Ghostrider Posted January 27, 2012 Report Share Posted January 27, 2012 The OP clearly stated 'derelict' and 'clearly been empty quite some time' How would they know these things for sure without at the very least taking a damn good nosey through the windows etc? The "apparent" outward appearance of a building from a "respectful" distance gives no clue whatsoever as to what may lie and/or occur within. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unlinkedstudent Posted January 27, 2012 Report Share Posted January 27, 2012 The OP clearly stated 'derelict' and 'clearly been empty quite some time' How would they know these things for sure without at the very least taking a damn good nosey through the windows etc? The "apparent" outward appearance of a building from a "respectful" distance gives no clue whatsoever as to what may lie and/or occur within. It had no roof? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandcars Posted January 27, 2012 Report Share Posted January 27, 2012 The OP clearly stated 'derelict' and 'clearly been empty quite some time' How would they know these things for sure without at the very least taking a damn good nosey through the windows etc? The "apparent" outward appearance of a building from a "respectful" distance gives no clue whatsoever as to what may lie and/or occur within. As they used the term 'clearly derelict' I am assuming that it is blatantly obvious that it is indeed derelict. They probably have a degree of common sense to assimilate that, unlike some that seem to create argument for the sake of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohanofNess Posted January 27, 2012 Report Share Posted January 27, 2012 The OP clearly stated 'derelict' and 'clearly been empty quite some time' How would they know these things for sure without at the very least taking a damn good nosey through the windows etc? The "apparent" outward appearance of a building from a "respectful" distance gives no clue whatsoever as to what may lie and/or occur within. Missing doors, missing roof, windows panned in, gable end mostly lying on the ground. Don't need to look through a window to spy any of those. Who knows maybe angel saw one of those before having the sheer audacity to look at the place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted January 27, 2012 Report Share Posted January 27, 2012 ^ Once roof and walls start going, its hardly a "derelict" any longer, more of a "ruin". Missing doors and windows don't necessarily mean much, depends on where they lead to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unlinkedstudent Posted January 27, 2012 Report Share Posted January 27, 2012 ^^ & ^^^ Unfortunately, not everyone does understand 'derelict', whatever meaning of the word you choose to adopt. I mentioned above my neighbour's property. Now it isn't on the roadside, although you can see that it does have a roof, the gable end hasn't fallen down, the windows are intact and it has a door. THAT didn't stop numerous peeps (Not locals, I hasten to add) assuming that it was derelict and empty. I know of another property down here that I myself had wrongly assumed to be 'empty' - it wasn't; the owner works abroad and rents it out occasionally or has relatives to stay. In other words, at times it can be easy to assume that a property is empty when it isn't and different folk interpret derelict more than one way. Good luck to Angel in finding a suitable property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohanofNess Posted January 27, 2012 Report Share Posted January 27, 2012 Just for clarity what part of the word derelict do Shetlandcars and I not understand?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted January 27, 2012 Report Share Posted January 27, 2012 The OP clearly stated 'derelict' and 'clearly been empty quite some time' How would they know these things for sure without at the very least taking a damn good nosey through the windows etc? The "apparent" outward appearance of a building from a "respectful" distance gives no clue whatsoever as to what may lie and/or occur within. As they used the term 'clearly derelict' I am assuming that it is blatantly obvious that it is indeed derelict. They probably have a degree of common sense to assimilate that, unlike some that seem to create argument for the sake of it. ....and we all know where assumptions quite often lead to. Had the OP given an approx address of the property they have in mind, there would be minimal need for assumptions or suspicion on most points, and they may well have gotten the info they are wanting immediately and gratis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted January 27, 2012 Report Share Posted January 27, 2012 FFS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted January 27, 2012 Report Share Posted January 27, 2012 ^ I thought exactly the same when I read the OP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted January 27, 2012 Report Share Posted January 27, 2012 They only asked how they could find out stuff. Now they have been made out to be some sort of pervert giving old folks frights and trespassers. And now their question and sentiment, as honest and to the point that it is is also rubbished. And for what benefit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted January 27, 2012 Report Share Posted January 27, 2012 And now their question and sentiment, as honest and to the point that it is is also rubbished. What's honest about stating a property is "derelict" and "empty" without providing the slighest proof that this is the case, other than their say so? It may have escaped your attention that a large percentage humans have this habit of judging whether a property is "derelict" and "empty" on little more than a passing glance (based on their own perception of how a "derelict"/"empty" property is "supposed" to look), and having made that judgement then proceed to believe that is is "acceptable" to nosey around the place, and try and browbeat anyone in any way connected with the property to have it sold to them, regardless of whether someone is still staying in it on either a whole time or part time basis or otherwise. A property, any property, regardless of appearance has an owner, and surely any person, regardless of whatever condition the property they may own, or whatever lifestyle they choose, should be afforded the same respect as any other, yes? Yet, while very, very few folk would consider it acceptable to have people noseying in the windows etc of their own house, and people accosting them making badgering offers to sell, there seems to be a body of people who think its okay to do it to others, just because the property in question has a certain "look" which they preceive as "derelict" and/or "empty". Why? If a house is indeed truly derelict and/or empty, by all means let anyone with an interest make discreet enquiries about its ownership and status, and if they want make a polite and dicreet offer to buy. But prove it really is actually derelict and empty, and not just "derelict" and/or "empty" by some unknown's preceived standards of appearance, before expecting much sympathy or help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unlinkedstudent Posted January 27, 2012 Report Share Posted January 27, 2012 Just for clarity what part of the word derelict do Shetlandcars and I not understand?. I don't recall stating that you two didn't understand "part" of the word derelict. The OP: Does anyone have any idea on the laws etc of derelict houses? Me and my partner have seen a house that we have fallen in love with, it has clearly been empty quite some time and is in need of a lot of repair,renovation and love, it looks like 2 old croft houses which have been joined to make 1. I contacted the SIC to find out if theres anyway of finding out who owns it, all they could say is ask the nearest neighbour.If one was to be extremely pedantic, one could argue that the OP did not state that the property was "clearly derelict" but merely asked what the law is pertaining to derelict houses. One could further argue that by then posting the rest of their paragraph that they have reached the conclusion that the particular house they are interested in is, in fact, derelict - do they mean derelict as in abandonment or neglect or desolate or under-used? Noun? Adjective? Just because a property needs repair doesn't necessarily mean it has been abandoned nor does it mean it is empty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unlinkedstudent Posted January 27, 2012 Report Share Posted January 27, 2012 ...Now they have been made out to be some sort of pervert giving old folks frights and trespassers. I did not! I referred to an incident whereby I knew of a pensioner blah blah - I did NOT say that Angel had peered in through windows; granted, I questioned how they could fall in lurve with a property without seeing the insides ... ... I never mentioned trespass - thought it was nuisance rather than trespass laws up here anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdboy2002 Posted January 28, 2012 Report Share Posted January 28, 2012 I fall in love with Shetland properties on a regular basis and I don't need to peek inside - it's like seeing someone you fancy... sometimes, you go off them when you get to know them, but from the outside they are hot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts