, they would rather do without it.

The Council has a responsibility as owner of the airport not to affect the well-being of its residents especially those who live under the flight path, perhaps they will answer the following questions or perhaps those concerned residents will ask the same questions of the Council or the members who voted or agreed to the expansion of the Airport, copy and paste as you see fit;

"Dear Council

You have affected my financial well being, i have a number of questions i would hope you could answer:

1. Before the expansion, Did you ever consider in any way the effects the airport expansion would have on house values under the flight path, if you did please disclose all reports relating to the same.

2. If you did not consider the effects the expansion of the airport why not, did you not consider this was an important issue.

3. The Council has stated on many occasions that the expansion would benefit the area, how can this statement be considered correct if you have not considered that potentially hundreds of thousands of pounds has been wiped off the value of houses under the flight path. How can you establish and prove that the expansion financially benefits the residents of the borough, especially the residents under the flight path if no reports have ever been undertaken.

4. Have you considered the effects the reduced values would have on the income the Council would receive in reduced council tax under the flight path.

You owe a duty of care to me as a resident to protect my general well-being, it is my belief that if you have not considered in any way the effects the expansion would have to those under the flight path, you are failing in that duty.

I look forward to your response"
details of house price increases

http://houseprices.l




andregistry.gov.uk/p




rice-calculator

sold prices up 2%

http://www.zoopla.co




.uk/house-prices/bro




wse/southend-on-sea/




?q=southend%20on%20s




ea&search_source



=hou
se-prices

asking prices down .22%

house prices did not go up in southend by 14%, shown by Land Registry data
The survey that said house prices had gone up was not by the airport or SBC but by Halifax.

Did you know that as I did not spot it on the War and Peace beating length of boredom you spat out.

I might have missed it as after the third word I dozed off with my finger on the tracker ball and I only woke up when the misses prodded me thinking I had snuffed it.
if you can actually read others facts rather than your own made up tripe..

Halifax trends do not correspond with land registry facts which relate to all house prices. halifax values are based on their own mortgage data increases not the actual increase of values in the area which is noted in the land registry data.

oh yes i recall "max impact" the one who is an illegal landlord in the slums of this area, and while i was searching his 1 millionth quote on all matters concerning southend in the echo,loving the sound of his own voice..clearly having nothing better to do during his unemployed days off, i have seen a picture he posted of himself...

http://www.roopedog.


com/wp-content/uploa


ds/2011/02/nerd_comp


uter_repair.jpg
I can asure you that I am not and illegal landlord and if you continue to make that remark I might get to meet you in court.

I am have cover that included, any damages should a tenant make a claim for personal injury or property damage arising from incidents connected with the rented property, there is fire cover, flood and theft.

The houses are all registed and are fully maintained, I get British Gas to inspect the boiler every year, there are smoke detectors in EVERY room and carbon monoxide detectors in the living room and all the bed rooms. Every window has a child safety lock which can be quckly removed should there be a fire, at least one window in each upstairs room has a roll up excape ladder underneath it (just open the windown and flip it out)

The front and back doors are double locked, with burglar alarms fitted.

To top it off a fire blanket is provided alongside the cooker as is a c02 fire extinguisher, a second c02 fire extinguisher is installed on the landing.

The electrics are also fully cehcked once a year as is the plumbing, I give tennants a mobile phone number that they can call 24 hours a day and it is always picke dup if not by me a mate who helps maintain the houses.

Now would an illegal landlord do all that?


Not going to use the link you say is me as I have not clue if it could lead to a virus attacking my computer.

Oh and before you ask NO you can NOT rent one of the four houses I have.
its really interesting to see that you have the time to read the dummy guide of how to be a good landlord.....

i do recall the millionth post you made in the echo , that you said that you would "evict" any tenant who would be unfortunate enough to lose their job, this is a quote, that shows all how unpleasant you really are , and it shows that your are acting illegally if you do evict any person who loses their job,i do not know you i do not wish to know you, but from what you have previously stated your are acting illegally if you actually evict anyone for losing their job,, but perhaps you just cant remember what you write on these posts or it shows that you really are a made up person sitting behind a computer screen who has nothing better to do . your posts and remarks are still on this website , i am not making it up i think its number 1,000,001....

before you continue max , think....stay over your side of the playground, keep to the subject matter and so will i..
[quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sensiblelos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sensiblelos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sensiblelos[/bold] wrote: once again, Mr Welch makes out he is an expert in House Prices in the vicinity he is not, he is referring to recent house price trends from the Hailfax. This analysis in itself is not a comprehensive method of determining house values in specific area, say under a flight path, also the increase in house prices stated by the Halifax is based on their own lending and not that of the wider Market. For a more comprehensive comparison http://houseprices.l andregistry.gov.uk/ this shows values based on all sales prices in the a certain area i.e southend borough(not under a flight path), from the information provided by the House Price calculator of the land registry the increase of values in the southend area increased by 2% from Dec 2011-Dec 012, in the same period the area of the South East house prices increased by 3% based on the data provide by the Land Registry. So "expert" Mr Welch, this is hardly resounding evidence of "strength" in the area. This compensation issue is not about whether anyone wishes to sell their house at any particular time , it is not about whether there was or is an airport in the area before the purchase of their house in the vicinity of an airport, it is not about a claim culture, it is about those who have been disadvantaged by the expansion of the airport and whether they have a right to make a claim and protect themselves. The claim relates to being in a no better or no worse position, 99% of claimants do not wish to make a claim which causes additional stress and anxiety in their lives, they would rather do without it. The Council has a responsibility as owner of the airport not to affect the well-being of its residents especially those who live under the flight path, perhaps they will answer the following questions or perhaps those concerned residents will ask the same questions of the Council or the members who voted or agreed to the expansion of the Airport, copy and paste as you see fit; "Dear Council You have affected my financial well being, i have a number of questions i would hope you could answer: 1. Before the expansion, Did you ever consider in any way the effects the airport expansion would have on house values under the flight path, if you did please disclose all reports relating to the same. 2. If you did not consider the effects the expansion of the airport why not, did you not consider this was an important issue. 3. The Council has stated on many occasions that the expansion would benefit the area, how can this statement be considered correct if you have not considered that potentially hundreds of thousands of pounds has been wiped off the value of houses under the flight path. How can you establish and prove that the expansion financially benefits the residents of the borough, especially the residents under the flight path if no reports have ever been undertaken. 4. Have you considered the effects the reduced values would have on the income the Council would receive in reduced council tax under the flight path. You owe a duty of care to me as a resident to protect my general well-being, it is my belief that if you have not considered in any way the effects the expansion would have to those under the flight path, you are failing in that duty. I look forward to your response"[/p][/quote]details of house price increases http://houseprices.l andregistry.gov.uk/p rice-calculator sold prices up 2% http://www.zoopla.co .uk/house-prices/bro wse/southend-on-sea/ ?q=southend%20on%20s ea&search_source =hou se-prices asking prices down .22% house prices did not go up in southend by 14%, shown by Land Registry data[/p][/quote]The survey that said house prices had gone up was not by the airport or SBC but by Halifax. Did you know that as I did not spot it on the War and Peace beating length of boredom you spat out. I might have missed it as after the third word I dozed off with my finger on the tracker ball and I only woke up when the misses prodded me thinking I had snuffed it.[/p][/quote]if you can actually read others facts rather than your own made up tripe.. Halifax trends do not correspond with land registry facts which relate to all house prices. halifax values are based on their own mortgage data increases not the actual increase of values in the area which is noted in the land registry data. oh yes i recall "max impact" the one who is an illegal landlord in the slums of this area, and while i was searching his 1 millionth quote on all matters concerning southend in the echo,loving the sound of his own voice..clearly having nothing better to do during his unemployed days off, i have seen a picture he posted of himself... http://www.roopedog. com/wp-content/uploa ds/2011/02/nerd_comp uter_repair.jpg[/p][/quote]I can asure you that I am not and illegal landlord and if you continue to make that remark I might get to meet you in court. I am have cover that included, any damages should a tenant make a claim for personal injury or property damage arising from incidents connected with the rented property, there is fire cover, flood and theft. The houses are all registed and are fully maintained, I get British Gas to inspect the boiler every year, there are smoke detectors in EVERY room and carbon monoxide detectors in the living room and all the bed rooms. Every window has a child safety lock which can be quckly removed should there be a fire, at least one window in each upstairs room has a roll up excape ladder underneath it (just open the windown and flip it out) The front and back doors are double locked, with burglar alarms fitted. To top it off a fire blanket is provided alongside the cooker as is a c02 fire extinguisher, a second c02 fire extinguisher is installed on the landing. The electrics are also fully cehcked once a year as is the plumbing, I give tennants a mobile phone number that they can call 24 hours a day and it is always picke dup if not by me a mate who helps maintain the houses. Now would an illegal landlord do all that? Not going to use the link you say is me as I have not clue if it could lead to a virus attacking my computer. Oh and before you ask NO you can NOT rent one of the four houses I have.[/p][/quote]its really interesting to see that you have the time to read the dummy guide of how to be a good landlord..... i do recall the millionth post you made in the echo , that you said that you would "evict" any tenant who would be unfortunate enough to lose their job, this is a quote, that shows all how unpleasant you really are , and it shows that your are acting illegally if you do evict any person who loses their job,i do not know you i do not wish to know you, but from what you have previously stated your are acting illegally if you actually evict anyone for losing their job,, but perhaps you just cant remember what you write on these posts or it shows that you really are a made up person sitting behind a computer screen who has nothing better to do . your posts and remarks are still on this website , i am not making it up i think its number 1,000,001.... before you continue max , think....stay over your side of the playground, keep to the subject matter and so will i.. sensiblelos

8:56pm Tue 29 Jan 13

Diannah says...

jolllyboy wrote:
Its absolute tosh that it was quieter now than in the 60's - the runway is longer therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Engines are larger and I promise you the noise is horrendous when they pass overhead. It will vary road to road considerably so when one road says it is not too bad they should try another !I dont care a fig about the loss of value of the house I care about the noise in my garden when you cannot hear what someone is saying ! I agree there is nothing to stop the airport getting a longer runway. i wish they would improve the roads around there though . the Tesco roundabout is a nighgtmare incredibly dangerous and it is not clear the route through to rochford.
I had to have a little laugh at your comment about the runway being longer - therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Do you seriously believe that planes use the whole of the runway each time they take off and land?

Wouldn't it be an interesting experiment to bring back the carvairs for just one day instead of the current planes. Wouldn't need to turn off the tv for 20 seconds then - it would do it all by itself!
[quote][p][bold]jolllyboy[/bold] wrote: Its absolute tosh that it was quieter now than in the 60's - the runway is longer therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Engines are larger and I promise you the noise is horrendous when they pass overhead. It will vary road to road considerably so when one road says it is not too bad they should try another !I dont care a fig about the loss of value of the house I care about the noise in my garden when you cannot hear what someone is saying ! I agree there is nothing to stop the airport getting a longer runway. i wish they would improve the roads around there though . the Tesco roundabout is a nighgtmare incredibly dangerous and it is not clear the route through to rochford.[/p][/quote]I had to have a little laugh at your comment about the runway being longer - therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Do you seriously believe that planes use the whole of the runway each time they take off and land? Wouldn't it be an interesting experiment to bring back the carvairs for just one day instead of the current planes. Wouldn't need to turn off the tv for 20 seconds then - it would do it all by itself! Diannah

10:40pm Tue 29 Jan 13

jayman says...

Diannah wrote:
jolllyboy wrote:
Its absolute tosh that it was quieter now than in the 60's - the runway is longer therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Engines are larger and I promise you the noise is horrendous when they pass overhead. It will vary road to road considerably so when one road says it is not too bad they should try another !I dont care a fig about the loss of value of the house I care about the noise in my garden when you cannot hear what someone is saying ! I agree there is nothing to stop the airport getting a longer runway. i wish they would improve the roads around there though . the Tesco roundabout is a nighgtmare incredibly dangerous and it is not clear the route through to rochford.
I had to have a little laugh at your comment about the runway being longer - therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Do you seriously believe that planes use the whole of the runway each time they take off and land?

Wouldn't it be an interesting experiment to bring back the carvairs for just one day instead of the current planes. Wouldn't need to turn off the tv for 20 seconds then - it would do it all by itself!
No one cares about carvairs, Sopwith camels or other antiquated straw man argument material. what concerns many people in this day and age are the loud, winged, orange and white monstrosities that have started to fill up the sky above where babies are trying to sleep and where people have made personal investments with their 'own' money.

its not a technical specification, its a strong emotive lament by the sorry sods that live there.
[quote][p][bold]Diannah[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jolllyboy[/bold] wrote: Its absolute tosh that it was quieter now than in the 60's - the runway is longer therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Engines are larger and I promise you the noise is horrendous when they pass overhead. It will vary road to road considerably so when one road says it is not too bad they should try another !I dont care a fig about the loss of value of the house I care about the noise in my garden when you cannot hear what someone is saying ! I agree there is nothing to stop the airport getting a longer runway. i wish they would improve the roads around there though . the Tesco roundabout is a nighgtmare incredibly dangerous and it is not clear the route through to rochford.[/p][/quote]I had to have a little laugh at your comment about the runway being longer - therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Do you seriously believe that planes use the whole of the runway each time they take off and land? Wouldn't it be an interesting experiment to bring back the carvairs for just one day instead of the current planes. Wouldn't need to turn off the tv for 20 seconds then - it would do it all by itself![/p][/quote]No one cares about carvairs, Sopwith camels or other antiquated straw man argument material. what concerns many people in this day and age are the loud, winged, orange and white monstrosities that have started to fill up the sky above where babies are trying to sleep and where people have made personal investments with their 'own' money. its not a technical specification, its a strong emotive lament by the sorry sods that live there. jayman

10:52pm Tue 29 Jan 13

RichardAC says...

Diannah wrote:
jolllyboy wrote: Its absolute tosh that it was quieter now than in the 60's - the runway is longer therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Engines are larger and I promise you the noise is horrendous when they pass overhead. It will vary road to road considerably so when one road says it is not too bad they should try another !I dont care a fig about the loss of value of the house I care about the noise in my garden when you cannot hear what someone is saying ! I agree there is nothing to stop the airport getting a longer runway. i wish they would improve the roads around there though . the Tesco roundabout is a nighgtmare incredibly dangerous and it is not clear the route through to rochford.
I had to have a little laugh at your comment about the runway being longer - therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Do you seriously believe that planes use the whole of the runway each time they take off and land? Wouldn't it be an interesting experiment to bring back the carvairs for just one day instead of the current planes. Wouldn't need to turn off the tv for 20 seconds then - it would do it all by itself!
well said Diannah.
These youngsters don't know they're born. Whinge, whinge, whinge. Their little world centres on themselves and no one else.
The airport is a great success. I can't wait for more flights winging their way over Leigh.
And for Jayman to get even more annoyed. It's sooo satisfying.
[quote][p][bold]Diannah[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jolllyboy[/bold] wrote: Its absolute tosh that it was quieter now than in the 60's - the runway is longer therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Engines are larger and I promise you the noise is horrendous when they pass overhead. It will vary road to road considerably so when one road says it is not too bad they should try another !I dont care a fig about the loss of value of the house I care about the noise in my garden when you cannot hear what someone is saying ! I agree there is nothing to stop the airport getting a longer runway. i wish they would improve the roads around there though . the Tesco roundabout is a nighgtmare incredibly dangerous and it is not clear the route through to rochford.[/p][/quote]I had to have a little laugh at your comment about the runway being longer - therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Do you seriously believe that planes use the whole of the runway each time they take off and land? Wouldn't it be an interesting experiment to bring back the carvairs for just one day instead of the current planes. Wouldn't need to turn off the tv for 20 seconds then - it would do it all by itself![/p][/quote]well said Diannah. These youngsters don't know they're born. Whinge, whinge, whinge. Their little world centres on themselves and no one else. The airport is a great success. I can't wait for more flights winging their way over Leigh. And for Jayman to get even more annoyed. It's sooo satisfying. RichardAC

10:55pm Tue 29 Jan 13

Max Impact says...

sensiblelos wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
sensiblelos wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
sensiblelos wrote:
sensiblelos wrote:
once again, Mr Welch makes out he is an expert in House Prices in the vicinity he is not, he is referring to recent house price trends from the Hailfax. This analysis in itself is not a comprehensive method of determining house values in specific area, say under a flight path, also the increase in house prices stated by the Halifax is based on their own lending and not that of the wider Market. For a more comprehensive comparison http://houseprices.l






andregistry.gov.uk/ this shows values based on all sales prices in the a certain area i.e southend borough(not under a flight path), from the information provided by the House Price calculator of the land registry the increase of values in the southend area increased by 2% from Dec 2011-Dec 012, in the same period the area of the South East house prices increased by 3% based on the data provide by the Land Registry. So "expert" Mr Welch, this is hardly resounding evidence of "strength" in the area.

This compensation issue is not about whether anyone wishes to sell their house at any particular time , it is not about whether there was or is an airport in the area before the purchase of their house in the vicinity of an airport, it is not about a claim culture, it is about those who have been disadvantaged by the expansion of the airport and whether they have a right to make a claim and protect themselves. The claim relates to being in a no better or no worse position, 99% of claimants do not wish to make a claim which causes additional stress and anxiety in their lives, they would rather do without it.

The Council has a responsibility as owner of the airport not to affect the well-being of its residents especially those who live under the flight path, perhaps they will answer the following questions or perhaps those concerned residents will ask the same questions of the Council or the members who voted or agreed to the expansion of the Airport, copy and paste as you see fit;

"Dear Council

You have affected my financial well being, i have a number of questions i would hope you could answer:

1. Before the expansion, Did you ever consider in any way the effects the airport expansion would have on house values under the flight path, if you did please disclose all reports relating to the same.

2. If you did not consider the effects the expansion of the airport why not, did you not consider this was an important issue.

3. The Council has stated on many occasions that the expansion would benefit the area, how can this statement be considered correct if you have not considered that potentially hundreds of thousands of pounds has been wiped off the value of houses under the flight path. How can you establish and prove that the expansion financially benefits the residents of the borough, especially the residents under the flight path if no reports have ever been undertaken.

4. Have you considered the effects the reduced values would have on the income the Council would receive in reduced council tax under the flight path.

You owe a duty of care to me as a resident to protect my general well-being, it is my belief that if you have not considered in any way the effects the expansion would have to those under the flight path, you are failing in that duty.

I look forward to your response"
details of house price increases

http://houseprices.l





andregistry.gov.uk/p





rice-calculator

sold prices up 2%

http://www.zoopla.co





.uk/house-prices/bro





wse/southend-on-sea/





?q=southend%20on%20s





ea&search_source




=hou
se-prices

asking prices down .22%

house prices did not go up in southend by 14%, shown by Land Registry data
The survey that said house prices had gone up was not by the airport or SBC but by Halifax.

Did you know that as I did not spot it on the War and Peace beating length of boredom you spat out.

I might have missed it as after the third word I dozed off with my finger on the tracker ball and I only woke up when the misses prodded me thinking I had snuffed it.
if you can actually read others facts rather than your own made up tripe..

Halifax trends do not correspond with land registry facts which relate to all house prices. halifax values are based on their own mortgage data increases not the actual increase of values in the area which is noted in the land registry data.

oh yes i recall "max impact" the one who is an illegal landlord in the slums of this area, and while i was searching his 1 millionth quote on all matters concerning southend in the echo,loving the sound of his own voice..clearly having nothing better to do during his unemployed days off, i have seen a picture he posted of himself...

http://www.roopedog.



com/wp-content/uploa



ds/2011/02/nerd_comp



uter_repair.jpg
I can asure you that I am not and illegal landlord and if you continue to make that remark I might get to meet you in court.

I am have cover that included, any damages should a tenant make a claim for personal injury or property damage arising from incidents connected with the rented property, there is fire cover, flood and theft.

The houses are all registed and are fully maintained, I get British Gas to inspect the boiler every year, there are smoke detectors in EVERY room and carbon monoxide detectors in the living room and all the bed rooms. Every window has a child safety lock which can be quckly removed should there be a fire, at least one window in each upstairs room has a roll up excape ladder underneath it (just open the windown and flip it out)

The front and back doors are double locked, with burglar alarms fitted.

To top it off a fire blanket is provided alongside the cooker as is a c02 fire extinguisher, a second c02 fire extinguisher is installed on the landing.

The electrics are also fully cehcked once a year as is the plumbing, I give tennants a mobile phone number that they can call 24 hours a day and it is always picke dup if not by me a mate who helps maintain the houses.

Now would an illegal landlord do all that?


Not going to use the link you say is me as I have not clue if it could lead to a virus attacking my computer.

Oh and before you ask NO you can NOT rent one of the four houses I have.
its really interesting to see that you have the time to read the dummy guide of how to be a good landlord.....

i do recall the millionth post you made in the echo , that you said that you would "evict" any tenant who would be unfortunate enough to lose their job, this is a quote, that shows all how unpleasant you really are , and it shows that your are acting illegally if you do evict any person who loses their job,i do not know you i do not wish to know you, but from what you have previously stated your are acting illegally if you actually evict anyone for losing their job,, but perhaps you just cant remember what you write on these posts or it shows that you really are a made up person sitting behind a computer screen who has nothing better to do . your posts and remarks are still on this website , i am not making it up i think its number 1,000,001....

before you continue max , think....stay over your side of the playground, keep to the subject matter and so will i..
The contract signed states that I can issue a one month notice to any tennant at any time.

So stay in your bedsit and contiune picking your nose.
[quote][p][bold]sensiblelos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sensiblelos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sensiblelos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sensiblelos[/bold] wrote: once again, Mr Welch makes out he is an expert in House Prices in the vicinity he is not, he is referring to recent house price trends from the Hailfax. This analysis in itself is not a comprehensive method of determining house values in specific area, say under a flight path, also the increase in house prices stated by the Halifax is based on their own lending and not that of the wider Market. For a more comprehensive comparison http://houseprices.l andregistry.gov.uk/ this shows values based on all sales prices in the a certain area i.e southend borough(not under a flight path), from the information provided by the House Price calculator of the land registry the increase of values in the southend area increased by 2% from Dec 2011-Dec 012, in the same period the area of the South East house prices increased by 3% based on the data provide by the Land Registry. So "expert" Mr Welch, this is hardly resounding evidence of "strength" in the area. This compensation issue is not about whether anyone wishes to sell their house at any particular time , it is not about whether there was or is an airport in the area before the purchase of their house in the vicinity of an airport, it is not about a claim culture, it is about those who have been disadvantaged by the expansion of the airport and whether they have a right to make a claim and protect themselves. The claim relates to being in a no better or no worse position, 99% of claimants do not wish to make a claim which causes additional stress and anxiety in their lives, they would rather do without it. The Council has a responsibility as owner of the airport not to affect the well-being of its residents especially those who live under the flight path, perhaps they will answer the following questions or perhaps those concerned residents will ask the same questions of the Council or the members who voted or agreed to the expansion of the Airport, copy and paste as you see fit; "Dear Council You have affected my financial well being, i have a number of questions i would hope you could answer: 1. Before the expansion, Did you ever consider in any way the effects the airport expansion would have on house values under the flight path, if you did please disclose all reports relating to the same. 2. If you did not consider the effects the expansion of the airport why not, did you not consider this was an important issue. 3. The Council has stated on many occasions that the expansion would benefit the area, how can this statement be considered correct if you have not considered that potentially hundreds of thousands of pounds has been wiped off the value of houses under the flight path. How can you establish and prove that the expansion financially benefits the residents of the borough, especially the residents under the flight path if no reports have ever been undertaken. 4. Have you considered the effects the reduced values would have on the income the Council would receive in reduced council tax under the flight path. You owe a duty of care to me as a resident to protect my general well-being, it is my belief that if you have not considered in any way the effects the expansion would have to those under the flight path, you are failing in that duty. I look forward to your response"[/p][/quote]details of house price increases http://houseprices.l andregistry.gov.uk/p rice-calculator sold prices up 2% http://www.zoopla.co .uk/house-prices/bro wse/southend-on-sea/ ?q=southend%20on%20s ea&search_source =hou se-prices asking prices down .22% house prices did not go up in southend by 14%, shown by Land Registry data[/p][/quote]The survey that said house prices had gone up was not by the airport or SBC but by Halifax. Did you know that as I did not spot it on the War and Peace beating length of boredom you spat out. I might have missed it as after the third word I dozed off with my finger on the tracker ball and I only woke up when the misses prodded me thinking I had snuffed it.[/p][/quote]if you can actually read others facts rather than your own made up tripe.. Halifax trends do not correspond with land registry facts which relate to all house prices. halifax values are based on their own mortgage data increases not the actual increase of values in the area which is noted in the land registry data. oh yes i recall "max impact" the one who is an illegal landlord in the slums of this area, and while i was searching his 1 millionth quote on all matters concerning southend in the echo,loving the sound of his own voice..clearly having nothing better to do during his unemployed days off, i have seen a picture he posted of himself... http://www.roopedog. com/wp-content/uploa ds/2011/02/nerd_comp uter_repair.jpg[/p][/quote]I can asure you that I am not and illegal landlord and if you continue to make that remark I might get to meet you in court. I am have cover that included, any damages should a tenant make a claim for personal injury or property damage arising from incidents connected with the rented property, there is fire cover, flood and theft. The houses are all registed and are fully maintained, I get British Gas to inspect the boiler every year, there are smoke detectors in EVERY room and carbon monoxide detectors in the living room and all the bed rooms. Every window has a child safety lock which can be quckly removed should there be a fire, at least one window in each upstairs room has a roll up excape ladder underneath it (just open the windown and flip it out) The front and back doors are double locked, with burglar alarms fitted. To top it off a fire blanket is provided alongside the cooker as is a c02 fire extinguisher, a second c02 fire extinguisher is installed on the landing. The electrics are also fully cehcked once a year as is the plumbing, I give tennants a mobile phone number that they can call 24 hours a day and it is always picke dup if not by me a mate who helps maintain the houses. Now would an illegal landlord do all that? Not going to use the link you say is me as I have not clue if it could lead to a virus attacking my computer. Oh and before you ask NO you can NOT rent one of the four houses I have.[/p][/quote]its really interesting to see that you have the time to read the dummy guide of how to be a good landlord..... i do recall the millionth post you made in the echo , that you said that you would "evict" any tenant who would be unfortunate enough to lose their job, this is a quote, that shows all how unpleasant you really are , and it shows that your are acting illegally if you do evict any person who loses their job,i do not know you i do not wish to know you, but from what you have previously stated your are acting illegally if you actually evict anyone for losing their job,, but perhaps you just cant remember what you write on these posts or it shows that you really are a made up person sitting behind a computer screen who has nothing better to do . your posts and remarks are still on this website , i am not making it up i think its number 1,000,001.... before you continue max , think....stay over your side of the playground, keep to the subject matter and so will i..[/p][/quote]The contract signed states that I can issue a one month notice to any tennant at any time. So stay in your bedsit and contiune picking your nose. Max Impact

11:02pm Tue 29 Jan 13

Max Impact says...

jayman wrote:
Diannah wrote:
jolllyboy wrote:
Its absolute tosh that it was quieter now than in the 60's - the runway is longer therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Engines are larger and I promise you the noise is horrendous when they pass overhead. It will vary road to road considerably so when one road says it is not too bad they should try another !I dont care a fig about the loss of value of the house I care about the noise in my garden when you cannot hear what someone is saying ! I agree there is nothing to stop the airport getting a longer runway. i wish they would improve the roads around there though . the Tesco roundabout is a nighgtmare incredibly dangerous and it is not clear the route through to rochford.
I had to have a little laugh at your comment about the runway being longer - therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Do you seriously believe that planes use the whole of the runway each time they take off and land?

Wouldn't it be an interesting experiment to bring back the carvairs for just one day instead of the current planes. Wouldn't need to turn off the tv for 20 seconds then - it would do it all by itself!
No one cares about carvairs, Sopwith camels or other antiquated straw man argument material. what concerns many people in this day and age are the loud, winged, orange and white monstrosities that have started to fill up the sky above where babies are trying to sleep and where people have made personal investments with their 'own' money.

its not a technical specification, its a strong emotive lament by the sorry sods that live there.
Compairing the quite moden aircraft to the much LOUDER older aircraft is valid.

The moden jet engine is far quieter than than the older jet engines, if you don't know or under stand that FACT than you have lost the argument already.

You say and I quite" fill up the sky above where babies are trying to sleep "

So babies are sleeping in the sky now are they, please do tell us how they hover in mid air, how do they keep warm, how do Mummy and Daddy reach them?

Please these are improtant little bits of information we need to know, are they magic babies do they process unholy powers and what about dirty nappy do they bomb us with them.

Details man fill in the details!
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Diannah[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jolllyboy[/bold] wrote: Its absolute tosh that it was quieter now than in the 60's - the runway is longer therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Engines are larger and I promise you the noise is horrendous when they pass overhead. It will vary road to road considerably so when one road says it is not too bad they should try another !I dont care a fig about the loss of value of the house I care about the noise in my garden when you cannot hear what someone is saying ! I agree there is nothing to stop the airport getting a longer runway. i wish they would improve the roads around there though . the Tesco roundabout is a nighgtmare incredibly dangerous and it is not clear the route through to rochford.[/p][/quote]I had to have a little laugh at your comment about the runway being longer - therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Do you seriously believe that planes use the whole of the runway each time they take off and land? Wouldn't it be an interesting experiment to bring back the carvairs for just one day instead of the current planes. Wouldn't need to turn off the tv for 20 seconds then - it would do it all by itself![/p][/quote]No one cares about carvairs, Sopwith camels or other antiquated straw man argument material. what concerns many people in this day and age are the loud, winged, orange and white monstrosities that have started to fill up the sky above where babies are trying to sleep and where people have made personal investments with their 'own' money. its not a technical specification, its a strong emotive lament by the sorry sods that live there.[/p][/quote]Compairing the quite moden aircraft to the much LOUDER older aircraft is valid. The moden jet engine is far quieter than than the older jet engines, if you don't know or under stand that FACT than you have lost the argument already. You say and I quite" fill up the sky above where babies are trying to sleep " So babies are sleeping in the sky now are they, please do tell us how they hover in mid air, how do they keep warm, how do Mummy and Daddy reach them? Please these are improtant little bits of information we need to know, are they magic babies do they process unholy powers and what about dirty nappy do they bomb us with them. Details man fill in the details! Max Impact

11:15pm Tue 29 Jan 13

jayman says...

Max Impact wrote:
jayman wrote:
Diannah wrote:
jolllyboy wrote:
Its absolute tosh that it was quieter now than in the 60's - the runway is longer therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Engines are larger and I promise you the noise is horrendous when they pass overhead. It will vary road to road considerably so when one road says it is not too bad they should try another !I dont care a fig about the loss of value of the house I care about the noise in my garden when you cannot hear what someone is saying ! I agree there is nothing to stop the airport getting a longer runway. i wish they would improve the roads around there though . the Tesco roundabout is a nighgtmare incredibly dangerous and it is not clear the route through to rochford.
I had to have a little laugh at your comment about the runway being longer - therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Do you seriously believe that planes use the whole of the runway each time they take off and land?

Wouldn't it be an interesting experiment to bring back the carvairs for just one day instead of the current planes. Wouldn't need to turn off the tv for 20 seconds then - it would do it all by itself!
No one cares about carvairs, Sopwith camels or other antiquated straw man argument material. what concerns many people in this day and age are the loud, winged, orange and white monstrosities that have started to fill up the sky above where babies are trying to sleep and where people have made personal investments with their 'own' money.

its not a technical specification, its a strong emotive lament by the sorry sods that live there.
Compairing the quite moden aircraft to the much LOUDER older aircraft is valid.

The moden jet engine is far quieter than than the older jet engines, if you don't know or under stand that FACT than you have lost the argument already.

You say and I quite" fill up the sky above where babies are trying to sleep "

So babies are sleeping in the sky now are they, please do tell us how they hover in mid air, how do they keep warm, how do Mummy and Daddy reach them?

Please these are improtant little bits of information we need to know, are they magic babies do they process unholy powers and what about dirty nappy do they bomb us with them.

Details man fill in the details!
To compare an aircraft that is no longer in use and that no one in their twenties will have any vivid or otherwise memory of is a pointless and pathetic argument...

try harder..
[quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Diannah[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jolllyboy[/bold] wrote: Its absolute tosh that it was quieter now than in the 60's - the runway is longer therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Engines are larger and I promise you the noise is horrendous when they pass overhead. It will vary road to road considerably so when one road says it is not too bad they should try another !I dont care a fig about the loss of value of the house I care about the noise in my garden when you cannot hear what someone is saying ! I agree there is nothing to stop the airport getting a longer runway. i wish they would improve the roads around there though . the Tesco roundabout is a nighgtmare incredibly dangerous and it is not clear the route through to rochford.[/p][/quote]I had to have a little laugh at your comment about the runway being longer - therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Do you seriously believe that planes use the whole of the runway each time they take off and land? Wouldn't it be an interesting experiment to bring back the carvairs for just one day instead of the current planes. Wouldn't need to turn off the tv for 20 seconds then - it would do it all by itself![/p][/quote]No one cares about carvairs, Sopwith camels or other antiquated straw man argument material. what concerns many people in this day and age are the loud, winged, orange and white monstrosities that have started to fill up the sky above where babies are trying to sleep and where people have made personal investments with their 'own' money. its not a technical specification, its a strong emotive lament by the sorry sods that live there.[/p][/quote]Compairing the quite moden aircraft to the much LOUDER older aircraft is valid. The moden jet engine is far quieter than than the older jet engines, if you don't know or under stand that FACT than you have lost the argument already. You say and I quite" fill up the sky above where babies are trying to sleep " So babies are sleeping in the sky now are they, please do tell us how they hover in mid air, how do they keep warm, how do Mummy and Daddy reach them? Please these are improtant little bits of information we need to know, are they magic babies do they process unholy powers and what about dirty nappy do they bomb us with them. Details man fill in the details![/p][/quote]To compare an aircraft that is no longer in use and that no one in their twenties will have any vivid or otherwise memory of is a pointless and pathetic argument... try harder.. jayman

11:38pm Tue 29 Jan 13

Nebs says...

jayman wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
jayman wrote:
Diannah wrote:
jolllyboy wrote:
Its absolute tosh that it was quieter now than in the 60's - the runway is longer therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Engines are larger and I promise you the noise is horrendous when they pass overhead. It will vary road to road considerably so when one road says it is not too bad they should try another !I dont care a fig about the loss of value of the house I care about the noise in my garden when you cannot hear what someone is saying ! I agree there is nothing to stop the airport getting a longer runway. i wish they would improve the roads around there though . the Tesco roundabout is a nighgtmare incredibly dangerous and it is not clear the route through to rochford.
I had to have a little laugh at your comment about the runway being longer - therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Do you seriously believe that planes use the whole of the runway each time they take off and land?

Wouldn't it be an interesting experiment to bring back the carvairs for just one day instead of the current planes. Wouldn't need to turn off the tv for 20 seconds then - it would do it all by itself!
No one cares about carvairs, Sopwith camels or other antiquated straw man argument material. what concerns many people in this day and age are the loud, winged, orange and white monstrosities that have started to fill up the sky above where babies are trying to sleep and where people have made personal investments with their 'own' money.

its not a technical specification, its a strong emotive lament by the sorry sods that live there.
Compairing the quite moden aircraft to the much LOUDER older aircraft is valid.

The moden jet engine is far quieter than than the older jet engines, if you don't know or under stand that FACT than you have lost the argument already.

You say and I quite" fill up the sky above where babies are trying to sleep "

So babies are sleeping in the sky now are they, please do tell us how they hover in mid air, how do they keep warm, how do Mummy and Daddy reach them?

Please these are improtant little bits of information we need to know, are they magic babies do they process unholy powers and what about dirty nappy do they bomb us with them.

Details man fill in the details!
To compare an aircraft that is no longer in use and that no one in their twenties will have any vivid or otherwise memory of is a pointless and pathetic argument...

try harder..
Just because Led Zeppelin are quieter than Deep Purple doesn't mean that they aren't still loud.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Diannah[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jolllyboy[/bold] wrote: Its absolute tosh that it was quieter now than in the 60's - the runway is longer therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Engines are larger and I promise you the noise is horrendous when they pass overhead. It will vary road to road considerably so when one road says it is not too bad they should try another !I dont care a fig about the loss of value of the house I care about the noise in my garden when you cannot hear what someone is saying ! I agree there is nothing to stop the airport getting a longer runway. i wish they would improve the roads around there though . the Tesco roundabout is a nighgtmare incredibly dangerous and it is not clear the route through to rochford.[/p][/quote]I had to have a little laugh at your comment about the runway being longer - therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Do you seriously believe that planes use the whole of the runway each time they take off and land? Wouldn't it be an interesting experiment to bring back the carvairs for just one day instead of the current planes. Wouldn't need to turn off the tv for 20 seconds then - it would do it all by itself![/p][/quote]No one cares about carvairs, Sopwith camels or other antiquated straw man argument material. what concerns many people in this day and age are the loud, winged, orange and white monstrosities that have started to fill up the sky above where babies are trying to sleep and where people have made personal investments with their 'own' money. its not a technical specification, its a strong emotive lament by the sorry sods that live there.[/p][/quote]Compairing the quite moden aircraft to the much LOUDER older aircraft is valid. The moden jet engine is far quieter than than the older jet engines, if you don't know or under stand that FACT than you have lost the argument already. You say and I quite" fill up the sky above where babies are trying to sleep " So babies are sleeping in the sky now are they, please do tell us how they hover in mid air, how do they keep warm, how do Mummy and Daddy reach them? Please these are improtant little bits of information we need to know, are they magic babies do they process unholy powers and what about dirty nappy do they bomb us with them. Details man fill in the details![/p][/quote]To compare an aircraft that is no longer in use and that no one in their twenties will have any vivid or otherwise memory of is a pointless and pathetic argument... try harder..[/p][/quote]Just because Led Zeppelin are quieter than Deep Purple doesn't mean that they aren't still loud. Nebs

11:44pm Tue 29 Jan 13

Max Impact says...

jayman wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
jayman wrote:
Diannah wrote:
jolllyboy wrote:
Its absolute tosh that it was quieter now than in the 60's - the runway is longer therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Engines are larger and I promise you the noise is horrendous when they pass overhead. It will vary road to road considerably so when one road says it is not too bad they should try another !I dont care a fig about the loss of value of the house I care about the noise in my garden when you cannot hear what someone is saying ! I agree there is nothing to stop the airport getting a longer runway. i wish they would improve the roads around there though . the Tesco roundabout is a nighgtmare incredibly dangerous and it is not clear the route through to rochford.
I had to have a little laugh at your comment about the runway being longer - therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Do you seriously believe that planes use the whole of the runway each time they take off and land?

Wouldn't it be an interesting experiment to bring back the carvairs for just one day instead of the current planes. Wouldn't need to turn off the tv for 20 seconds then - it would do it all by itself!
No one cares about carvairs, Sopwith camels or other antiquated straw man argument material. what concerns many people in this day and age are the loud, winged, orange and white monstrosities that have started to fill up the sky above where babies are trying to sleep and where people have made personal investments with their 'own' money.

its not a technical specification, its a strong emotive lament by the sorry sods that live there.
Compairing the quite moden aircraft to the much LOUDER older aircraft is valid.

The moden jet engine is far quieter than than the older jet engines, if you don't know or under stand that FACT than you have lost the argument already.

You say and I quite" fill up the sky above where babies are trying to sleep "

So babies are sleeping in the sky now are they, please do tell us how they hover in mid air, how do they keep warm, how do Mummy and Daddy reach them?

Please these are improtant little bits of information we need to know, are they magic babies do they process unholy powers and what about dirty nappy do they bomb us with them.

Details man fill in the details!
To compare an aircraft that is no longer in use and that no one in their twenties will have any vivid or otherwise memory of is a pointless and pathetic argument...

try harder..
It's a valid point, you and the anti airport lot refuse to admit that the moden jet engines are quieter than what has operated out of Southend in the past.

I would guess that most of the moaners are over 20 something so they must remember what it was like.

It is a valid point to compare what was previously operating out of the airport to what they have now.

Coal fire vs central heating what would you choose to heat your home?

Car or horse and cart what would you choose to travel any great distance?

Valid point.

Except in your world...
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Diannah[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jolllyboy[/bold] wrote: Its absolute tosh that it was quieter now than in the 60's - the runway is longer therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Engines are larger and I promise you the noise is horrendous when they pass overhead. It will vary road to road considerably so when one road says it is not too bad they should try another !I dont care a fig about the loss of value of the house I care about the noise in my garden when you cannot hear what someone is saying ! I agree there is nothing to stop the airport getting a longer runway. i wish they would improve the roads around there though . the Tesco roundabout is a nighgtmare incredibly dangerous and it is not clear the route through to rochford.[/p][/quote]I had to have a little laugh at your comment about the runway being longer - therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Do you seriously believe that planes use the whole of the runway each time they take off and land? Wouldn't it be an interesting experiment to bring back the carvairs for just one day instead of the current planes. Wouldn't need to turn off the tv for 20 seconds then - it would do it all by itself![/p][/quote]No one cares about carvairs, Sopwith camels or other antiquated straw man argument material. what concerns many people in this day and age are the loud, winged, orange and white monstrosities that have started to fill up the sky above where babies are trying to sleep and where people have made personal investments with their 'own' money. its not a technical specification, its a strong emotive lament by the sorry sods that live there.[/p][/quote]Compairing the quite moden aircraft to the much LOUDER older aircraft is valid. The moden jet engine is far quieter than than the older jet engines, if you don't know or under stand that FACT than you have lost the argument already. You say and I quite" fill up the sky above where babies are trying to sleep " So babies are sleeping in the sky now are they, please do tell us how they hover in mid air, how do they keep warm, how do Mummy and Daddy reach them? Please these are improtant little bits of information we need to know, are they magic babies do they process unholy powers and what about dirty nappy do they bomb us with them. Details man fill in the details![/p][/quote]To compare an aircraft that is no longer in use and that no one in their twenties will have any vivid or otherwise memory of is a pointless and pathetic argument... try harder..[/p][/quote]It's a valid point, you and the anti airport lot refuse to admit that the moden jet engines are quieter than what has operated out of Southend in the past. I would guess that most of the moaners are over 20 something so they must remember what it was like. It is a valid point to compare what was previously operating out of the airport to what they have now. Coal fire vs central heating what would you choose to heat your home? Car or horse and cart what would you choose to travel any great distance? Valid point. Except in your world... Max Impact

12:22am Wed 30 Jan 13

BASILBRUSH says...

"once again, Mr Welch makes out he is an expert in House Prices in the vicinity he is not,"

Er.. No he didnt.

Quote
“While recent evidence reinforces the strength of house prices in the Southend area, a total of six claims have been made for compensation from agents acting on behalf of people who have recently sold properties in the area.


“We anticipate that as further house price data becomes available, their validity will be appropriately assessed.”

.....
That's recent evidenced published in the national media, and then goe's on to state the validity will be assessed appropriately. At what point doe's that suggest he is an expert?

I would suggest a conflict of interest from the Surveyor producing figures demonstarting a dip. The same Surveyor that is then going to gain financially from the claims?
I assume as a Chartered Surveyor the information takes into account all variables including national and regional variations?

The process will soon weed out any genuine claims from the Ambulance chasers.
"once again, Mr Welch makes out he is an expert in House Prices in the vicinity he is not," Er.. No he didnt. Quote “While recent evidence reinforces the strength of house prices in the Southend area, a total of six claims have been made for compensation from agents acting on behalf of people who have recently sold properties in the area. “We anticipate that as further house price data becomes available, their validity will be appropriately assessed.” ..... That's recent evidenced published in the national media, and then goe's on to state the validity will be assessed appropriately. At what point doe's that suggest he is an expert? I would suggest a conflict of interest from the Surveyor producing figures demonstarting a dip. The same Surveyor that is then going to gain financially from the claims? I assume as a Chartered Surveyor the information takes into account all variables including national and regional variations? The process will soon weed out any genuine claims from the Ambulance chasers. BASILBRUSH

1:03am Wed 30 Jan 13

alfie28 says...

If you bought your home within the last 50 years and didn't know you were on the flightpath to an airport then seek compensation from the person who done your conveyancing. If you do have more than half a brain and realised you were on the flight path to what was the third busiest airport in the country then you only have yourself to blame!
And yes I will compare it to the 60's when I did indeed live under the flight path in Leigh, those Carvairs were far nosier and a lot slower than the current A319 so by the time they were over Leigh they were a lot lower than the Easyjets, irrespective of the length of the runway, and therefore the noise lasted a lot longer than the 20 seconds people are complaining about now. All this adds up to the history of the area and that should be taken in to account when purchasing a property.
One last question to "jollyboy" you say "the runway is longer therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing" the fact is no matter how long a runway is, at Southend, and I suspect at most other airports, the planes always have taken off and landed at ground level how can you get lower than that?
If you bought your home within the last 50 years and didn't know you were on the flightpath to an airport then seek compensation from the person who done your conveyancing. If you do have more than half a brain and realised you were on the flight path to what was the third busiest airport in the country then you only have yourself to blame! And yes I will compare it to the 60's when I did indeed live under the flight path in Leigh, those Carvairs were far nosier and a lot slower than the current A319 so by the time they were over Leigh they were a lot lower than the Easyjets, irrespective of the length of the runway, and therefore the noise lasted a lot longer than the 20 seconds people are complaining about now. All this adds up to the history of the area and that should be taken in to account when purchasing a property. One last question to "jollyboy" you say "the runway is longer therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing" the fact is no matter how long a runway is, at Southend, and I suspect at most other airports, the planes always have taken off and landed at ground level how can you get lower than that? alfie28

7:02am Wed 30 Jan 13

Ian P says...

jantone wrote:
the airport has been in southend since the 30s. there was not all the uproar then, so why is every body going crazy now?
There were no aircraft chasing solicitors in those days and no chance of compensation.
[quote][p][bold]jantone[/bold] wrote: the airport has been in southend since the 30s. there was not all the uproar then, so why is every body going crazy now?[/p][/quote]There were no aircraft chasing solicitors in those days and no chance of compensation. Ian P

7:12am Wed 30 Jan 13

Carnabackable says...

Diannah wrote:
jolllyboy wrote:
Its absolute tosh that it was quieter now than in the 60's - the runway is longer therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Engines are larger and I promise you the noise is horrendous when they pass overhead. It will vary road to road considerably so when one road says it is not too bad they should try another !I dont care a fig about the loss of value of the house I care about the noise in my garden when you cannot hear what someone is saying ! I agree there is nothing to stop the airport getting a longer runway. i wish they would improve the roads around there though . the Tesco roundabout is a nighgtmare incredibly dangerous and it is not clear the route through to rochford.
I had to have a little laugh at your comment about the runway being longer - therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Do you seriously believe that planes use the whole of the runway each time they take off and land?

Wouldn't it be an interesting experiment to bring back the carvairs for just one day instead of the current planes. Wouldn't need to turn off the tv for 20 seconds then - it would do it all by itself!
The reason for the longer runway is to meet current safety regulations, it has no bearing on the altitude of an aircraft moments after take off. it has been deemed by the CAA, that the length is determined by the aircraft that use it.
Example; in an emergency landing.
Seeing as modern jet engine technology has progressed in leaps and bounds, do you really think, the good old days were better, remember the Southend air show, with screaming Lightnings?
[quote][p][bold]Diannah[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jolllyboy[/bold] wrote: Its absolute tosh that it was quieter now than in the 60's - the runway is longer therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Engines are larger and I promise you the noise is horrendous when they pass overhead. It will vary road to road considerably so when one road says it is not too bad they should try another !I dont care a fig about the loss of value of the house I care about the noise in my garden when you cannot hear what someone is saying ! I agree there is nothing to stop the airport getting a longer runway. i wish they would improve the roads around there though . the Tesco roundabout is a nighgtmare incredibly dangerous and it is not clear the route through to rochford.[/p][/quote]I had to have a little laugh at your comment about the runway being longer - therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Do you seriously believe that planes use the whole of the runway each time they take off and land? Wouldn't it be an interesting experiment to bring back the carvairs for just one day instead of the current planes. Wouldn't need to turn off the tv for 20 seconds then - it would do it all by itself![/p][/quote]The reason for the longer runway is to meet current safety regulations, it has no bearing on the altitude of an aircraft moments after take off. it has been deemed by the CAA, that the length is determined by the aircraft that use it. Example; in an emergency landing. Seeing as modern jet engine technology has progressed in leaps and bounds, do you really think, the good old days were better, remember the Southend air show, with screaming Lightnings? Carnabackable

7:14am Wed 30 Jan 13

Carnabackable says...

alfie28 wrote:
If you bought your home within the last 50 years and didn't know you were on the flightpath to an airport then seek compensation from the person who done your conveyancing. If you do have more than half a brain and realised you were on the flight path to what was the third busiest airport in the country then you only have yourself to blame!
And yes I will compare it to the 60's when I did indeed live under the flight path in Leigh, those Carvairs were far nosier and a lot slower than the current A319 so by the time they were over Leigh they were a lot lower than the Easyjets, irrespective of the length of the runway, and therefore the noise lasted a lot longer than the 20 seconds people are complaining about now. All this adds up to the history of the area and that should be taken in to account when purchasing a property.
One last question to "jollyboy" you say "the runway is longer therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing" the fact is no matter how long a runway is, at Southend, and I suspect at most other airports, the planes always have taken off and landed at ground level how can you get lower than that?
Don't work in a fish market, and be surprised with the pong.....
[quote][p][bold]alfie28[/bold] wrote: If you bought your home within the last 50 years and didn't know you were on the flightpath to an airport then seek compensation from the person who done your conveyancing. If you do have more than half a brain and realised you were on the flight path to what was the third busiest airport in the country then you only have yourself to blame! And yes I will compare it to the 60's when I did indeed live under the flight path in Leigh, those Carvairs were far nosier and a lot slower than the current A319 so by the time they were over Leigh they were a lot lower than the Easyjets, irrespective of the length of the runway, and therefore the noise lasted a lot longer than the 20 seconds people are complaining about now. All this adds up to the history of the area and that should be taken in to account when purchasing a property. One last question to "jollyboy" you say "the runway is longer therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing" the fact is no matter how long a runway is, at Southend, and I suspect at most other airports, the planes always have taken off and landed at ground level how can you get lower than that?[/p][/quote]Don't work in a fish market, and be surprised with the pong..... Carnabackable

7:40am Wed 30 Jan 13

howironic says...

Can I get compensation from the Echo for wasting my time reading through this garbage in the hope of finding something interesting.
Can I get compensation from the Echo for wasting my time reading through this garbage in the hope of finding something interesting. howironic

7:41am Wed 30 Jan 13

sensiblelos says...

Max Impact wrote:
sensiblelos wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
sensiblelos wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
sensiblelos wrote:
sensiblelos wrote:
once again, Mr Welch makes out he is an expert in House Prices in the vicinity he is not, he is referring to recent house price trends from the Hailfax. This analysis in itself is not a comprehensive method of determining house values in specific area, say under a flight path, also the increase in house prices stated by the Halifax is based on their own lending and not that of the wider Market. For a more comprehensive comparison http://houseprices.l







andregistry.gov.uk/ this shows values based on all sales prices in the a certain area i.e southend borough(not under a flight path), from the information provided by the House Price calculator of the land registry the increase of values in the southend area increased by 2% from Dec 2011-Dec 012, in the same period the area of the South East house prices increased by 3% based on the data provide by the Land Registry. So "expert" Mr Welch, this is hardly resounding evidence of "strength" in the area.

This compensation issue is not about whether anyone wishes to sell their house at any particular time , it is not about whether there was or is an airport in the area before the purchase of their house in the vicinity of an airport, it is not about a claim culture, it is about those who have been disadvantaged by the expansion of the airport and whether they have a right to make a claim and protect themselves. The claim relates to being in a no better or no worse position, 99% of claimants do not wish to make a claim which causes additional stress and anxiety in their lives, they would rather do without it.

The Council has a responsibility as owner of the airport not to affect the well-being of its residents especially those who live under the flight path, perhaps they will answer the following questions or perhaps those concerned residents will ask the same questions of the Council or the members who voted or agreed to the expansion of the Airport, copy and paste as you see fit;

"Dear Council

You have affected my financial well being, i have a number of questions i would hope you could answer:

1. Before the expansion, Did you ever consider in any way the effects the airport expansion would have on house values under the flight path, if you did please disclose all reports relating to the same.

2. If you did not consider the effects the expansion of the airport why not, did you not consider this was an important issue.

3. The Council has stated on many occasions that the expansion would benefit the area, how can this statement be considered correct if you have not considered that potentially hundreds of thousands of pounds has been wiped off the value of houses under the flight path. How can you establish and prove that the expansion financially benefits the residents of the borough, especially the residents under the flight path if no reports have ever been undertaken.

4. Have you considered the effects the reduced values would have on the income the Council would receive in reduced council tax under the flight path.

You owe a duty of care to me as a resident to protect my general well-being, it is my belief that if you have not considered in any way the effects the expansion would have to those under the flight path, you are failing in that duty.

I look forward to your response"
details of house price increases

http://houseprices.l






andregistry.gov.uk/p






rice-calculator

sold prices up 2%

http://www.zoopla.co






.uk/house-prices/bro






wse/southend-on-sea/






?q=southend%20on%20s






ea&search_source





=hou
se-prices

asking prices down .22%

house prices did not go up in southend by 14%, shown by Land Registry data
The survey that said house prices had gone up was not by the airport or SBC but by Halifax.

Did you know that as I did not spot it on the War and Peace beating length of boredom you spat out.

I might have missed it as after the third word I dozed off with my finger on the tracker ball and I only woke up when the misses prodded me thinking I had snuffed it.
if you can actually read others facts rather than your own made up tripe..

Halifax trends do not correspond with land registry facts which relate to all house prices. halifax values are based on their own mortgage data increases not the actual increase of values in the area which is noted in the land registry data.

oh yes i recall "max impact" the one who is an illegal landlord in the slums of this area, and while i was searching his 1 millionth quote on all matters concerning southend in the echo,loving the sound of his own voice..clearly having nothing better to do during his unemployed days off, i have seen a picture he posted of himself...

http://www.roopedog.




com/wp-content/uploa




ds/2011/02/nerd_comp




uter_repair.jpg
I can asure you that I am not and illegal landlord and if you continue to make that remark I might get to meet you in court.

I am have cover that included, any damages should a tenant make a claim for personal injury or property damage arising from incidents connected with the rented property, there is fire cover, flood and theft.

The houses are all registed and are fully maintained, I get British Gas to inspect the boiler every year, there are smoke detectors in EVERY room and carbon monoxide detectors in the living room and all the bed rooms. Every window has a child safety lock which can be quckly removed should there be a fire, at least one window in each upstairs room has a roll up excape ladder underneath it (just open the windown and flip it out)

The front and back doors are double locked, with burglar alarms fitted.

To top it off a fire blanket is provided alongside the cooker as is a c02 fire extinguisher, a second c02 fire extinguisher is installed on the landing.

The electrics are also fully cehcked once a year as is the plumbing, I give tennants a mobile phone number that they can call 24 hours a day and it is always picke dup if not by me a mate who helps maintain the houses.

Now would an illegal landlord do all that?


Not going to use the link you say is me as I have not clue if it could lead to a virus attacking my computer.

Oh and before you ask NO you can NOT rent one of the four houses I have.
its really interesting to see that you have the time to read the dummy guide of how to be a good landlord.....

i do recall the millionth post you made in the echo , that you said that you would "evict" any tenant who would be unfortunate enough to lose their job, this is a quote, that shows all how unpleasant you really are , and it shows that your are acting illegally if you do evict any person who loses their job,i do not know you i do not wish to know you, but from what you have previously stated your are acting illegally if you actually evict anyone for losing their job,, but perhaps you just cant remember what you write on these posts or it shows that you really are a made up person sitting behind a computer screen who has nothing better to do . your posts and remarks are still on this website , i am not making it up i think its number 1,000,001....

before you continue max , think....stay over your side of the playground, keep to the subject matter and so will i..
The contract signed states that I can issue a one month notice to any tennant at any time.

So stay in your bedsit and contiune picking your nose.
so this in an illegal contract and you are acting illegally. FACT.

You have shown that your are a bully boy landlord and i would love it if you tried to evict your tenants for losing their job and you cannot because it is against the law.

You are either a liar and you do not own any houses and you are a computer nerd in a made up world, or you are a landlord who acts illegally...........
.

i really hope your so called tenants are reading this so they are also aware that you continue to talk absolute rubbish and you are acting illegally if you evict anyone for losing their job...


as said stay in your part of the playground...bully boy. and stick to the facts... if you want to talk about being illegal an landlord perhaps you should invite the echo to interview you about your current illegal contracts...

*bored now*
[quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sensiblelos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sensiblelos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sensiblelos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sensiblelos[/bold] wrote: once again, Mr Welch makes out he is an expert in House Prices in the vicinity he is not, he is referring to recent house price trends from the Hailfax. This analysis in itself is not a comprehensive method of determining house values in specific area, say under a flight path, also the increase in house prices stated by the Halifax is based on their own lending and not that of the wider Market. For a more comprehensive comparison http://houseprices.l andregistry.gov.uk/ this shows values based on all sales prices in the a certain area i.e southend borough(not under a flight path), from the information provided by the House Price calculator of the land registry the increase of values in the southend area increased by 2% from Dec 2011-Dec 012, in the same period the area of the South East house prices increased by 3% based on the data provide by the Land Registry. So "expert" Mr Welch, this is hardly resounding evidence of "strength" in the area. This compensation issue is not about whether anyone wishes to sell their house at any particular time , it is not about whether there was or is an airport in the area before the purchase of their house in the vicinity of an airport, it is not about a claim culture, it is about those who have been disadvantaged by the expansion of the airport and whether they have a right to make a claim and protect themselves. The claim relates to being in a no better or no worse position, 99% of claimants do not wish to make a claim which causes additional stress and anxiety in their lives, they would rather do without it. The Council has a responsibility as owner of the airport not to affect the well-being of its residents especially those who live under the flight path, perhaps they will answer the following questions or perhaps those concerned residents will ask the same questions of the Council or the members who voted or agreed to the expansion of the Airport, copy and paste as you see fit; "Dear Council You have affected my financial well being, i have a number of questions i would hope you could answer: 1. Before the expansion, Did you ever consider in any way the effects the airport expansion would have on house values under the flight path, if you did please disclose all reports relating to the same. 2. If you did not consider the effects the expansion of the airport why not, did you not consider this was an important issue. 3. The Council has stated on many occasions that the expansion would benefit the area, how can this statement be considered correct if you have not considered that potentially hundreds of thousands of pounds has been wiped off the value of houses under the flight path. How can you establish and prove that the expansion financially benefits the residents of the borough, especially the residents under the flight path if no reports have ever been undertaken. 4. Have you considered the effects the reduced values would have on the income the Council would receive in reduced council tax under the flight path. You owe a duty of care to me as a resident to protect my general well-being, it is my belief that if you have not considered in any way the effects the expansion would have to those under the flight path, you are failing in that duty. I look forward to your response"[/p][/quote]details of house price increases http://houseprices.l andregistry.gov.uk/p rice-calculator sold prices up 2% http://www.zoopla.co .uk/house-prices/bro wse/southend-on-sea/ ?q=southend%20on%20s ea&search_source =hou se-prices asking prices down .22% house prices did not go up in southend by 14%, shown by Land Registry data[/p][/quote]The survey that said house prices had gone up was not by the airport or SBC but by Halifax. Did you know that as I did not spot it on the War and Peace beating length of boredom you spat out. I might have missed it as after the third word I dozed off with my finger on the tracker ball and I only woke up when the misses prodded me thinking I had snuffed it.[/p][/quote]if you can actually read others facts rather than your own made up tripe.. Halifax trends do not correspond with land registry facts which relate to all house prices. halifax values are based on their own mortgage data increases not the actual increase of values in the area which is noted in the land registry data. oh yes i recall "max impact" the one who is an illegal landlord in the slums of this area, and while i was searching his 1 millionth quote on all matters concerning southend in the echo,loving the sound of his own voice..clearly having nothing better to do during his unemployed days off, i have seen a picture he posted of himself... http://www.roopedog. com/wp-content/uploa ds/2011/02/nerd_comp uter_repair.jpg[/p][/quote]I can asure you that I am not and illegal landlord and if you continue to make that remark I might get to meet you in court. I am have cover that included, any damages should a tenant make a claim for personal injury or property damage arising from incidents connected with the rented property, there is fire cover, flood and theft. The houses are all registed and are fully maintained, I get British Gas to inspect the boiler every year, there are smoke detectors in EVERY room and carbon monoxide detectors in the living room and all the bed rooms. Every window has a child safety lock which can be quckly removed should there be a fire, at least one window in each upstairs room has a roll up excape ladder underneath it (just open the windown and flip it out) The front and back doors are double locked, with burglar alarms fitted. To top it off a fire blanket is provided alongside the cooker as is a c02 fire extinguisher, a second c02 fire extinguisher is installed on the landing. The electrics are also fully cehcked once a year as is the plumbing, I give tennants a mobile phone number that they can call 24 hours a day and it is always picke dup if not by me a mate who helps maintain the houses. Now would an illegal landlord do all that? Not going to use the link you say is me as I have not clue if it could lead to a virus attacking my computer. Oh and before you ask NO you can NOT rent one of the four houses I have.[/p][/quote]its really interesting to see that you have the time to read the dummy guide of how to be a good landlord..... i do recall the millionth post you made in the echo , that you said that you would "evict" any tenant who would be unfortunate enough to lose their job, this is a quote, that shows all how unpleasant you really are , and it shows that your are acting illegally if you do evict any person who loses their job,i do not know you i do not wish to know you, but from what you have previously stated your are acting illegally if you actually evict anyone for losing their job,, but perhaps you just cant remember what you write on these posts or it shows that you really are a made up person sitting behind a computer screen who has nothing better to do . your posts and remarks are still on this website , i am not making it up i think its number 1,000,001.... before you continue max , think....stay over your side of the playground, keep to the subject matter and so will i..[/p][/quote]The contract signed states that I can issue a one month notice to any tennant at any time. So stay in your bedsit and contiune picking your nose.[/p][/quote]so this in an illegal contract and you are acting illegally. FACT. You have shown that your are a bully boy landlord and i would love it if you tried to evict your tenants for losing their job and you cannot because it is against the law. You are either a liar and you do not own any houses and you are a computer nerd in a made up world, or you are a landlord who acts illegally........... . i really hope your so called tenants are reading this so they are also aware that you continue to talk absolute rubbish and you are acting illegally if you evict anyone for losing their job... as said stay in your part of the playground...bully boy. and stick to the facts... if you want to talk about being illegal an landlord perhaps you should invite the echo to interview you about your current illegal contracts... *bored now* sensiblelos

8:34am Wed 30 Jan 13

j-w says...

Nebs wrote:
jayman wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
jayman wrote:
Diannah wrote:
jolllyboy wrote:
Its absolute tosh that it was quieter now than in the 60's - the runway is longer therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Engines are larger and I promise you the noise is horrendous when they pass overhead. It will vary road to road considerably so when one road says it is not too bad they should try another !I dont care a fig about the loss of value of the house I care about the noise in my garden when you cannot hear what someone is saying ! I agree there is nothing to stop the airport getting a longer runway. i wish they would improve the roads around there though . the Tesco roundabout is a nighgtmare incredibly dangerous and it is not clear the route through to rochford.
I had to have a little laugh at your comment about the runway being longer - therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Do you seriously believe that planes use the whole of the runway each time they take off and land?

Wouldn't it be an interesting experiment to bring back the carvairs for just one day instead of the current planes. Wouldn't need to turn off the tv for 20 seconds then - it would do it all by itself!
No one cares about carvairs, Sopwith camels or other antiquated straw man argument material. what concerns many people in this day and age are the loud, winged, orange and white monstrosities that have started to fill up the sky above where babies are trying to sleep and where people have made personal investments with their 'own' money.

its not a technical specification, its a strong emotive lament by the sorry sods that live there.
Compairing the quite moden aircraft to the much LOUDER older aircraft is valid.

The moden jet engine is far quieter than than the older jet engines, if you don't know or under stand that FACT than you have lost the argument already.

You say and I quite" fill up the sky above where babies are trying to sleep "

So babies are sleeping in the sky now are they, please do tell us how they hover in mid air, how do they keep warm, how do Mummy and Daddy reach them?

Please these are improtant little bits of information we need to know, are they magic babies do they process unholy powers and what about dirty nappy do they bomb us with them.

Details man fill in the details!
To compare an aircraft that is no longer in use and that no one in their twenties will have any vivid or otherwise memory of is a pointless and pathetic argument...

try harder..
Just because Led Zeppelin are quieter than Deep Purple doesn't mean that they aren't still loud.
Yes, but if you moved near a long established rock concert venue that had been a bit quiet but suddenly was holding events all the time you wouldn't have anyone else to blame but yourself.
[quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Diannah[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jolllyboy[/bold] wrote: Its absolute tosh that it was quieter now than in the 60's - the runway is longer therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Engines are larger and I promise you the noise is horrendous when they pass overhead. It will vary road to road considerably so when one road says it is not too bad they should try another !I dont care a fig about the loss of value of the house I care about the noise in my garden when you cannot hear what someone is saying ! I agree there is nothing to stop the airport getting a longer runway. i wish they would improve the roads around there though . the Tesco roundabout is a nighgtmare incredibly dangerous and it is not clear the route through to rochford.[/p][/quote]I had to have a little laugh at your comment about the runway being longer - therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Do you seriously believe that planes use the whole of the runway each time they take off and land? Wouldn't it be an interesting experiment to bring back the carvairs for just one day instead of the current planes. Wouldn't need to turn off the tv for 20 seconds then - it would do it all by itself![/p][/quote]No one cares about carvairs, Sopwith camels or other antiquated straw man argument material. what concerns many people in this day and age are the loud, winged, orange and white monstrosities that have started to fill up the sky above where babies are trying to sleep and where people have made personal investments with their 'own' money. its not a technical specification, its a strong emotive lament by the sorry sods that live there.[/p][/quote]Compairing the quite moden aircraft to the much LOUDER older aircraft is valid. The moden jet engine is far quieter than than the older jet engines, if you don't know or under stand that FACT than you have lost the argument already. You say and I quite" fill up the sky above where babies are trying to sleep " So babies are sleeping in the sky now are they, please do tell us how they hover in mid air, how do they keep warm, how do Mummy and Daddy reach them? Please these are improtant little bits of information we need to know, are they magic babies do they process unholy powers and what about dirty nappy do they bomb us with them. Details man fill in the details![/p][/quote]To compare an aircraft that is no longer in use and that no one in their twenties will have any vivid or otherwise memory of is a pointless and pathetic argument... try harder..[/p][/quote]Just because Led Zeppelin are quieter than Deep Purple doesn't mean that they aren't still loud.[/p][/quote]Yes, but if you moved near a long established rock concert venue that had been a bit quiet but suddenly was holding events all the time you wouldn't have anyone else to blame but yourself. j-w

9:10am Wed 30 Jan 13

perini says...

Nice to know that Chris Hunt is so au fait with house prices in Southend even though he is Dorking based! Airport has been there since 1914 so move or shut up!
Nice to know that Chris Hunt is so au fait with house prices in Southend even though he is Dorking based! Airport has been there since 1914 so move or shut up! perini

9:35am Wed 30 Jan 13

Carnabackable says...

When are the 747's coming, to really put Southend on the map, wouldn't it be a hoot, to be able to fly to chicago, from Southend....
When are the 747's coming, to really put Southend on the map, wouldn't it be a hoot, to be able to fly to chicago, from Southend.... Carnabackable

9:51am Wed 30 Jan 13

maxell says...

it s important for people to get ther claims in, as once your claims are in any further expanstion will result in further claim submisssions as you are entitled to submit more than one claim you can claim for each and evey additional developement that will fecy house prices. over the years oposition groups have had, be it right or wrong come under attack, but an interesting development show that out of all the knockers they are the highest proportion of claiments. if correct only goes to prove the hypocrisy of some people. The councils must be highly embarrest by the biggest joke they have ever had to achived "the jaap plan" start the consultation, act on midway results , suspend the jaap, complete the item causing most concern, then re commence and sign it off as if the cunsultation has been ongoing throught, RDC of literally out of control , they have lost all credability, the airport say jump they say how high and to add insult made to sumersult throught hoops like performing dogs, (sorry to all you dog owners did not nean to affend your dogs in this comparison) this has been coverd before the airport comenced work on the 2nd phase of the terminal six weeks before they should have as planning application legislation prevented this , did ths worry the the airport not one iota as the airport new that the council would not attempt to enforce legislation. because they are weak, which I would have thought would be extremly gangerous as it shows biased towards the airport when they should remain impartial, I agree with sencibleos the council should addrss the questiojns posed, however SBC is also being bullied by the airport so they have to take there frustration out on someone shame its us. still will my opinion count **** much I doubt it,

ready steady go
it s important for people to get ther claims in, as once your claims are in any further expanstion will result in further claim submisssions as you are entitled to submit more than one claim you can claim for each and evey additional developement that will fecy house prices. over the years oposition groups have had, be it right or wrong come under attack, but an interesting development show that out of all the knockers they are the highest proportion of claiments. if correct only goes to prove the hypocrisy of some people. The councils must be highly embarrest by the biggest joke they have ever had to achived "the jaap plan" start the consultation, act on midway results , suspend the jaap, complete the item causing most concern, then re commence and sign it off as if the cunsultation has been ongoing throught, RDC of literally out of control , they have lost all credability, the airport say jump they say how high and to add insult made to sumersult throught hoops like performing dogs, (sorry to all you dog owners did not nean to affend your dogs in this comparison) this has been coverd before the airport comenced work on the 2nd phase of the terminal six weeks before they should have as planning application legislation prevented this , did ths worry the the airport not one iota as the airport new that the council would not attempt to enforce legislation. because they are weak, which I would have thought would be extremly gangerous as it shows biased towards the airport when they should remain impartial, I agree with sencibleos the council should addrss the questiojns posed, however SBC is also being bullied by the airport so they have to take there frustration out on someone shame its us. still will my opinion count **** much I doubt it, ready steady go maxell

9:51am Wed 30 Jan 13

maxell says...

it s important for people to get ther claims in, as once your claims are in any further expanstion will result in further claim submisssions as you are entitled to submit more than one claim you can claim for each and evey additional developement that will fecy house prices. over the years oposition groups have had, be it right or wrong come under attack, but an interesting development show that out of all the knockers they are the highest proportion of claiments. if correct only goes to prove the hypocrisy of some people. The councils must be highly embarrest by the biggest joke they have ever had to achived "the jaap plan" start the consultation, act on midway results , suspend the jaap, complete the item causing most concern, then re commence and sign it off as if the cunsultation has been ongoing throught, RDC of literally out of control , they have lost all credability, the airport say jump they say how high and to add insult made to sumersult throught hoops like performing dogs, (sorry to all you dog owners did not nean to affend your dogs in this comparison) this has been coverd before the airport comenced work on the 2nd phase of the terminal six weeks before they should have as planning application legislation prevented this , did ths worry the the airport not one iota as the airport new that the council would not attempt to enforce legislation. because they are weak, which I would have thought would be extremly gangerous as it shows biased towards the airport when they should remain impartial, I agree with sencibleos the council should addrss the questiojns posed, however SBC is also being bullied by the airport so they have to take there frustration out on someone shame its us. still will my opinion count **** much I doubt it,

ready steady go
it s important for people to get ther claims in, as once your claims are in any further expanstion will result in further claim submisssions as you are entitled to submit more than one claim you can claim for each and evey additional developement that will fecy house prices. over the years oposition groups have had, be it right or wrong come under attack, but an interesting development show that out of all the knockers they are the highest proportion of claiments. if correct only goes to prove the hypocrisy of some people. The councils must be highly embarrest by the biggest joke they have ever had to achived "the jaap plan" start the consultation, act on midway results , suspend the jaap, complete the item causing most concern, then re commence and sign it off as if the cunsultation has been ongoing throught, RDC of literally out of control , they have lost all credability, the airport say jump they say how high and to add insult made to sumersult throught hoops like performing dogs, (sorry to all you dog owners did not nean to affend your dogs in this comparison) this has been coverd before the airport comenced work on the 2nd phase of the terminal six weeks before they should have as planning application legislation prevented this , did ths worry the the airport not one iota as the airport new that the council would not attempt to enforce legislation. because they are weak, which I would have thought would be extremly gangerous as it shows biased towards the airport when they should remain impartial, I agree with sencibleos the council should addrss the questiojns posed, however SBC is also being bullied by the airport so they have to take there frustration out on someone shame its us. still will my opinion count **** much I doubt it, ready steady go maxell

10:27am Wed 30 Jan 13

jayman says...

Carnabackable wrote:
When are the 747's coming, to really put Southend on the map, wouldn't it be a hoot, to be able to fly to chicago, from Southend....
Southend is on the map.

If you consult Google maps and find the Thames estuary, look to the northern bank. see the long pier, observe the word 'Southend-on-sea'

you've found it :)
[quote][p][bold]Carnabackable[/bold] wrote: When are the 747's coming, to really put Southend on the map, wouldn't it be a hoot, to be able to fly to chicago, from Southend....[/p][/quote]Southend is on the map. If you consult Google maps and find the Thames estuary, look to the northern bank. see the long pier, observe the word 'Southend-on-sea' you've found it :) jayman

10:27am Wed 30 Jan 13

jayman says...

Carnabackable wrote:
When are the 747's coming, to really put Southend on the map, wouldn't it be a hoot, to be able to fly to chicago, from Southend....
Southend is on the map.

If you consult Google maps and find the Thames estuary, look to the northern bank. see the long pier, observe the word 'Southend-on-sea'

you've found it :)
[quote][p][bold]Carnabackable[/bold] wrote: When are the 747's coming, to really put Southend on the map, wouldn't it be a hoot, to be able to fly to chicago, from Southend....[/p][/quote]Southend is on the map. If you consult Google maps and find the Thames estuary, look to the northern bank. see the long pier, observe the word 'Southend-on-sea' you've found it :) jayman

10:48am Wed 30 Jan 13

mys842 says...

It's not rocket science (pardon the pun)! There are frequent plane movements in and out of Southend airport, whereas in the last decade or two there haven't been. People in Leigh, Eastwood & Rochford took for granted that the airport had wound down, therefore bought up property, improved it and charged over-inflated prices. The clever (or fortunate depending on circumstances) ones sold up before the airport expanded, the rest are left with houses in areas that are affected by noise and are trying to get someone to make up the shortfall in their house prices.

However, with most things, if you look at the bigger picture, the 14% Southend house price is probably attributed in most part to the airport. People want the convenience, just not the noise. In the next few years, places like Southend, Shoebury, Rayleigh and Benfleet will start to rise in price, whereas those directly under the path will probably level off. It's not all bad though, Leigh has some good qualities, it's just taken the shine off slightly.
It's not rocket science (pardon the pun)! There are frequent plane movements in and out of Southend airport, whereas in the last decade or two there haven't been. People in Leigh, Eastwood & Rochford took for granted that the airport had wound down, therefore bought up property, improved it and charged over-inflated prices. The clever (or fortunate depending on circumstances) ones sold up before the airport expanded, the rest are left with houses in areas that are affected by noise and are trying to get someone to make up the shortfall in their house prices. However, with most things, if you look at the bigger picture, the 14% Southend house price is probably attributed in most part to the airport. People want the convenience, just not the noise. In the next few years, places like Southend, Shoebury, Rayleigh and Benfleet will start to rise in price, whereas those directly under the path will probably level off. It's not all bad though, Leigh has some good qualities, it's just taken the shine off slightly. mys842

11:07am Wed 30 Jan 13

Diannah says...

jayman wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
jayman wrote:
Diannah wrote:
jolllyboy wrote:
Its absolute tosh that it was quieter now than in the 60's - the runway is longer therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Engines are larger and I promise you the noise is horrendous when they pass overhead. It will vary road to road considerably so when one road says it is not too bad they should try another !I dont care a fig about the loss of value of the house I care about the noise in my garden when you cannot hear what someone is saying ! I agree there is nothing to stop the airport getting a longer runway. i wish they would improve the roads around there though . the Tesco roundabout is a nighgtmare incredibly dangerous and it is not clear the route through to rochford.
I had to have a little laugh at your comment about the runway being longer - therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Do you seriously believe that planes use the whole of the runway each time they take off and land?

Wouldn't it be an interesting experiment to bring back the carvairs for just one day instead of the current planes. Wouldn't need to turn off the tv for 20 seconds then - it would do it all by itself!
No one cares about carvairs, Sopwith camels or other antiquated straw man argument material. what concerns many people in this day and age are the loud, winged, orange and white monstrosities that have started to fill up the sky above where babies are trying to sleep and where people have made personal investments with their 'own' money.

its not a technical specification, its a strong emotive lament by the sorry sods that live there.
Compairing the quite moden aircraft to the much LOUDER older aircraft is valid.

The moden jet engine is far quieter than than the older jet engines, if you don't know or under stand that FACT than you have lost the argument already.

You say and I quite" fill up the sky above where babies are trying to sleep "

So babies are sleeping in the sky now are they, please do tell us how they hover in mid air, how do they keep warm, how do Mummy and Daddy reach them?

Please these are improtant little bits of information we need to know, are they magic babies do they process unholy powers and what about dirty nappy do they bomb us with them.

Details man fill in the details!
To compare an aircraft that is no longer in use and that no one in their twenties will have any vivid or otherwise memory of is a pointless and pathetic argument...

try harder..
I had a vision there of you sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting 'la la la'.

Can you explain then why people who are old enough to remember the prop planes could cope with the noise whereas people in their twenties can't cope with the quieter jet engine noise?

Can I also point out that if you do receive compensation, it won't make the planes magically disappear so how will the money help (unless you are buying triple glazing which I very much doubt)?
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Diannah[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jolllyboy[/bold] wrote: Its absolute tosh that it was quieter now than in the 60's - the runway is longer therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Engines are larger and I promise you the noise is horrendous when they pass overhead. It will vary road to road considerably so when one road says it is not too bad they should try another !I dont care a fig about the loss of value of the house I care about the noise in my garden when you cannot hear what someone is saying ! I agree there is nothing to stop the airport getting a longer runway. i wish they would improve the roads around there though . the Tesco roundabout is a nighgtmare incredibly dangerous and it is not clear the route through to rochford.[/p][/quote]I had to have a little laugh at your comment about the runway being longer - therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Do you seriously believe that planes use the whole of the runway each time they take off and land? Wouldn't it be an interesting experiment to bring back the carvairs for just one day instead of the current planes. Wouldn't need to turn off the tv for 20 seconds then - it would do it all by itself![/p][/quote]No one cares about carvairs, Sopwith camels or other antiquated straw man argument material. what concerns many people in this day and age are the loud, winged, orange and white monstrosities that have started to fill up the sky above where babies are trying to sleep and where people have made personal investments with their 'own' money. its not a technical specification, its a strong emotive lament by the sorry sods that live there.[/p][/quote]Compairing the quite moden aircraft to the much LOUDER older aircraft is valid. The moden jet engine is far quieter than than the older jet engines, if you don't know or under stand that FACT than you have lost the argument already. You say and I quite" fill up the sky above where babies are trying to sleep " So babies are sleeping in the sky now are they, please do tell us how they hover in mid air, how do they keep warm, how do Mummy and Daddy reach them? Please these are improtant little bits of information we need to know, are they magic babies do they process unholy powers and what about dirty nappy do they bomb us with them. Details man fill in the details![/p][/quote]To compare an aircraft that is no longer in use and that no one in their twenties will have any vivid or otherwise memory of is a pointless and pathetic argument... try harder..[/p][/quote]I had a vision there of you sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting 'la la la'. Can you explain then why people who are old enough to remember the prop planes could cope with the noise whereas people in their twenties can't cope with the quieter jet engine noise? Can I also point out that if you do receive compensation, it won't make the planes magically disappear so how will the money help (unless you are buying triple glazing which I very much doubt)? Diannah

11:17am Wed 30 Jan 13

mys842 says...

Diannah wrote:
jayman wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
jayman wrote:
Diannah wrote:
jolllyboy wrote:
Its absolute tosh that it was quieter now than in the 60's - the runway is longer therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Engines are larger and I promise you the noise is horrendous when they pass overhead. It will vary road to road considerably so when one road says it is not too bad they should try another !I dont care a fig about the loss of value of the house I care about the noise in my garden when you cannot hear what someone is saying ! I agree there is nothing to stop the airport getting a longer runway. i wish they would improve the roads around there though . the Tesco roundabout is a nighgtmare incredibly dangerous and it is not clear the route through to rochford.
I had to have a little laugh at your comment about the runway being longer - therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Do you seriously believe that planes use the whole of the runway each time they take off and land?

Wouldn't it be an interesting experiment to bring back the carvairs for just one day instead of the current planes. Wouldn't need to turn off the tv for 20 seconds then - it would do it all by itself!
No one cares about carvairs, Sopwith camels or other antiquated straw man argument material. what concerns many people in this day and age are the loud, winged, orange and white monstrosities that have started to fill up the sky above where babies are trying to sleep and where people have made personal investments with their 'own' money.

its not a technical specification, its a strong emotive lament by the sorry sods that live there.
Compairing the quite moden aircraft to the much LOUDER older aircraft is valid.

The moden jet engine is far quieter than than the older jet engines, if you don't know or under stand that FACT than you have lost the argument already.

You say and I quite" fill up the sky above where babies are trying to sleep "

So babies are sleeping in the sky now are they, please do tell us how they hover in mid air, how do they keep warm, how do Mummy and Daddy reach them?

Please these are improtant little bits of information we need to know, are they magic babies do they process unholy powers and what about dirty nappy do they bomb us with them.

Details man fill in the details!
To compare an aircraft that is no longer in use and that no one in their twenties will have any vivid or otherwise memory of is a pointless and pathetic argument...

try harder..
I had a vision there of you sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting 'la la la'.

Can you explain then why people who are old enough to remember the prop planes could cope with the noise whereas people in their twenties can't cope with the quieter jet engine noise?

Can I also point out that if you do receive compensation, it won't make the planes magically disappear so how will the money help (unless you are buying triple glazing which I very much doubt)?
Assume money would make up the shortfall if/when they choose to sell. Very much doubt it will cover it though. Maybe they'll get a pool fitted in the garden so they can go under water when the planes go over?
[quote][p][bold]Diannah[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Diannah[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jolllyboy[/bold] wrote: Its absolute tosh that it was quieter now than in the 60's - the runway is longer therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Engines are larger and I promise you the noise is horrendous when they pass overhead. It will vary road to road considerably so when one road says it is not too bad they should try another !I dont care a fig about the loss of value of the house I care about the noise in my garden when you cannot hear what someone is saying ! I agree there is nothing to stop the airport getting a longer runway. i wish they would improve the roads around there though . the Tesco roundabout is a nighgtmare incredibly dangerous and it is not clear the route through to rochford.[/p][/quote]I had to have a little laugh at your comment about the runway being longer - therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Do you seriously believe that planes use the whole of the runway each time they take off and land? Wouldn't it be an interesting experiment to bring back the carvairs for just one day instead of the current planes. Wouldn't need to turn off the tv for 20 seconds then - it would do it all by itself![/p][/quote]No one cares about carvairs, Sopwith camels or other antiquated straw man argument material. what concerns many people in this day and age are the loud, winged, orange and white monstrosities that have started to fill up the sky above where babies are trying to sleep and where people have made personal investments with their 'own' money. its not a technical specification, its a strong emotive lament by the sorry sods that live there.[/p][/quote]Compairing the quite moden aircraft to the much LOUDER older aircraft is valid. The moden jet engine is far quieter than than the older jet engines, if you don't know or under stand that FACT than you have lost the argument already. You say and I quite" fill up the sky above where babies are trying to sleep " So babies are sleeping in the sky now are they, please do tell us how they hover in mid air, how do they keep warm, how do Mummy and Daddy reach them? Please these are improtant little bits of information we need to know, are they magic babies do they process unholy powers and what about dirty nappy do they bomb us with them. Details man fill in the details![/p][/quote]To compare an aircraft that is no longer in use and that no one in their twenties will have any vivid or otherwise memory of is a pointless and pathetic argument... try harder..[/p][/quote]I had a vision there of you sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting 'la la la'. Can you explain then why people who are old enough to remember the prop planes could cope with the noise whereas people in their twenties can't cope with the quieter jet engine noise? Can I also point out that if you do receive compensation, it won't make the planes magically disappear so how will the money help (unless you are buying triple glazing which I very much doubt)?[/p][/quote]Assume money would make up the shortfall if/when they choose to sell. Very much doubt it will cover it though. Maybe they'll get a pool fitted in the garden so they can go under water when the planes go over? mys842

11:41am Wed 30 Jan 13

Broadwaywatch says...

Max Impact wrote:
jolllyboy wrote:
Its absolute tosh that it was quieter now than in the 60's - the runway is longer therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Engines are larger and I promise you the noise is horrendous when they pass overhead. It will vary road to road considerably so when one road says it is not too bad they should try another !I dont care a fig about the loss of value of the house I care about the noise in my garden when you cannot hear what someone is saying ! I agree there is nothing to stop the airport getting a longer runway. i wish they would improve the roads around there though . the Tesco roundabout is a nighgtmare incredibly dangerous and it is not clear the route through to rochford.
WALLY ALERT WHOOP WHOOP WALLY ALERT.

You do not have a clue, listen to a moden jet engine like thise fitted to the A319 on takes off, then listen to what a Carvair sounded like with it's four piston engines at full power on take off tell me what is louder and what lasts longer.

No doubt you will say the moden engine as you are one of those people that hate to admit you are wrong.

The early jets such as a Boeing 707, 727 and Bac111 would wake the dead.

As for the aircraft being too loud for you to hear somebody standing right next to you talking what rot, where abouts do you live?
Max....can't you make a comment on here without first being rude and insulting?
[quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jolllyboy[/bold] wrote: Its absolute tosh that it was quieter now than in the 60's - the runway is longer therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Engines are larger and I promise you the noise is horrendous when they pass overhead. It will vary road to road considerably so when one road says it is not too bad they should try another !I dont care a fig about the loss of value of the house I care about the noise in my garden when you cannot hear what someone is saying ! I agree there is nothing to stop the airport getting a longer runway. i wish they would improve the roads around there though . the Tesco roundabout is a nighgtmare incredibly dangerous and it is not clear the route through to rochford.[/p][/quote]WALLY ALERT WHOOP WHOOP WALLY ALERT. You do not have a clue, listen to a moden jet engine like thise fitted to the A319 on takes off, then listen to what a Carvair sounded like with it's four piston engines at full power on take off tell me what is louder and what lasts longer. No doubt you will say the moden engine as you are one of those people that hate to admit you are wrong. The early jets such as a Boeing 707, 727 and Bac111 would wake the dead. As for the aircraft being too loud for you to hear somebody standing right next to you talking what rot, where abouts do you live?[/p][/quote]Max....can't you make a comment on here without first being rude and insulting? Broadwaywatch

12:44pm Wed 30 Jan 13

Simon123 says...

Max Impact wrote:
Nebs wrote: If prices on average are up by 14%, and theirs are down by 15%, does that mean they will get 29%? Seems reasonable, it must have been built into the business plan.
How, if prices went up 14% because of the airport and then down 15% that equates to 1% why whould the airport pay the increase? Nimbys thick and getting thicker.
If there was a 14% increased followed by a 15% decrease then they would actually be just over 3% down on their original value.

Shouldn't be so quick with the thick comments! Although the 29% figure was a little daft :)
[quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: If prices on average are up by 14%, and theirs are down by 15%, does that mean they will get 29%? Seems reasonable, it must have been built into the business plan.[/p][/quote]How, if prices went up 14% because of the airport and then down 15% that equates to 1% why whould the airport pay the increase? Nimbys thick and getting thicker.[/p][/quote]If there was a 14% increased followed by a 15% decrease then they would actually be just over 3% down on their original value. Shouldn't be so quick with the thick comments! Although the 29% figure was a little daft :) Simon123

12:55pm Wed 30 Jan 13

Max Impact says...

Broadwaywatch wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
jolllyboy wrote:
Its absolute tosh that it was quieter now than in the 60's - the runway is longer therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Engines are larger and I promise you the noise is horrendous when they pass overhead. It will vary road to road considerably so when one road says it is not too bad they should try another !I dont care a fig about the loss of value of the house I care about the noise in my garden when you cannot hear what someone is saying ! I agree there is nothing to stop the airport getting a longer runway. i wish they would improve the roads around there though . the Tesco roundabout is a nighgtmare incredibly dangerous and it is not clear the route through to rochford.
WALLY ALERT WHOOP WHOOP WALLY ALERT.

You do not have a clue, listen to a moden jet engine like thise fitted to the A319 on takes off, then listen to what a Carvair sounded like with it's four piston engines at full power on take off tell me what is louder and what lasts longer.

No doubt you will say the moden engine as you are one of those people that hate to admit you are wrong.

The early jets such as a Boeing 707, 727 and Bac111 would wake the dead.

As for the aircraft being too loud for you to hear somebody standing right next to you talking what rot, where abouts do you live?
Max....can't you make a comment on here without first being rude and insulting?
Nope, the nimblys deserve it with thier off the wall comments about moden aircraft being louder than the older aircraft.

Still signing off from here for the next few weeks no more idiotic comments from the know nothings nothing's.

See ya SCJ's
[quote][p][bold]Broadwaywatch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jolllyboy[/bold] wrote: Its absolute tosh that it was quieter now than in the 60's - the runway is longer therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Engines are larger and I promise you the noise is horrendous when they pass overhead. It will vary road to road considerably so when one road says it is not too bad they should try another !I dont care a fig about the loss of value of the house I care about the noise in my garden when you cannot hear what someone is saying ! I agree there is nothing to stop the airport getting a longer runway. i wish they would improve the roads around there though . the Tesco roundabout is a nighgtmare incredibly dangerous and it is not clear the route through to rochford.[/p][/quote]WALLY ALERT WHOOP WHOOP WALLY ALERT. You do not have a clue, listen to a moden jet engine like thise fitted to the A319 on takes off, then listen to what a Carvair sounded like with it's four piston engines at full power on take off tell me what is louder and what lasts longer. No doubt you will say the moden engine as you are one of those people that hate to admit you are wrong. The early jets such as a Boeing 707, 727 and Bac111 would wake the dead. As for the aircraft being too loud for you to hear somebody standing right next to you talking what rot, where abouts do you live?[/p][/quote]Max....can't you make a comment on here without first being rude and insulting?[/p][/quote]Nope, the nimblys deserve it with thier off the wall comments about moden aircraft being louder than the older aircraft. Still signing off from here for the next few weeks no more idiotic comments from the know nothings nothing's. See ya SCJ's Max Impact

4:00pm Wed 30 Jan 13

maxell says...

jolly boy I bet a pound to a penny that you do not live near enought to the airport to be affected by aircraft to much or you have a hearing inpediment , you are comming over as being extremly jealous, and have resulted to a desparate personal attack , sure sign of somebody either on a wind up or loosoing an argument. The fact is it matters not what people spend thier compensation on as it is none of your concern, the fact is the airport is dispised by the affected and loved by the non affected, this will never change, the bottom line is the only way to hit anybody now a days is in the pocket , and have you ever wonderd why the land compensation act 1973 actully exsists,and top of the lists is airports as they are know to be disruptive the very reason for people to be compensated , I f you want in then mover nearer the airport, there are lots of properties for sale that no body wants to purchase so you can take your pick obviously you would want to pay the full asking price so not to take advantage of anyone, then it will be at your risk if you lost money or not, or maybe you already know that this would not be a good move. of course once you have lost money you could always seek compensation your nonsensical side is blowing hot air whilst you sencible side knows that moving to this area would not be a good move .!
jolly boy I bet a pound to a penny that you do not live near enought to the airport to be affected by aircraft to much or you have a hearing inpediment , you are comming over as being extremly jealous, and have resulted to a desparate personal attack , sure sign of somebody either on a wind up or loosoing an argument. The fact is it matters not what people spend thier compensation on as it is none of your concern, the fact is the airport is dispised by the affected and loved by the non affected, this will never change, the bottom line is the only way to hit anybody now a days is in the pocket , and have you ever wonderd why the land compensation act 1973 actully exsists,and top of the lists is airports as they are know to be disruptive the very reason for people to be compensated , I f you want in then mover nearer the airport, there are lots of properties for sale that no body wants to purchase so you can take your pick obviously you would want to pay the full asking price so not to take advantage of anyone, then it will be at your risk if you lost money or not, or maybe you already know that this would not be a good move. of course once you have lost money you could always seek compensation your nonsensical side is blowing hot air whilst you sencible side knows that moving to this area would not be a good move .! maxell

4:58pm Wed 30 Jan 13

2shedsjackson says...

So what. Add more and longer runways, fill the sky over Southend with aircraft and while you're about it compulsory purchase land to add two lanes to the A127. The tea and tiffin brigade and those on benefit living in their bedsits can go hang.
They drive cars, keep pets what sh#it everywhere, fly away on holiday, have yobbo kids, buy consumer items from the sweat shops of the 3rd world, etc,etc.
No sympathy whatsoever.
So what. Add more and longer runways, fill the sky over Southend with aircraft and while you're about it compulsory purchase land to add two lanes to the A127. The tea and tiffin brigade and those on benefit living in their bedsits can go hang. They drive cars, keep pets what sh#it everywhere, fly away on holiday, have yobbo kids, buy consumer items from the sweat shops of the 3rd world, etc,etc. No sympathy whatsoever. 2shedsjackson

6:18pm Wed 30 Jan 13

jayman says...

2shedsjackson wrote:
So what. Add more and longer runways, fill the sky over Southend with aircraft and while you're about it compulsory purchase land to add two lanes to the A127. The tea and tiffin brigade and those on benefit living in their bedsits can go hang.
They drive cars, keep pets what sh#it everywhere, fly away on holiday, have yobbo kids, buy consumer items from the sweat shops of the 3rd world, etc,etc.
No sympathy whatsoever.
wow. Are you in the running for beating max impact on the number of unrelated, pointless and inaccurate prejudices you can squeeze into a comments box.

I think you need a rest. perhaps that's why you support the airport so much. It must facilitate your getaway when reality gets too much and you cant hack it any more. when your head is filled with that much hatred for that many things I Imagen the constant overwhelming sound of aircraft jets has the same effect as classical music.

The sound of an Airbus taking off for you must sound like a Bach cello suite. compared to the right wing 'voices' that you hear..
[quote][p][bold]2shedsjackson[/bold] wrote: So what. Add more and longer runways, fill the sky over Southend with aircraft and while you're about it compulsory purchase land to add two lanes to the A127. The tea and tiffin brigade and those on benefit living in their bedsits can go hang. They drive cars, keep pets what sh#it everywhere, fly away on holiday, have yobbo kids, buy consumer items from the sweat shops of the 3rd world, etc,etc. No sympathy whatsoever.[/p][/quote]wow. Are you in the running for beating max impact on the number of unrelated, pointless and inaccurate prejudices you can squeeze into a comments box. I think you need a rest. perhaps that's why you support the airport so much. It must facilitate your getaway when reality gets too much and you cant hack it any more. when your head is filled with that much hatred for that many things I Imagen the constant overwhelming sound of aircraft jets has the same effect as classical music. The sound of an Airbus taking off for you must sound like a Bach cello suite. compared to the right wing 'voices' that you hear.. jayman

6:42pm Wed 30 Jan 13

sensiblelos says...

BASILBRUSH wrote:
"once again, Mr Welch makes out he is an expert in House Prices in the vicinity he is not,"

Er.. No he didnt.

Quote
“While recent evidence reinforces the strength of house prices in the Southend area, a total of six claims have been made for compensation from agents acting on behalf of people who have recently sold properties in the area.


“We anticipate that as further house price data becomes available, their validity will be appropriately assessed.”

.....
That's recent evidenced published in the national media, and then goe's on to state the validity will be assessed appropriately. At what point doe's that suggest he is an expert?

I would suggest a conflict of interest from the Surveyor producing figures demonstarting a dip. The same Surveyor that is then going to gain financially from the claims?
I assume as a Chartered Surveyor the information takes into account all variables including national and regional variations?

The process will soon weed out any genuine claims from the Ambulance chasers.
sorry, of course, that's right yes i agree Welch is no expert.

he makes reference to "strength" in the housing market, you would have noted my comments in respect of Land Registry data, the increase in house prices in southend is 1% less than the south east , the actual increase(all sold prices) in the borough of southend(not individual areas) is 2% and not 14% as noted by the Halifax which is a sample of mortgage approvals within the area.

So yes, once again welch is no expert is he.

Basil, i note no reference to my other comments/questions, perhaps you wish to dismiss the questions that have been asked of the Council, its not a surprise the Council continue to ignore these , maybe they wont be able to ignore those questions for much longer.

you obviously know about the airport business, i am surprised that as a representative of Mr Welch or the airport or the Council, you have not been able to answer the simple question " did the council as landowner consider the effects the expansion would have on house values under the flight path before they agreed to the expansion". YES or NO? it should be a simple answer, yes it should, but why don't they answer?
[quote][p][bold]BASILBRUSH[/bold] wrote: "once again, Mr Welch makes out he is an expert in House Prices in the vicinity he is not," Er.. No he didnt. Quote “While recent evidence reinforces the strength of house prices in the Southend area, a total of six claims have been made for compensation from agents acting on behalf of people who have recently sold properties in the area. “We anticipate that as further house price data becomes available, their validity will be appropriately assessed.” ..... That's recent evidenced published in the national media, and then goe's on to state the validity will be assessed appropriately. At what point doe's that suggest he is an expert? I would suggest a conflict of interest from the Surveyor producing figures demonstarting a dip. The same Surveyor that is then going to gain financially from the claims? I assume as a Chartered Surveyor the information takes into account all variables including national and regional variations? The process will soon weed out any genuine claims from the Ambulance chasers.[/p][/quote]sorry, of course, that's right yes i agree Welch is no expert. he makes reference to "strength" in the housing market, you would have noted my comments in respect of Land Registry data, the increase in house prices in southend is 1% less than the south east , the actual increase(all sold prices) in the borough of southend(not individual areas) is 2% and not 14% as noted by the Halifax which is a sample of mortgage approvals within the area. So yes, once again welch is no expert is he. Basil, i note no reference to my other comments/questions, perhaps you wish to dismiss the questions that have been asked of the Council, its not a surprise the Council continue to ignore these , maybe they wont be able to ignore those questions for much longer. you obviously know about the airport business, i am surprised that as a representative of Mr Welch or the airport or the Council, you have not been able to answer the simple question " did the council as landowner consider the effects the expansion would have on house values under the flight path before they agreed to the expansion". YES or NO? it should be a simple answer, yes it should, but why don't they answer? sensiblelos

6:46pm Wed 30 Jan 13

sensiblelos says...

Max Impact wrote:
Broadwaywatch wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
jolllyboy wrote:
Its absolute tosh that it was quieter now than in the 60's - the runway is longer therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Engines are larger and I promise you the noise is horrendous when they pass overhead. It will vary road to road considerably so when one road says it is not too bad they should try another !I dont care a fig about the loss of value of the house I care about the noise in my garden when you cannot hear what someone is saying ! I agree there is nothing to stop the airport getting a longer runway. i wish they would improve the roads around there though . the Tesco roundabout is a nighgtmare incredibly dangerous and it is not clear the route through to rochford.
WALLY ALERT WHOOP WHOOP WALLY ALERT.

You do not have a clue, listen to a moden jet engine like thise fitted to the A319 on takes off, then listen to what a Carvair sounded like with it's four piston engines at full power on take off tell me what is louder and what lasts longer.

No doubt you will say the moden engine as you are one of those people that hate to admit you are wrong.

The early jets such as a Boeing 707, 727 and Bac111 would wake the dead.

As for the aircraft being too loud for you to hear somebody standing right next to you talking what rot, where abouts do you live?
Max....can't you make a comment on here without first being rude and insulting?
Nope, the nimblys deserve it with thier off the wall comments about moden aircraft being louder than the older aircraft.

Still signing off from here for the next few weeks no more idiotic comments from the know nothings nothing's.

See ya SCJ's
great thats really good news Peter Rachman.i look forward to you 10millionth post very soon.
[quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Broadwaywatch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jolllyboy[/bold] wrote: Its absolute tosh that it was quieter now than in the 60's - the runway is longer therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Engines are larger and I promise you the noise is horrendous when they pass overhead. It will vary road to road considerably so when one road says it is not too bad they should try another !I dont care a fig about the loss of value of the house I care about the noise in my garden when you cannot hear what someone is saying ! I agree there is nothing to stop the airport getting a longer runway. i wish they would improve the roads around there though . the Tesco roundabout is a nighgtmare incredibly dangerous and it is not clear the route through to rochford.[/p][/quote]WALLY ALERT WHOOP WHOOP WALLY ALERT. You do not have a clue, listen to a moden jet engine like thise fitted to the A319 on takes off, then listen to what a Carvair sounded like with it's four piston engines at full power on take off tell me what is louder and what lasts longer. No doubt you will say the moden engine as you are one of those people that hate to admit you are wrong. The early jets such as a Boeing 707, 727 and Bac111 would wake the dead. As for the aircraft being too loud for you to hear somebody standing right next to you talking what rot, where abouts do you live?[/p][/quote]Max....can't you make a comment on here without first being rude and insulting?[/p][/quote]Nope, the nimblys deserve it with thier off the wall comments about moden aircraft being louder than the older aircraft. Still signing off from here for the next few weeks no more idiotic comments from the know nothings nothing's. See ya SCJ's[/p][/quote]great thats really good news Peter Rachman.i look forward to you 10millionth post very soon. sensiblelos

7:08pm Wed 30 Jan 13

2shedsjackson says...

jayman wrote:
2shedsjackson wrote:
So what. Add more and longer runways, fill the sky over Southend with aircraft and while you're about it compulsory purchase land to add two lanes to the A127. The tea and tiffin brigade and those on benefit living in their bedsits can go hang.
They drive cars, keep pets what sh#it everywhere, fly away on holiday, have yobbo kids, buy consumer items from the sweat shops of the 3rd world, etc,etc.
No sympathy whatsoever.
wow. Are you in the running for beating max impact on the number of unrelated, pointless and inaccurate prejudices you can squeeze into a comments box.

I think you need a rest. perhaps that's why you support the airport so much. It must facilitate your getaway when reality gets too much and you cant hack it any more. when your head is filled with that much hatred for that many things I Imagen the constant overwhelming sound of aircraft jets has the same effect as classical music.

The sound of an Airbus taking off for you must sound like a Bach cello suite. compared to the right wing 'voices' that you hear..
Why do you assume my head is filled with hate when i merely make an observation. please do not attach your values to me.
.
Obviusly i need to explain slowly to you that whilst people complain that the airport (here since 1914 BTW) is an imposition on them there will be activities of theirs that impose on others. It is called being a hypocrite anf you find it on google as nyou are having difficulty understanding.
.
As to right wing and needing a rest from the voices, is it the case that anyone who disagrees with you is "right wing". So please do not try and bully me and by your remarks do you support 3rd world sweat shops perchance?
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]2shedsjackson[/bold] wrote: So what. Add more and longer runways, fill the sky over Southend with aircraft and while you're about it compulsory purchase land to add two lanes to the A127. The tea and tiffin brigade and those on benefit living in their bedsits can go hang. They drive cars, keep pets what sh#it everywhere, fly away on holiday, have yobbo kids, buy consumer items from the sweat shops of the 3rd world, etc,etc. No sympathy whatsoever.[/p][/quote]wow. Are you in the running for beating max impact on the number of unrelated, pointless and inaccurate prejudices you can squeeze into a comments box. I think you need a rest. perhaps that's why you support the airport so much. It must facilitate your getaway when reality gets too much and you cant hack it any more. when your head is filled with that much hatred for that many things I Imagen the constant overwhelming sound of aircraft jets has the same effect as classical music. The sound of an Airbus taking off for you must sound like a Bach cello suite. compared to the right wing 'voices' that you hear..[/p][/quote]Why do you assume my head is filled with hate when i merely make an observation. please do not attach your values to me. . Obviusly i need to explain slowly to you that whilst people complain that the airport (here since 1914 BTW) is an imposition on them there will be activities of theirs that impose on others. It is called being a hypocrite anf you find it on google as nyou are having difficulty understanding. . As to right wing and needing a rest from the voices, is it the case that anyone who disagrees with you is "right wing". So please do not try and bully me and by your remarks do you support 3rd world sweat shops perchance? 2shedsjackson

7:49pm Wed 30 Jan 13

Nebs says...

Simon123 wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
Nebs wrote: If prices on average are up by 14%, and theirs are down by 15%, does that mean they will get 29%? Seems reasonable, it must have been built into the business plan.
How, if prices went up 14% because of the airport and then down 15% that equates to 1% why whould the airport pay the increase? Nimbys thick and getting thicker.
If there was a 14% increased followed by a 15% decrease then they would actually be just over 3% down on their original value.

Shouldn't be so quick with the thick comments! Although the 29% figure was a little daft :)
If houses were £200,000 and have now gone up by 15% to £230,000, except under the flightpath which have gone down 14% to £172,000, the difference as a percentage of the original price is 29%.
[quote][p][bold]Simon123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: If prices on average are up by 14%, and theirs are down by 15%, does that mean they will get 29%? Seems reasonable, it must have been built into the business plan.[/p][/quote]How, if prices went up 14% because of the airport and then down 15% that equates to 1% why whould the airport pay the increase? Nimbys thick and getting thicker.[/p][/quote]If there was a 14% increased followed by a 15% decrease then they would actually be just over 3% down on their original value. Shouldn't be so quick with the thick comments! Although the 29% figure was a little daft :)[/p][/quote]If houses were £200,000 and have now gone up by 15% to £230,000, except under the flightpath which have gone down 14% to £172,000, the difference as a percentage of the original price is 29%. Nebs

7:57pm Wed 30 Jan 13

jayman says...

2shedsjackson wrote:
jayman wrote:
2shedsjackson wrote:
So what. Add more and longer runways, fill the sky over Southend with aircraft and while you're about it compulsory purchase land to add two lanes to the A127. The tea and tiffin brigade and those on benefit living in their bedsits can go hang.
They drive cars, keep pets what sh#it everywhere, fly away on holiday, have yobbo kids, buy consumer items from the sweat shops of the 3rd world, etc,etc.
No sympathy whatsoever.
wow. Are you in the running for beating max impact on the number of unrelated, pointless and inaccurate prejudices you can squeeze into a comments box.

I think you need a rest. perhaps that's why you support the airport so much. It must facilitate your getaway when reality gets too much and you cant hack it any more. when your head is filled with that much hatred for that many things I Imagen the constant overwhelming sound of aircraft jets has the same effect as classical music.

The sound of an Airbus taking off for you must sound like a Bach cello suite. compared to the right wing 'voices' that you hear..
Why do you assume my head is filled with hate when i merely make an observation. please do not attach your values to me.
.
Obviusly i need to explain slowly to you that whilst people complain that the airport (here since 1914 BTW) is an imposition on them there will be activities of theirs that impose on others. It is called being a hypocrite anf you find it on google as nyou are having difficulty understanding.
.
As to right wing and needing a rest from the voices, is it the case that anyone who disagrees with you is "right wing". So please do not try and bully me and by your remarks do you support 3rd world sweat shops perchance?
you said

"compulsory purchase land to add two lanes to the A127. The tea and tiffin brigade and those on benefit living in their bedsits can go hang."

oh yes.. moderate and evidence based opinions are oozing from your keyboard I see.

as for me.

I'm a pragmatist dear boy. I don't believe in political ideology.

Oh and for the record. I'm fully employed and pleased to report that i don't live in a bedsit.
[quote][p][bold]2shedsjackson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]2shedsjackson[/bold] wrote: So what. Add more and longer runways, fill the sky over Southend with aircraft and while you're about it compulsory purchase land to add two lanes to the A127. The tea and tiffin brigade and those on benefit living in their bedsits can go hang. They drive cars, keep pets what sh#it everywhere, fly away on holiday, have yobbo kids, buy consumer items from the sweat shops of the 3rd world, etc,etc. No sympathy whatsoever.[/p][/quote]wow. Are you in the running for beating max impact on the number of unrelated, pointless and inaccurate prejudices you can squeeze into a comments box. I think you need a rest. perhaps that's why you support the airport so much. It must facilitate your getaway when reality gets too much and you cant hack it any more. when your head is filled with that much hatred for that many things I Imagen the constant overwhelming sound of aircraft jets has the same effect as classical music. The sound of an Airbus taking off for you must sound like a Bach cello suite. compared to the right wing 'voices' that you hear..[/p][/quote]Why do you assume my head is filled with hate when i merely make an observation. please do not attach your values to me. . Obviusly i need to explain slowly to you that whilst people complain that the airport (here since 1914 BTW) is an imposition on them there will be activities of theirs that impose on others. It is called being a hypocrite anf you find it on google as nyou are having difficulty understanding. . As to right wing and needing a rest from the voices, is it the case that anyone who disagrees with you is "right wing". So please do not try and bully me and by your remarks do you support 3rd world sweat shops perchance?[/p][/quote]you said "compulsory purchase land to add two lanes to the A127. The tea and tiffin brigade and those on benefit living in their bedsits can go hang." oh yes.. moderate and evidence based opinions are oozing from your keyboard I see. as for me. I'm a pragmatist dear boy. I don't believe in political ideology. Oh and for the record. I'm fully employed and pleased to report that i don't live in a bedsit. jayman

8:29pm Wed 30 Jan 13

2shedsjackson says...

Nebs wrote:
Simon123 wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
Nebs wrote: If prices on average are up by 14%, and theirs are down by 15%, does that mean they will get 29%? Seems reasonable, it must have been built into the business plan.
How, if prices went up 14% because of the airport and then down 15% that equates to 1% why whould the airport pay the increase? Nimbys thick and getting thicker.
If there was a 14% increased followed by a 15% decrease then they would actually be just over 3% down on their original value.

Shouldn't be so quick with the thick comments! Although the 29% figure was a little daft :)
If houses were £200,000 and have now gone up by 15% to £230,000, except under the flightpath which have gone down 14% to £172,000, the difference as a percentage of the original price is 29%.
Simon123 is correct it is 3%.
[quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Simon123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: If prices on average are up by 14%, and theirs are down by 15%, does that mean they will get 29%? Seems reasonable, it must have been built into the business plan.[/p][/quote]How, if prices went up 14% because of the airport and then down 15% that equates to 1% why whould the airport pay the increase? Nimbys thick and getting thicker.[/p][/quote]If there was a 14% increased followed by a 15% decrease then they would actually be just over 3% down on their original value. Shouldn't be so quick with the thick comments! Although the 29% figure was a little daft :)[/p][/quote]If houses were £200,000 and have now gone up by 15% to £230,000, except under the flightpath which have gone down 14% to £172,000, the difference as a percentage of the original price is 29%.[/p][/quote]Simon123 is correct it is 3%. 2shedsjackson

8:50pm Wed 30 Jan 13

jayman says...

2shedsjackson wrote:
Nebs wrote:
Simon123 wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
Nebs wrote: If prices on average are up by 14%, and theirs are down by 15%, does that mean they will get 29%? Seems reasonable, it must have been built into the business plan.
How, if prices went up 14% because of the airport and then down 15% that equates to 1% why whould the airport pay the increase? Nimbys thick and getting thicker.
If there was a 14% increased followed by a 15% decrease then they would actually be just over 3% down on their original value.

Shouldn't be so quick with the thick comments! Although the 29% figure was a little daft :)
If houses were £200,000 and have now gone up by 15% to £230,000, except under the flightpath which have gone down 14% to £172,000, the difference as a percentage of the original price is 29%.
Simon123 is correct it is 3%.
Its funny how southend Tory councillors where boasting about house price increases as per the the Halifax figures. they seemed to put a lot of weight behind them in saying how the administrations excellent leadership and capital spending programme *chuckles* had brought great increases to house values. Apart from the houses that are beneath the flight path of course..
[quote][p][bold]2shedsjackson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Simon123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: If prices on average are up by 14%, and theirs are down by 15%, does that mean they will get 29%? Seems reasonable, it must have been built into the business plan.[/p][/quote]How, if prices went up 14% because of the airport and then down 15% that equates to 1% why whould the airport pay the increase? Nimbys thick and getting thicker.[/p][/quote]If there was a 14% increased followed by a 15% decrease then they would actually be just over 3% down on their original value. Shouldn't be so quick with the thick comments! Although the 29% figure was a little daft :)[/p][/quote]If houses were £200,000 and have now gone up by 15% to £230,000, except under the flightpath which have gone down 14% to £172,000, the difference as a percentage of the original price is 29%.[/p][/quote]Simon123 is correct it is 3%.[/p][/quote]Its funny how southend Tory councillors where boasting about house price increases as per the the Halifax figures. they seemed to put a lot of weight behind them in saying how the administrations excellent leadership and capital spending programme *chuckles* had brought great increases to house values. Apart from the houses that are beneath the flight path of course.. jayman

9:10pm Wed 30 Jan 13

jayman says...

jayman wrote:
2shedsjackson wrote:
Nebs wrote:
Simon123 wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
Nebs wrote: If prices on average are up by 14%, and theirs are down by 15%, does that mean they will get 29%? Seems reasonable, it must have been built into the business plan.
How, if prices went up 14% because of the airport and then down 15% that equates to 1% why whould the airport pay the increase? Nimbys thick and getting thicker.
If there was a 14% increased followed by a 15% decrease then they would actually be just over 3% down on their original value.

Shouldn't be so quick with the thick comments! Although the 29% figure was a little daft :)
If houses were £200,000 and have now gone up by 15% to £230,000, except under the flightpath which have gone down 14% to £172,000, the difference as a percentage of the original price is 29%.
Simon123 is correct it is 3%.
Its funny how southend Tory councillors where boasting about house price increases as per the the Halifax figures. they seemed to put a lot of weight behind them in saying how the administrations excellent leadership and capital spending programme *chuckles* had brought great increases to house values. Apart from the houses that are beneath the flight path of course..
http://www.itv.com/n
ews/london/2012-12-2
7/southend-has-bigge
st-house-price-rise/


listen to one local authority windbag yourself.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]2shedsjackson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Simon123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: If prices on average are up by 14%, and theirs are down by 15%, does that mean they will get 29%? Seems reasonable, it must have been built into the business plan.[/p][/quote]How, if prices went up 14% because of the airport and then down 15% that equates to 1% why whould the airport pay the increase? Nimbys thick and getting thicker.[/p][/quote]If there was a 14% increased followed by a 15% decrease then they would actually be just over 3% down on their original value. Shouldn't be so quick with the thick comments! Although the 29% figure was a little daft :)[/p][/quote]If houses were £200,000 and have now gone up by 15% to £230,000, except under the flightpath which have gone down 14% to £172,000, the difference as a percentage of the original price is 29%.[/p][/quote]Simon123 is correct it is 3%.[/p][/quote]Its funny how southend Tory councillors where boasting about house price increases as per the the Halifax figures. they seemed to put a lot of weight behind them in saying how the administrations excellent leadership and capital spending programme *chuckles* had brought great increases to house values. Apart from the houses that are beneath the flight path of course..[/p][/quote]http://www.itv.com/n ews/london/2012-12-2 7/southend-has-bigge st-house-price-rise/ listen to one local authority windbag yourself. jayman

9:56am Thu 31 Jan 13

Nebs says...

2shedsjackson wrote:
Nebs wrote:
Simon123 wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
Nebs wrote: If prices on average are up by 14%, and theirs are down by 15%, does that mean they will get 29%? Seems reasonable, it must have been built into the business plan.
How, if prices went up 14% because of the airport and then down 15% that equates to 1% why whould the airport pay the increase? Nimbys thick and getting thicker.
If there was a 14% increased followed by a 15% decrease then they would actually be just over 3% down on their original value.

Shouldn't be so quick with the thick comments! Although the 29% figure was a little daft :)
If houses were £200,000 and have now gone up by 15% to £230,000, except under the flightpath which have gone down 14% to £172,000, the difference as a percentage of the original price is 29%.
Simon123 is correct it is 3%.
Simon123 would have been correct IF I had said that the house prices for properties under the flightpath had gone up by 14% and then gone down by 15%, but that is not what I said.
[quote][p][bold]2shedsjackson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Simon123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: If prices on average are up by 14%, and theirs are down by 15%, does that mean they will get 29%? Seems reasonable, it must have been built into the business plan.[/p][/quote]How, if prices went up 14% because of the airport and then down 15% that equates to 1% why whould the airport pay the increase? Nimbys thick and getting thicker.[/p][/quote]If there was a 14% increased followed by a 15% decrease then they would actually be just over 3% down on their original value. Shouldn't be so quick with the thick comments! Although the 29% figure was a little daft :)[/p][/quote]If houses were £200,000 and have now gone up by 15% to £230,000, except under the flightpath which have gone down 14% to £172,000, the difference as a percentage of the original price is 29%.[/p][/quote]Simon123 is correct it is 3%.[/p][/quote]Simon123 would have been correct IF I had said that the house prices for properties under the flightpath had gone up by 14% and then gone down by 15%, but that is not what I said. Nebs

12:03pm Thu 31 Jan 13

smiffy1980 says...

Not sure where this has come from, but I live close enough to the airport to see the underside of every plane that takes off and lands into Southend Airport. I purchased my property in 2010 and have recently started the process of moving home. As of Monday (3 independent valutaions) showed my property had increased 15% so where has all this rubbish come from. Before people ask, NO I havent extended my home or anything like that.
Not sure where this has come from, but I live close enough to the airport to see the underside of every plane that takes off and lands into Southend Airport. I purchased my property in 2010 and have recently started the process of moving home. As of Monday (3 independent valutaions) showed my property had increased 15% so where has all this rubbish come from. Before people ask, NO I havent extended my home or anything like that. smiffy1980

12:58pm Thu 31 Jan 13

Diannah says...

Diannah wrote:
jayman wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
jayman wrote:
Diannah wrote:
jolllyboy wrote:
Its absolute tosh that it was quieter now than in the 60's - the runway is longer therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Engines are larger and I promise you the noise is horrendous when they pass overhead. It will vary road to road considerably so when one road says it is not too bad they should try another !I dont care a fig about the loss of value of the house I care about the noise in my garden when you cannot hear what someone is saying ! I agree there is nothing to stop the airport getting a longer runway. i wish they would improve the roads around there though . the Tesco roundabout is a nighgtmare incredibly dangerous and it is not clear the route through to rochford.
I had to have a little laugh at your comment about the runway being longer - therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Do you seriously believe that planes use the whole of the runway each time they take off and land?

Wouldn't it be an interesting experiment to bring back the carvairs for just one day instead of the current planes. Wouldn't need to turn off the tv for 20 seconds then - it would do it all by itself!
No one cares about carvairs, Sopwith camels or other antiquated straw man argument material. what concerns many people in this day and age are the loud, winged, orange and white monstrosities that have started to fill up the sky above where babies are trying to sleep and where people have made personal investments with their 'own' money.

its not a technical specification, its a strong emotive lament by the sorry sods that live there.
Compairing the quite moden aircraft to the much LOUDER older aircraft is valid.

The moden jet engine is far quieter than than the older jet engines, if you don't know or under stand that FACT than you have lost the argument already.

You say and I quite" fill up the sky above where babies are trying to sleep "

So babies are sleeping in the sky now are they, please do tell us how they hover in mid air, how do they keep warm, how do Mummy and Daddy reach them?

Please these are improtant little bits of information we need to know, are they magic babies do they process unholy powers and what about dirty nappy do they bomb us with them.

Details man fill in the details!
To compare an aircraft that is no longer in use and that no one in their twenties will have any vivid or otherwise memory of is a pointless and pathetic argument...

try harder..
I had a vision there of you sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting 'la la la'.

Can you explain then why people who are old enough to remember the prop planes could cope with the noise whereas people in their twenties can't cope with the quieter jet engine noise?

Can I also point out that if you do receive compensation, it won't make the planes magically disappear so how will the money help (unless you are buying triple glazing which I very much doubt)?
Disappointed that you couldn''t answer my questions. Shall I just assume that you are pleading the fifth?
[quote][p][bold]Diannah[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Diannah[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jolllyboy[/bold] wrote: Its absolute tosh that it was quieter now than in the 60's - the runway is longer therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Engines are larger and I promise you the noise is horrendous when they pass overhead. It will vary road to road considerably so when one road says it is not too bad they should try another !I dont care a fig about the loss of value of the house I care about the noise in my garden when you cannot hear what someone is saying ! I agree there is nothing to stop the airport getting a longer runway. i wish they would improve the roads around there though . the Tesco roundabout is a nighgtmare incredibly dangerous and it is not clear the route through to rochford.[/p][/quote]I had to have a little laugh at your comment about the runway being longer - therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Do you seriously believe that planes use the whole of the runway each time they take off and land? Wouldn't it be an interesting experiment to bring back the carvairs for just one day instead of the current planes. Wouldn't need to turn off the tv for 20 seconds then - it would do it all by itself![/p][/quote]No one cares about carvairs, Sopwith camels or other antiquated straw man argument material. what concerns many people in this day and age are the loud, winged, orange and white monstrosities that have started to fill up the sky above where babies are trying to sleep and where people have made personal investments with their 'own' money. its not a technical specification, its a strong emotive lament by the sorry sods that live there.[/p][/quote]Compairing the quite moden aircraft to the much LOUDER older aircraft is valid. The moden jet engine is far quieter than than the older jet engines, if you don't know or under stand that FACT than you have lost the argument already. You say and I quite" fill up the sky above where babies are trying to sleep " So babies are sleeping in the sky now are they, please do tell us how they hover in mid air, how do they keep warm, how do Mummy and Daddy reach them? Please these are improtant little bits of information we need to know, are they magic babies do they process unholy powers and what about dirty nappy do they bomb us with them. Details man fill in the details![/p][/quote]To compare an aircraft that is no longer in use and that no one in their twenties will have any vivid or otherwise memory of is a pointless and pathetic argument... try harder..[/p][/quote]I had a vision there of you sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting 'la la la'. Can you explain then why people who are old enough to remember the prop planes could cope with the noise whereas people in their twenties can't cope with the quieter jet engine noise? Can I also point out that if you do receive compensation, it won't make the planes magically disappear so how will the money help (unless you are buying triple glazing which I very much doubt)?[/p][/quote]Disappointed that you couldn''t answer my questions. Shall I just assume that you are pleading the fifth? Diannah

3:06pm Thu 31 Jan 13

jayman says...

Diannah wrote:
Diannah wrote:
jayman wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
jayman wrote:
Diannah wrote:
jolllyboy wrote:
Its absolute tosh that it was quieter now than in the 60's - the runway is longer therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Engines are larger and I promise you the noise is horrendous when they pass overhead. It will vary road to road considerably so when one road says it is not too bad they should try another !I dont care a fig about the loss of value of the house I care about the noise in my garden when you cannot hear what someone is saying ! I agree there is nothing to stop the airport getting a longer runway. i wish they would improve the roads around there though . the Tesco roundabout is a nighgtmare incredibly dangerous and it is not clear the route through to rochford.
I had to have a little laugh at your comment about the runway being longer - therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Do you seriously believe that planes use the whole of the runway each time they take off and land?

Wouldn't it be an interesting experiment to bring back the carvairs for just one day instead of the current planes. Wouldn't need to turn off the tv for 20 seconds then - it would do it all by itself!
No one cares about carvairs, Sopwith camels or other antiquated straw man argument material. what concerns many people in this day and age are the loud, winged, orange and white monstrosities that have started to fill up the sky above where babies are trying to sleep and where people have made personal investments with their 'own' money.

its not a technical specification, its a strong emotive lament by the sorry sods that live there.
Compairing the quite moden aircraft to the much LOUDER older aircraft is valid.

The moden jet engine is far quieter than than the older jet engines, if you don't know or under stand that FACT than you have lost the argument already.

You say and I quite" fill up the sky above where babies are trying to sleep "

So babies are sleeping in the sky now are they, please do tell us how they hover in mid air, how do they keep warm, how do Mummy and Daddy reach them?

Please these are improtant little bits of information we need to know, are they magic babies do they process unholy powers and what about dirty nappy do they bomb us with them.

Details man fill in the details!
To compare an aircraft that is no longer in use and that no one in their twenties will have any vivid or otherwise memory of is a pointless and pathetic argument...

try harder..
I had a vision there of you sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting 'la la la'.

Can you explain then why people who are old enough to remember the prop planes could cope with the noise whereas people in their twenties can't cope with the quieter jet engine noise?

Can I also point out that if you do receive compensation, it won't make the planes magically disappear so how will the money help (unless you are buying triple glazing which I very much doubt)?
Disappointed that you couldn''t answer my questions. Shall I just assume that you are pleading the fifth?
what.. perhaps I chose not to answer as i made my opinion (one based on logic) clear in response to your pointless merry-go-round of silly comparisons. you may as well be saying "steam trains where louder then electric trains" despite the fact that most children now think that all steam trains have faces and work for an obese man in a top hat. mentioning carvairs is on a similar level to young adults 'never seen or heard one'

and also.. There is no such thing as a 'fifth' in our legal system. as

a) we don't have a federal government.
b) an 'amendment' in UK terms is a change or alteration to an existing law. Not a law in itself 'silly Americans'
c) we do not operate from badly worded and interpreted constitutional laws in this country. our laws and our constitution are mostly separate.
[quote][p][bold]Diannah[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Diannah[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Diannah[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jolllyboy[/bold] wrote: Its absolute tosh that it was quieter now than in the 60's - the runway is longer therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Engines are larger and I promise you the noise is horrendous when they pass overhead. It will vary road to road considerably so when one road says it is not too bad they should try another !I dont care a fig about the loss of value of the house I care about the noise in my garden when you cannot hear what someone is saying ! I agree there is nothing to stop the airport getting a longer runway. i wish they would improve the roads around there though . the Tesco roundabout is a nighgtmare incredibly dangerous and it is not clear the route through to rochford.[/p][/quote]I had to have a little laugh at your comment about the runway being longer - therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Do you seriously believe that planes use the whole of the runway each time they take off and land? Wouldn't it be an interesting experiment to bring back the carvairs for just one day instead of the current planes. Wouldn't need to turn off the tv for 20 seconds then - it would do it all by itself![/p][/quote]No one cares about carvairs, Sopwith camels or other antiquated straw man argument material. what concerns many people in this day and age are the loud, winged, orange and white monstrosities that have started to fill up the sky above where babies are trying to sleep and where people have made personal investments with their 'own' money. its not a technical specification, its a strong emotive lament by the sorry sods that live there.[/p][/quote]Compairing the quite moden aircraft to the much LOUDER older aircraft is valid. The moden jet engine is far quieter than than the older jet engines, if you don't know or under stand that FACT than you have lost the argument already. You say and I quite" fill up the sky above where babies are trying to sleep " So babies are sleeping in the sky now are they, please do tell us how they hover in mid air, how do they keep warm, how do Mummy and Daddy reach them? Please these are improtant little bits of information we need to know, are they magic babies do they process unholy powers and what about dirty nappy do they bomb us with them. Details man fill in the details![/p][/quote]To compare an aircraft that is no longer in use and that no one in their twenties will have any vivid or otherwise memory of is a pointless and pathetic argument... try harder..[/p][/quote]I had a vision there of you sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting 'la la la'. Can you explain then why people who are old enough to remember the prop planes could cope with the noise whereas people in their twenties can't cope with the quieter jet engine noise? Can I also point out that if you do receive compensation, it won't make the planes magically disappear so how will the money help (unless you are buying triple glazing which I very much doubt)?[/p][/quote]Disappointed that you couldn''t answer my questions. Shall I just assume that you are pleading the fifth?[/p][/quote]what.. perhaps I chose not to answer as i made my opinion (one based on logic) clear in response to your pointless merry-go-round of silly comparisons. you may as well be saying "steam trains where louder then electric trains" despite the fact that most children now think that all steam trains have faces and work for an obese man in a top hat. mentioning carvairs is on a similar level to young adults 'never seen or heard one' and also.. There is no such thing as a 'fifth' in our legal system. as a) we don't have a federal government. b) an 'amendment' in UK terms is a change or alteration to an existing law. Not a law in itself 'silly Americans' c) we do not operate from badly worded and interpreted constitutional laws in this country. our laws and our constitution are mostly separate. jayman

6:32pm Thu 31 Jan 13

2shedsjackson says...

I smell barrack room lawyer.
I smell barrack room lawyer. 2shedsjackson

7:03pm Thu 31 Jan 13

2shedsjackson says...

Boo Hoo I've bought a house next to:
.
An airport and the planes are annoying. A railway and the trains keep me awake. A motorway and the cars are noisy. A school and the kids make a row at lunchtime. A church and they ring the bells early on sunday morning. On a flood plain and I'm getting wet. On an old mine shaft and it's sinking. A hospital and there's nowhere to park. A factory site that creates smells. A farm that keeps pigs. A football ground and it's crowded on match days. A chapel and it gets noisy when the choir sing. etc, etc, etc.
.
Boo Hoo someone ought to pay me some money because now I'm not happy at MY CHOICE of location although they did say at the time Caveat Emptor (buyer beware).
Boo Hoo I've bought a house next to: . An airport and the planes are annoying. A railway and the trains keep me awake. A motorway and the cars are noisy. A school and the kids make a row at lunchtime. A church and they ring the bells early on sunday morning. On a flood plain and I'm getting wet. On an old mine shaft and it's sinking. A hospital and there's nowhere to park. A factory site that creates smells. A farm that keeps pigs. A football ground and it's crowded on match days. A chapel and it gets noisy when the choir sing. etc, etc, etc. . Boo Hoo someone ought to pay me some money because now I'm not happy at MY CHOICE of location although they did say at the time Caveat Emptor (buyer beware). 2shedsjackson

7:16pm Thu 31 Jan 13

Diannah says...

jayman wrote:
Diannah wrote:
Diannah wrote:
jayman wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
jayman wrote:
Diannah wrote:
jolllyboy wrote:
Its absolute tosh that it was quieter now than in the 60's - the runway is longer therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Engines are larger and I promise you the noise is horrendous when they pass overhead. It will vary road to road considerably so when one road says it is not too bad they should try another !I dont care a fig about the loss of value of the house I care about the noise in my garden when you cannot hear what someone is saying ! I agree there is nothing to stop the airport getting a longer runway. i wish they would improve the roads around there though . the Tesco roundabout is a nighgtmare incredibly dangerous and it is not clear the route through to rochford.
I had to have a little laugh at your comment about the runway being longer - therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Do you seriously believe that planes use the whole of the runway each time they take off and land?

Wouldn't it be an interesting experiment to bring back the carvairs for just one day instead of the current planes. Wouldn't need to turn off the tv for 20 seconds then - it would do it all by itself!
No one cares about carvairs, Sopwith camels or other antiquated straw man argument material. what concerns many people in this day and age are the loud, winged, orange and white monstrosities that have started to fill up the sky above where babies are trying to sleep and where people have made personal investments with their 'own' money.

its not a technical specification, its a strong emotive lament by the sorry sods that live there.
Compairing the quite moden aircraft to the much LOUDER older aircraft is valid.

The moden jet engine is far quieter than than the older jet engines, if you don't know or under stand that FACT than you have lost the argument already.

You say and I quite" fill up the sky above where babies are trying to sleep "

So babies are sleeping in the sky now are they, please do tell us how they hover in mid air, how do they keep warm, how do Mummy and Daddy reach them?

Please these are improtant little bits of information we need to know, are they magic babies do they process unholy powers and what about dirty nappy do they bomb us with them.

Details man fill in the details!
To compare an aircraft that is no longer in use and that no one in their twenties will have any vivid or otherwise memory of is a pointless and pathetic argument...

try harder..
I had a vision there of you sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting 'la la la'.

Can you explain then why people who are old enough to remember the prop planes could cope with the noise whereas people in their twenties can't cope with the quieter jet engine noise?

Can I also point out that if you do receive compensation, it won't make the planes magically disappear so how will the money help (unless you are buying triple glazing which I very much doubt)?
Disappointed that you couldn''t answer my questions. Shall I just assume that you are pleading the fifth?
what.. perhaps I chose not to answer as i made my opinion (one based on logic) clear in response to your pointless merry-go-round of silly comparisons. you may as well be saying "steam trains where louder then electric trains" despite the fact that most children now think that all steam trains have faces and work for an obese man in a top hat. mentioning carvairs is on a similar level to young adults 'never seen or heard one'

and also.. There is no such thing as a 'fifth' in our legal system. as

a) we don't have a federal government.
b) an 'amendment' in UK terms is a change or alteration to an existing law. Not a law in itself 'silly Americans'
c) we do not operate from badly worded and interpreted constitutional laws in this country. our laws and our constitution are mostly separate.
No. I think you chose not to answer because you have no answer.

I wonder if the travel brochures are already sitting on your coffee table in the hope that some compensation will be coming your way.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Diannah[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Diannah[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Diannah[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jolllyboy[/bold] wrote: Its absolute tosh that it was quieter now than in the 60's - the runway is longer therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Engines are larger and I promise you the noise is horrendous when they pass overhead. It will vary road to road considerably so when one road says it is not too bad they should try another !I dont care a fig about the loss of value of the house I care about the noise in my garden when you cannot hear what someone is saying ! I agree there is nothing to stop the airport getting a longer runway. i wish they would improve the roads around there though . the Tesco roundabout is a nighgtmare incredibly dangerous and it is not clear the route through to rochford.[/p][/quote]I had to have a little laugh at your comment about the runway being longer - therefore the planes are lower on take off and landing. Do you seriously believe that planes use the whole of the runway each time they take off and land? Wouldn't it be an interesting experiment to bring back the carvairs for just one day instead of the current planes. Wouldn't need to turn off the tv for 20 seconds then - it would do it all by itself![/p][/quote]No one cares about carvairs, Sopwith camels or other antiquated straw man argument material. what concerns many people in this day and age are the loud, winged, orange and white monstrosities that have started to fill up the sky above where babies are trying to sleep and where people have made personal investments with their 'own' money. its not a technical specification, its a strong emotive lament by the sorry sods that live there.[/p][/quote]Compairing the quite moden aircraft to the much LOUDER older aircraft is valid. The moden jet engine is far quieter than than the older jet engines, if you don't know or under stand that FACT than you have lost the argument already. You say and I quite" fill up the sky above where babies are trying to sleep " So babies are sleeping in the sky now are they, please do tell us how they hover in mid air, how do they keep warm, how do Mummy and Daddy reach them? Please these are improtant little bits of information we need to know, are they magic babies do they process unholy powers and what about dirty nappy do they bomb us with them. Details man fill in the details![/p][/quote]To compare an aircraft that is no longer in use and that no one in their twenties will have any vivid or otherwise memory of is a pointless and pathetic argument... try harder..[/p][/quote]I had a vision there of you sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting 'la la la'. Can you explain then why people who are old enough to remember the prop planes could cope with the noise whereas people in their twenties can't cope with the quieter jet engine noise? Can I also point out that if you do receive compensation, it won't make the planes magically disappear so how will the money help (unless you are buying triple glazing which I very much doubt)?[/p][/quote]Disappointed that you couldn''t answer my questions. Shall I just assume that you are pleading the fifth?[/p][/quote]what.. perhaps I chose not to answer as i made my opinion (one based on logic) clear in response to your pointless merry-go-round of silly comparisons. you may as well be saying "steam trains where louder then electric trains" despite the fact that most children now think that all steam trains have faces and work for an obese man in a top hat. mentioning carvairs is on a similar level to young adults 'never seen or heard one' and also.. There is no such thing as a 'fifth' in our legal system. as a) we don't have a federal government. b) an 'amendment' in UK terms is a change or alteration to an existing law. Not a law in itself 'silly Americans' c) we do not operate from badly worded and interpreted constitutional laws in this country. our laws and our constitution are mostly separate.[/p][/quote]No. I think you chose not to answer because you have no answer. I wonder if the travel brochures are already sitting on your coffee table in the hope that some compensation will be coming your way. Diannah

9:25pm Thu 31 Jan 13

jayman says...

2shedsjackson wrote:
I smell barrack room lawyer.
we don't 'lawyers' in this country dear boy. we have advocates, solicitors or barristers.

and no I do not pretend to work in law.

anyone who calls themselves a 'lawyer' is no better then a 'personal injury specialist'
[quote][p][bold]2shedsjackson[/bold] wrote: I smell barrack room lawyer.[/p][/quote]we don't 'lawyers' in this country dear boy. we have advocates, solicitors or barristers. and no I do not pretend to work in law. anyone who calls themselves a 'lawyer' is no better then a 'personal injury specialist' jayman

9:45pm Thu 31 Jan 13

2shedsjackson says...

In England and Wales, "lawyer" is used to refer to practitioners such as barristers, solicitors, and licensed conveyancers, as well as people who are involved with the law but do not practise it on behalf of individual clients, such as judges, court clerks, and drafters of legislation.
.
English Dictionary "barrack-room lawyer" a person who freely offers opinions, esp in legal matters, that he or she is unqualified to give.
.
A phrase used in the British army for many generations to describe those who think they know it all .
.
I rest my case.
In England and Wales, "lawyer" is used to refer to practitioners such as barristers, solicitors, and licensed conveyancers, as well as people who are involved with the law but do not practise it on behalf of individual clients, such as judges, court clerks, and drafters of legislation. . English Dictionary "barrack-room lawyer" a person who freely offers opinions, esp in legal matters, that he or she is unqualified to give. . A phrase used in the British army for many generations to describe those who think they know it all . . I rest my case. 2shedsjackson

12:59pm Fri 1 Feb 13

jayman says...

2shedsjackson wrote:
In England and Wales, "lawyer" is used to refer to practitioners such as barristers, solicitors, and licensed conveyancers, as well as people who are involved with the law but do not practise it on behalf of individual clients, such as judges, court clerks, and drafters of legislation.
.
English Dictionary "barrack-room lawyer" a person who freely offers opinions, esp in legal matters, that he or she is unqualified to give.
.
A phrase used in the British army for many generations to describe those who think they know it all .
.
I rest my case.
I served in the infantry. cant say I ever heard the term used.
[quote][p][bold]2shedsjackson[/bold] wrote: In England and Wales, "lawyer" is used to refer to practitioners such as barristers, solicitors, and licensed conveyancers, as well as people who are involved with the law but do not practise it on behalf of individual clients, such as judges, court clerks, and drafters of legislation. . English Dictionary "barrack-room lawyer" a person who freely offers opinions, esp in legal matters, that he or she is unqualified to give. . A phrase used in the British army for many generations to describe those who think they know it all . . I rest my case.[/p][/quote]I served in the infantry. cant say I ever heard the term used. jayman

1:39pm Fri 1 Feb 13

2shedsjackson says...

jayman wrote:
2shedsjackson wrote:
In England and Wales, "lawyer" is used to refer to practitioners such as barristers, solicitors, and licensed conveyancers, as well as people who are involved with the law but do not practise it on behalf of individual clients, such as judges, court clerks, and drafters of legislation.
.
English Dictionary "barrack-room lawyer" a person who freely offers opinions, esp in legal matters, that he or she is unqualified to give.
.
A phrase used in the British army for many generations to describe those who think they know it all .
.
I rest my case.
I served in the infantry. cant say I ever heard the term used.
JAYMAN says ....I served in the infantry. cant say I ever heard the term used.
Reeeeally. I know a lot of serving and ex squadies and they all would know the term.
.
Try this site http://www.arrse.co.
uk/wiki/Barrack_Room
_Lawyer.
.
It is the Army Rumopur Service, a well known site for ex and serving squadies. You might find out some more "FACTS" about the army that you are unaware of dear boy.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]2shedsjackson[/bold] wrote: In England and Wales, "lawyer" is used to refer to practitioners such as barristers, solicitors, and licensed conveyancers, as well as people who are involved with the law but do not practise it on behalf of individual clients, such as judges, court clerks, and drafters of legislation. . English Dictionary "barrack-room lawyer" a person who freely offers opinions, esp in legal matters, that he or she is unqualified to give. . A phrase used in the British army for many generations to describe those who think they know it all . . I rest my case.[/p][/quote]I served in the infantry. cant say I ever heard the term used.[/p][/quote]JAYMAN says ....I served in the infantry. cant say I ever heard the term used. Reeeeally. I know a lot of serving and ex squadies and they all would know the term. . Try this site http://www.arrse.co. uk/wiki/Barrack_Room _Lawyer. . It is the Army Rumopur Service, a well known site for ex and serving squadies. You might find out some more "FACTS" about the army that you are unaware of dear boy. 2shedsjackson

2:35pm Fri 1 Feb 13

jayman says...

2shedsjackson wrote:
jayman wrote:
2shedsjackson wrote:
In England and Wales, "lawyer" is used to refer to practitioners such as barristers, solicitors, and licensed conveyancers, as well as people who are involved with the law but do not practise it on behalf of individual clients, such as judges, court clerks, and drafters of legislation.
.
English Dictionary "barrack-room lawyer" a person who freely offers opinions, esp in legal matters, that he or she is unqualified to give.
.
A phrase used in the British army for many generations to describe those who think they know it all .
.
I rest my case.
I served in the infantry. cant say I ever heard the term used.
JAYMAN says ....I served in the infantry. cant say I ever heard the term used.
Reeeeally. I know a lot of serving and ex squadies and they all would know the term.
.
Try this site http://www.arrse.co.

uk/wiki/Barrack_Room

_Lawyer.
.
It is the Army Rumopur Service, a well known site for ex and serving squadies. You might find out some more "FACTS" about the army that you are unaware of dear boy.
As I was not aware of this term. I did not say i did not exist.

as for ARRSE. I am not a follower of it. my understanding is that its full of Walts, TA and RLC.
[quote][p][bold]2shedsjackson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]2shedsjackson[/bold] wrote: In England and Wales, "lawyer" is used to refer to practitioners such as barristers, solicitors, and licensed conveyancers, as well as people who are involved with the law but do not practise it on behalf of individual clients, such as judges, court clerks, and drafters of legislation. . English Dictionary "barrack-room lawyer" a person who freely offers opinions, esp in legal matters, that he or she is unqualified to give. . A phrase used in the British army for many generations to describe those who think they know it all . . I rest my case.[/p][/quote]I served in the infantry. cant say I ever heard the term used.[/p][/quote]JAYMAN says ....I served in the infantry. cant say I ever heard the term used. Reeeeally. I know a lot of serving and ex squadies and they all would know the term. . Try this site http://www.arrse.co. uk/wiki/Barrack_Room _Lawyer. . It is the Army Rumopur Service, a well known site for ex and serving squadies. You might find out some more "FACTS" about the army that you are unaware of dear boy.[/p][/quote]As I was not aware of this term. I did not say i did not exist. as for ARRSE. I am not a follower of it. my understanding is that its full of Walts, TA and RLC. jayman

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree