Puffer

Thank you for the further insurance clarification, Freddy. I stand by my earlier remarks about material facts and the insurer's pre-existing knowledge. There is nothing now that merits further discussion. I'm just sorry that you lost out, wrongly in my professional opinion.

I accept that 'Strictly' is essentially entertainment for the masses. Its largely Z-list contestants, quirky costumes and scenarios and often dubious dance routines and out-of-tempo music do not allow it to represent any ballroom or latin dancing consistently and accurately. For those reasons, I find much of it irritating. I respect Len Goodman's knowledge and skill as a ballroom dancer and competent judge; he did his best, usually fairly if justifiably firmly, to maintain 'strict' dance standards on the show - as I believe Shirley will be fully capable of doing too (but we shall see...). My problem with Len was his increasingly big-headed attitude and smarmy behaviour - a view shared by every one of the several people I know who are Strictly adherents. He retired not before time.

I was (and am) interested professionally in Freddy's 'lane change' incident as it illustrates more than one issue which was and is relevant to accidents and insurance contracts. Even 40 years on, there are lessons to be learned and pointers for the future. But the full story has not emerged so I'll leave further comment on the legal issues. I am perfectly familiar with the language that an insurer would (or at least should) use when rejecting/repudiating/denying/avoiding (etc) a claim. 'Refuted' is wrong in that context but would be right if applied to the rejection of an assertion etc made in relation to an accident, claim or proposal. Freddy's edit, if I understand it correctly, appears to recognise this. The word 'claim' (and its derivatives, such as 'claimant') gives all sorts of problems in relation to insurance and litigation as it can mean different things, e.g. one's claim under insurance, or a third party's claim against an insured. Even more so since we are no longer supposed to speak of a 'plaintiff' in litigation, only a 'claimant'. And a 'writ' is now therefore a 'claim form' - which is also what one might fill in to send to an insurer to recover under insurance.

Shirley was on the One Show this evening (along with the great Neil Sedaka - always a pleasure to listen to, speaking or singing). Shirley looked attractive (and was wearing some fancy-patterned stiletto courts), was clearly knowledgeable and skilled as a dancer and sounded very pleasant. Much easier on the eye and ear than old 'barrowboy' Len, whose arrogance has grown significantly over the years. I am no great fan of the programme - although a ballroom dancer, it is far too gimmicky for my taste - but shall be interested to see how Shirley & Co make out.

Freddy: 'refuted' is not really the word; possibly it was 'repudiated'. But was your cover maintained, despite the rejected claim? And was your actual insurer the same for the two consecutive years? If so, I maintain my view that your innocent omission on renewal was not a ground for your claim (or cover) to be avoided - the insurer already knew of the material fact of your endorsement. If the broker only filled in what you said, the responsibility for the omission remains yours - but a good broker should prompt the proposer and also check its records for anything in a previous application that might have been missed this time. Yes, as I have said already, the immediate cause of the damage was your collision, and you were first in line to pay (with no-one down the line to recover from, alas). Fortunately it was not more serious in either effect or cost.

Your incident raises some interesting points about accidents, claims and insurance. Without being too technical: 1. The incident illustrates well the chain of causation that underlies fault and liability. I have little doubt that the 'slip road' driver's conduct was the 'active efficient cause' - but he got away and was probably oblivious. The chain of events he set in motion (lorry swiftly moving over, Freddy having to do likewise) resulted in the almost unavoidable impact with the lane three driver. The latter was innocent in that he was driving safely enough in his own clear lane, although one might criticise his failure to see the hazard developing and react promptly by braking sensibly. His car was damaged by Freddy, who in turn could assert that he was forced to swerve by the lorry, who was forced to swerve likewise by the slip road car. But Freddy was the immediate, traceable (and honest) instrument of damage and got lumbered with the repair bill that should have been the liability of the slip road car's insurer, if identified. 2. From what Freddy says, he insured his car with the same insurer (not just through the same broker) in the year of the incident and in the previous year. On making his application to renew his insurance for the year of the incident, he should have declared his past endorsement (if not 'spent') but forgot to do so. Such an endorsement is a 'material fact' and must be declared when proposing for or renewing insurance unless it is a fact already known by the insurer - which this clearly was, as it had been previously declared. In my view, the insurance was not invalidated by the alleged omission and the claim should have been met (less any excess, which I assume was low). Did the insurer (a) merely avoid (reject) the claim, but maintain cover, perhaps after demanding extra premium; or (b) avoid the claim and avoid (cancel) the cover? If the latter, did you then get any premium refund and get new cover - after declaring (of course) the cancellation - in itself a 'material fact' which any new insurer would wish to know? (After 1981, the rejected claim could have been referred to the Insurance Ombudsman for adjudication, but I'm guessing the incident was earlier than that.) Lessons learned the hard way, as usual.

I have travelled on a couple of occasions, years ago, by canal through much of the Netherlands, on a converted dutch barge. One such does make a very pleasant mode of transport. There are many different types and sizes; the beam is typically 4m - 6m, which is fine on almost any river and on the wider canals which are the norm in continental Europe. I suspect that some of the older canals would not, however, accept the widest dutch barges. Although dutch barges are not uncommonly seen in the UK, they are confined to rivers and the wider canals, although they might venture into a short stretch of narrow canal up to the point where a lock or bridge became too restrictive, perhaps for mooring or residential purposes. Yes, the 'sub' was clearly intended for continental travel - after crossing the Channel, no mean feat in itself for a 'narrowboat' - and I doubt that it would have any problem navigating the canals in France or elsewhere. If mainly intended for UK (touring) use, I am sure it would not have been built as wide as its sphere of operation as built is distinctly limited.

For the avoidance of doubt (and possible disappointment to would-be canal cruisers), I should clarify my comments above by pointing out that the 11' beam of the 'submarine' boat is not its only handicap in the UK. Although the nominal dimensions of most 'narrow' locks are such to admit a boat of up to 70' x 7', there are some that are shorter - e.g. on the Leeds and Liverpool canal (62'). In my opinion, a narrowboat of 58-60' in length and 6'10" beam is preferable; not only will it go almost anywhere (in theory, at least) but it's more manoeuvrable generally and easier to moor in tight spots. But, if you think that these problems are overcome by using a kayak (which saves on fuel too!), remember that it will be perishing cold in the winter months ... and you can't have your kayak and heat it (as the proverb reminds us).

Freddy's 'overtaking' incident reminded me of my own most memorable near-miss in broadly similar circumstances, albeit not so dramatic. The year is (I think) 1972 and I'm on a long, straight stretch of the dual-carriageway A1 in Yorkshire, returning south on a business trip with a male colleague of my age as my passenger. My car is an Austin Maxi 1750, not the sleekest of vehicles but a nippy enough performer for the time - and one of the first UK cars to have a fifth gear. We are driving quite safely and sensibly 'in fifth' at just under the 70mph limit in the outside lane, gradually overtaking a line of slower-moving vehicles of various sorts in the inside lane; the weather is fine and fairly sunny. Without any warning, and as we were about to pass it, a saloon car (type and driver long-forgotten) in the inside lane pulled out to overtake a lorry some yards in front of it. The car driver had clearly not looked to see what might be alongside him (in his blind-spot perhaps?) and gave no signal. I had little choice but to swerve to my right - partially onto the grass strip that was (then) the only thing between my lane and the opposite carriageway - and accelerate past until I could safely regain the metalled road. I well-recall the 'bump-bump-bump' of my offside tyres as I did so, and the speedo showing about 80. It was fortunate that there was no central crash-barrier there at that time, nor any other obstruction apart from a few bushes and the usual debris, any of which could however have caused me much mischief. There was no need to stop and I carried on south after making a somewhat restrained remark about the other driver to my companion. The latter was a very taciturn individual (not particularly good company when we worked together) and he made no comment at all, but I could sense that he was rather shaken and somewhat grateful that he was wearing the proverbial brown(ish) trousers. These days, I have a dash-cam; the reason is obvious.

The quoted witticism is a realistic statement of life but equally, as you imply, provides a prompt to defeating the decline that comes with increasing age. Like you, I have a wish to improve my overall knowledge, in both breadth and depth, and try to explore and retain new information every day. Whether I succeed or not is probably not for me to say - if I was really getting doddery, I would likely not notice any degeneration in my memory. But I do find that short-term memory is not as sharp as it used to be ... Now, where was I? Oh yes - I am not just aiming to improve my life by steadily increasing my sphere of knowledge. I have always felt that a day without making or fixing something tangible is a day wasted. A day's enforced idleness (e.g. during illness, a holiday or some business or personal engagement) is somewhat frustrating when my tools etc lie unused. Others may feel similarly when deprived of some sporting or artistic outlet.

You posted a picture, Freddy - are you still out of the clutches of the Internet Gestapo? A peculiar boat outside. A steering wheel (rather than a tiller) is unconventional on a 'narrow boat' and that enclosed foredeck makes viewing the surroundings difficult, to say the least, and I fail to see its purpose. I have seen narrowboats with a removable (sometimes transparent) 'windbreak' in that position but this one has solid and apparently permanent 'battlements'. Maybe, despite the claims in the article, it is indeed a sub - and nuclear-powered at that. More pertinently, whilst doubtless a solid and stable vessel for crossing the channel and touring on the wider canals and rivers common on the continent, its size is a big handicap in the UK. The maximum beam (width) of a vessel that can navigate UK canals freely (many of which are 'narrow') is a nominal 7'. This is 11' so will be significantly restricted and the suggestion that 'the new buyer can find their own mooring anywhere in the country' is something of a joke. All that said, the asking-price is about the same as the value of my two-bed seaside flat. A swap sounds tempting ...

I couldn't put it better myself, Shyheels - although not for want of trying! I'm thinking that lost youth is perhaps less important than lost opportunity - my aim is now to make a little hay whilst the sun still casts an occasional rosy glow before it sets.

If so, that would be unfortunate. Maybe you can work something out with the 'proprietor'?

I don't understand. The pics are here (above) on my screen, and if I paste the links into an incognito browser I can see them there too. Is nothing within Pinterest viewable via its image link? (Perhaps your Google subscription has expired! )

Not much I can do about that, Freddy, but here is a taster: Unfortunately, my mother looked and dressed more like this: than as I would have preferred, as here: And I'm sure some would have been more familiar with this lifestyle:

As previously suggested, I think it's high time for a topic dealing with vintage fashion - in this case post-1945. [Perhaps the earlier related posts from 'How To Let Your Friends And Family Know U Wear High Heels' etc should now be transferred here?] Here is a veritable feast of tight skirts, stockings and stilettos etc to enjoy: https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/227009637441418478/ And, for a more domestic but still stylish look, I find this very nostalgic: https://www.pinterest.co.uk/search/pins/?rs=ac&len=2&q=1950s housewives&eq=1950s housewives&etslf=13509&term_meta[]=1950s|autocomplete|undefined&term_meta[]=housewives|autocomplete|undefined as it is very typical of my formative period. Unfortunately, my mother looked and dressed more like this: https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/455004368578697412/ than as I would have preferred, as here: https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/357121445442059537/ !)

It has long been the norm, at least in Western culture, to borrow money for specific purchases, and to pay interest on the gradually reducing loan. Mortgage loans for property purchase are the most obvious example of widespread borrowing of often large sums; interest rates are generally modest. As a general rule, with at least modest property inflation a certainty in even the medium term, 'borrow hard and borrow long' is a good maxim; a purchase at today's prices is much more affordable when paid for out of tomorrow's resources, assuming only that one's earnings keep reasonable pace with general inflation. Aside from mortgages, in the 'good old days', before credit cards and instant payday loans etc were available in the UK, ordinary folk had really only two choices if they wanted something that they could not buy outright for cash: extended credit (e.g. from a catalogue company, a 'tally man' or some high street shops) or hire purchase. In both cases, interest would effectively be paid at a high rate (although often hidden within the price or the added 'charges') and the sanctions for default were more penal than the law now allows. All such systems of credit were quite strictly regulated; it was not easy to get any significant HP facility without a chunky deposit and a shortish period for payment. The result was that people thought very carefully about such borrowing and made sure they could meet the criteria and adhere to them. But it was a lifeline to those, such as young newly-weds, who could not otherwise afford even basic household furniture and appliances, let alone a car. The nickname for HP was the 'never-never' - the belief being that you never owned the item outright as you never finished paying for it! In the late 1960s, most controls were abolished or significantly relaxed and the credit boom commenced with a vengeance. Nothing much wrong with easy borrowing (loans or credit cards) if the terms are adhered to and the repayment regime is adhered to - BUT interest rates are typically high (often two or three times that charged on a mortgage or structured business loan - and sometimes very much more than that) and it is all too easy to get into a debt spiral whereby the outstanding principal plus accruing interest grows, despite regular and often significant repayments. That has caused many people to borrow more to repay old debts ... and so on, playing into the hands of loan sharks and worse. And the current trend is, it seems, for people to ignore the future completely when living for the moment - especially when the latest impulse-buy or extravagance is far from necessary and quite often of poor value. The current condemnation of 'cheap' car finance provides but one good example of uneconomic personal finance. I consider myself financially-disciplined and have never borrowed on an interest-paying basis, with the sole exception of mortgages (repaid early) and a small overdraft for a few months whilst I set up my first home more than 40 years ago. I use three separate credit cards extensively for almost all over-the-counter and distance purchases, including fuel and groceries - BUT always repay in full each month by direct debit - the three settlement dates being roughly 10 days apart. Using a card is a great convenience as funds are always available, significant cash need not be carried and I get a proper monthly record and single charge. I do not see a credit card as a means of 'splurging' as it is not my practice to buy or commit to anything that I cannot fund out of whatever resources will be available within the free credit period. Likewise, I have made a couple of major furniture purchases on 'free' extended credit over three years - although in another case I was able to get a discount by paying in full up-front, a useful bargaining-tool when a retailer is keen to get cash in. I do accept, however, that borrowing on a credit card (or under an instant-loan facility) might be very helpful and indeed unavoidable if a sudden emergency arises, e.g. a car or appliance break-down, a medical problem or being stranded away from home - but the name of the game is to make repayments as soon as possible and on a disciplined basis. As to involuntary lending, e.g. when one's work expenses are held up or work is done on credit for a slow payer, lessons are soon learned the hard way. I'm old-fashioned enough to want (and expect) those with whom I do business to adhere to the terms which should have been agreed at the outset as strictly as I intend to myself. Alas, it doesn't always work out that way and a threat of strategic withdrawal of further supplies or of recovery action may be necessary - and sometimes carried out too.

Indeed not. But not as bad as getting a loan from the likes of Provident Financial, run by the aptly-named Peter Crook, whose antics caused a huge drop in the share price a few days ago.

Nice shoes, Freddy. And you look far from being a 'Hampton' in them.

Is the drug cannabis, Freddy? I've never indulged (nor likely to) but more than once have heard of others ingesting 'cannabis cake' and your experience seems to be typical of that.

I don't care for the leggings, or anything else with 'stirrups', although I can see their purpose. But to wear them thus makes a complete mockery of the shoes, especially as they are slingbacks. Nearly as bad as the pic I saw recently of a woman wearing denim shorts over ripped jeans - yuk!

Tight Lycra shorts, anyone?

Russ: I assume you read my note, with advice, on Wednesday; you haven't commented? You should be able to recover the VAT paid on importation if and when you provide proof of the shoes being returned (i.e. exported). HMRC can advise on this. The fee paid to the carrier is probably not recoverable, at least from that source, but you could try to claim it as an expense from the US supplier. Could we see a pic of the shoes before they go back?

I agree. I wear heels (and admire them on others, of any gender) primarily because I like the look of them. I don't need any extra height and, whilst there is a mild feeling of achievement when successfully perambulating in a high heel, I don't wear them just for the elevation effect. So, much as I can admire and indeed covet a pair of high stilettos, something non-clumpy but with a worthwhile heel that looks acceptably male is best for me, at least for any public outing. And a man's 'elevator shoe' or anything with a significantly thick sole does nothing for me.

Maybe we should have a new topic covering 'Vintage Fashion' - depending upon one's definition of vintage, e.g. post-1945. I found this collection fascinating - lots of 1950s stuff and some more modern retro in like vein. In a word: 'elegance'. https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/368028600777527691/