Non resident taking our parking spaces

ted1

DaveyDave wrote: »

This
My new house has on street parking ......and I expect to have issues with people taking my spaces

Is it actually you’re space ? Or is it a public space?

odyssey06

DaveyDave wrote: »

People like to play ignorance to "parking for residents only" or numbered parking. It's when they start to get confronted they might change their ways.

Have seen residents parking only in lots of places that clearly were public spaces though.

JustAThought

Nightmare. OP big +1 for
going into the salon and speaking to the manager. Big +1 if it continues for
going the salon and making a fuss when it is busy and bawling her out of it from
outside the door but if you’re a man and the driver is a woman this could get you into trouble.

Go down to your local spar knick knack rail and buy a Pritt glue stuck. Cost you about e3. Every time she parks there scribble the pritt stick all over the back of an A4 sheet of oaper - all
over it mind you and get all edges and corners well done - and glue it to the sides of her car windows. Get a thick black marker and write in big letters whatever message tou see
fit - simething like Kindly park outside
your own house or business - not here, or Inconsiderate salon user park outside
your shop/name it etc . When she has
had to shred her nails off at the end of a days work to get that off or waste 30
minutes trying to
pick it off or drive home through traffic with 3 still left on she will soon park somewhere else. Works every time. Dint threaten ir write anything abusive - keep it simple, embarassing, and factual.

eg Kindly stop parking in private residents area
eg Ignorant parking - park outside
your place of work not here - residents only
eg Do not park here - PRIVATE parking
eg Private Parking - do not park here again

I find if you put the sign up, intercept them and berate them, and follow the prit stick
texhnique if they do
it again it usually is 100% effective. The pritt stick is particularly annoying, soluble in hot water and so does no criminal damage, and can be explained away as an impulse thing if really needed - everyone usually gets the message.

DaveyDave

ted1 wrote: »

Is it actually you’re space ? Or is it a public space?

The sale of my house comes with two parking spaces, the map on the deed assigns the two directly outside the house to be mine which I have exclusive use over.

The land itself isn't mine, the management company owns it but it's not a public space.

It's ridiculous that the council were allowed plan the estate like this, zero reason to not allow 40% of the houses to have private driveways...

JustAThought

Happening all over the city - developeds/owners of original land being allowed tomsell the house but screw the owners with so called ‘management’ companies (
themselves/their wives/sons/daughters) giving them an annual income for the rest of their lives off the sale. Council walk away from their responsibilities to sweep the roads or cut the grass dealspite getting huge development fees from the builders. Homeowners are
screwed by both parties and left with an unregulated industry and a lifetime of stress and charges/ extra private taxes to pay.

Bass Reeves

JustAThought wrote: »

Happening all over the city - developeds/owners of original land being allowed tomsell the house but screw the owners with so called ‘management’ companies (
themselves/their wives/sons/daughters) giving them an annual income for the rest of their lives off the sale. Council walk away from their responsibilities to sweep the roads or cut the grass dealspite getting huge development fees from the builders. Homeowners are
screwed by both parties and left with an unregulated industry and a lifetime of stress and charges/ extra private taxes to pay.

It is very seldom that an OMC can be controlled by a developer each house has only one vote, its a matter of attending meetings and voting on the right people to the management of the OMC. However some are too lazy to do that.

kingtut

kingtut wrote: »

There is no grass (all concrete) and noone clears up the rubbish or tidies up the place. If there is a management company I have never seen anyone from it and there is no signs anywhere indicating that there is one.

I've lived here for 7 years and have never seen anyone from a management company and have never received any letters from one. Also asked a few neighbours and they are not aware of any management company that is responsible for the area.

Edit to add - I rent through an agency and have 0 contact with the landlord.

Who repairs damage in the communal areas? Who deals with drains, sewage? If I kick in the apartment complex door, who fixes it or arranges the repair?

It makes no sense that a complex has no management of any description.

Fyi, if you block someone illegally and they have made reasonable efforts to resolve the issue, they can use force and physically move your car. In other words, don't do it.

DaveyDave

DaveyDave wrote: »

The sale of my house comes with two parking spaces, the map on the deed assigns the two directly outside the house to be mine which I have exclusive use over.

The land itself isn't mine, the management company owns it but it's not a public space.

It's ridiculous that the council were allowed plan the estate like this, zero reason to not allow 40% of the houses to have private driveways...

If you don't own the land, you don't own the spaces

AndrewJRenko

DaveyDave wrote: »

The sale of my house comes with two parking spaces, the map on the deed assigns the two directly outside the house to be mine which I have exclusive use over.

The land itself isn't mine, the management company owns it but it's not a public space.

It's ridiculous that the council were allowed plan the estate like this, zero reason to not allow 40% of the houses to have private driveways...

The Council didn't plan the estate. The developer planned the estate, and the Council or ABP gave permission. They can't make arbitrary decisions, and have strict criteria that they have to apply.

Buyer beware.

DaveyDave

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

If you don't own the land, you don't own the spaces

I didn't say I owned the land, the management company owns the land but the spaces are for me to use exclusively as part of the sale of the house. They're built for my house to be used by me and the management company prohibits other people from using them.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The Council didn't plan the estate. The developer planned the estate, and the Council or ABP gave permission. They can't make arbitrary decisions, and have strict criteria that they have to apply.

Buyer beware.

I should have worded that better. The council planned the development zone would have 60% private driveways, 40% on street parking. The developers then decided who got what in their own estates within that zone.

DaveyDave

DaveyDave wrote: »

I didn't say I owned the land, the management company owns the land but the spaces are for me to use exclusively as part of the sale of the house. They're built for my house to be used by me and the management company prohibits other people from using them.

I know you didn't but youb did say they are part of the deeds. Deeds normally mean ownership. I would be wary of such an agreement as it will be a constant issue with parking to begin with

kingtut

OP here:

it seems most people seem to think that the spaces are public property. I don't believe this is the case as they are part of a gated community but the gates to the property have been stuck open for the last few years (they did work when I moved in) but despite numerous emails to the letting agency they refuse to do anything about it.

So why are there gates (with fob access) if it is a public car park?

kingtut

Gatling wrote: »

Surely it's has to be more than one car if the op is only having an issue with one person parking in non assigned parking spots

There may be other cars but this individual parks there at least 5 days a week and for 12 hours on those days!

I know most of the residents cars at this stage and while I have no issue with their visitors taking spaces I do have issue with a non resident taking up a space on a daily basis and it's usually from 10am to 10pm.

Lenar3556

kingtut wrote: »

OP here:

it seems most people seem to think that the spaces are public property. I don't believe this is the case as they are part of a gated community but the gates to the property have been stuck open for the last few years (they did work when I moved in) but despite numerous emails to the letting agency they refuse to do anything about it.

So why are there gates (with fob access) if it is a public car park?

No it’s a private car parking area, but if the OMC isn’t operating it’s somewhat of a mess, and the property owners really should get their act together and regularise the situation as it’s in their interests.

If the commercial tenant is the one I suggested they may well have entitlement to use the car park.

ronivek

kingtut wrote: »

OP here:

it seems most people seem to think that the spaces are public property. I don't believe this is the case as they are part of a gated community but the gates to the property have been stuck open for the last few years (they did work when I moved in) but despite numerous emails to the letting agency they refuse to do anything about it.

So why are there gates (with fob access) if it is a public car park?

As Lenar3556 has done some research on your behalf it appears there is no functioning management company. The result of this is that neither the local county council nor any private company seem to be responsible for the car park.

The agency you have leased the apartment from: Are they registered with any professional bodies? Are they registered with Property Services Regulatory Authority (http://www.npsra.ie/)? They're the ones who would have the contact details for your actual landlord; and it is your landlord who would have the most information on the management company and/or car park situation.

SozBbz

ronivek wrote: »

As Lenar3556 has done some research on your behalf it appears there is no functioning management company. The result of this is that neither the local county council nor any private company seem to be responsible for the car park.

The agency you have leased the apartment from: Are they registered with any professional bodies? Are they registered with Property Services Regulatory Authority (http://www.npsra.ie/)? They're the ones who would have the contact details for your actual landlord; and it is your landlord who would have the most information on the management company and/or car park situation.

On the first point, just because the OMC has been struck off, it doesnt make the spaces public by default. I'd still consider them part of a private development, albeit one thats being badly mismanaged (not managed at all). The lack of management doesnt make them public - that would only happen if the council took the estate in charge IMO.

Secondly - yes the resolution has to be via your landlord, if he or she cares enough to do anything about it. It might be hugh work considering the OMC are bust. I'm not even sure how you go about getting a situation like that regularised or back on track but it sounds like a nightmare.

Has anyone in the development sold a unit? I'd imagine they're all nearly unsalable without an OMC, so perhaps when someone comes to sell they'll be motivated to get it sorted. Without an OMC, the place will only go downhill.

ronivek

SozBbz wrote: »

On the first point, just because the OMC has been struck off, it doesnt make the spaces public by default. I'd still consider them part of a private development, albeit one thats being badly mismanaged (not managed at all). The lack of management doesnt make them public - that would only happen if the council took the estate in charge IMO.

Indeed and nowhere have I claimed they are public parking spaces; merely that they could be viewed as de facto public parking spaces. In other words from the perspective of the OP he has no readily enforceable right to those spaces above anyone else who may decide to park in them.

Further complicating the matter is the fact that the hairdressing salon in question may be a part of the same development (again as per Lenar3556); and that employees of such units may even in the presence of a management company be perfectly entitled to park there during business hours.

If it were me I would certainly be looking elsewhere to rent and be out of there as soon as my lease is up; for any multitude of reasons.

SozBbz

DaveyDave wrote: »

I didn't say I owned the land, the management company owns the land but the spaces are for me to use exclusively as part of the sale of the house. They're built for my house to be used by me and the management company prohibits other people from using them.



I should have worded that better. The council planned the development zone would have 60% private driveways, 40% on street parking. The developers then decided who got what in their own estates within that zone.

This is quite common, that the OMC own the spaces and they're then allocated to units for their exclusive use.

The MUD that I used to be on the board of was a mix of apartments, duplexes and houses. There were communal spaces for the apartments and duplexes and each house was allocated 2 spaces, but the ownership of the land remained with the OMC. This was to stop anyone in theory trying to resell or sublet spaces within the development.

The OMC absolutely would act if people were using the spaces allocated with the houses without permission. We've had cars clamped and even towed if they've been there long term. Granted, the place is ~20 years old and as such the parking is far more generous than under the current planning guidelines, so we don't tend to have major issues.

You need to get on to your OMC and if they're a bit useless, put yourself forward to be on the board at the next AGM and sort it yourself.

Caranica

SozBbz wrote: »

You need to get on to your OMC and if they're a bit useless, put yourself forward to be on the board at the next AGM and sort it yourself.

They are a tenant!

Hairy Japanese BASTARDS!

Another vote for blocking her in.

Try to do it at a time where you can go a few days without needing your car.

TuringBot47

Hairy Japanese BASTARDS! wrote: »

Another vote for blocking her in.

A less aggressive move might be to cover her car in bird seed, and let the birds destroy her car with bird shit

el Fenomeno

Have you considered murdering the perpetrator, OP?

It seems to me that if this person ceases to be alive, then the chances of them occupying a parking space are very remote.

Just an additional route you could consider taking. Sometimes it can be very stressful having to communicate with letting agencies and management companies. This would alleviate some of that stress.

saabsaab

Can you hire a clamper?

ronivek

saabsaab wrote: »

Can you hire a clamper?

There would be no legal basis for a clamper to clamp a vehicle on behalf of a leaser of an individual apartment; it would have to be done through the owner of the private car park (which whoever that may be is certainly not the OP in question).

Hairy Japanese BASTARDS!

Hairy Japanese BASTARDS! wrote: »

Another vote for blocking her in.

Try to do it at a time where you can go a few days without needing your car.

Another vote for getting your car window smashed so

ronivek

ronivek wrote: »

As Lenar3556 has done some research on your behalf it appears there is no functioning management company. The result of this is that neither the local county council nor any private company seem to be responsible for the car park.

The agency you have leased the apartment from: Are they registered with any professional bodies? Are they registered with Property Services Regulatory Authority (http://www.npsra.ie/)? They're the ones who would have the contact details for your actual landlord; and it is your landlord who would have the most information on the management company and/or car park situation.

Would this also mean there's no functioning liability insurance?

SozBbz

Caranica wrote: »

They are a tenant!

Read the full thread- the person im replying to is not a tenant.

I know the OP is a tenant, obviously.

Lenar3556

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Would this also mean there's no functioning liability insurance?

It would certainly raise a serious doubt. In the case of a typical multi story apartment complex for example it is almost always the OMC as the owner of the block that arranges insurance cover. I can’t see how there could be operative insurance cover if this company has been dissolved.

That company would need to be restored in the first instance which requires an order of the high court. There will be great difficulty selling property within the development if there is no functioning OMC. You may still attract some interest from cash purchasers, but certainly no bank would touch it in terms of granting a mortgage. Indeed any purchaser would be well advised to steer clear - it’s a major defect/risk

Hairy Japanese BASTARDS!

Shove something up her car's exhaust.

AndrewJRenko

Hairy Japanese BASTARDS! wrote: »

Shove something up her car's exhaust.

You know that the OP doesn't own, manage or control these parking spaces?

kirving

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Another vote for getting your car window smashed so

Or just ticketed by the Gards.

Once the property is "publicly accessible" ie: not behind a closed gate, don't the Gards have authority for enforcement?

That's to say I can drive a defective car around my own feild, but I could get a FCN for doing the same in a privately owned, but publicly accessible Tesco car park.

Have I got that interpretation correct?

Kevin Irving

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Or just ticketed by the Gards.

Once the property is "publicly accessible" ie: not behind a closed gate, don't the Gards have authority for enforcement?

That's to say I can drive a defective car around my own feild, but I could get a FCN for doing the same in a privately owned, but publicly accessible Tesco car park.

Have I got that interpretation correct?

The Guards or Gardai. Not ever Gards.

Your interpretation is a pretty commonly applied one in deciding this but I would say that the existence of a gate in this case, is enough to say it's private. The actual test is who maintains the road and I doubt the council or a public body are doing so here. The gate being open won't change that so in general, the Tesco carpark is private.

Peregrinus

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Your interpretation is a pretty commonly applied one in deciding this but I would say that the existence of a gate in this case, is enough to say it's private. The actual test is who maintains the road and I doubt the council or a public body are doing so here. The gate being open won't change that so in general, the Tesco carpark is private.

Entirely depends on what legal rule we are talking about. An awful lot of the Road Traffic Act provisions apply to traffic in a "public place", and "public place" is defined as any street, road or other place to which the public have access with vehicles whether as of right or by permission and whether subject to or free of charge. Ownership of the land is completely irrelevant to the question of whether any place is a "public place" in this sense; land may be in public ownership and yet not be a "public place" (e.g. the grounds of Aras an Uachtarain) and conversely lands may be privately-owned and yet be a "public place" (e.g. a car park attached to a shop or a shopping centre).

The grounds of an apartment block would, I think be a public place, even if gated, so long as the gate is left open and entry is in practice open not only to residents but also to visitors, tradesmen or (as in this case) anyone else who wants to drive in for any reason. It might be different if the gate was open but there was a prominent sign saying "entry for residents and guests only", or words to that effect.

SozBbz

Peregrinus wrote: »

Entirely depends on what legal rule we are talking about. An awful lot of the Road Traffic Act provisions apply to traffic in a "public place", and "public place" is defined as any street, road or other place to which the public have access with vehicles whether as of right or by permission and whether subject to or free of charge. Ownership of the land is completely irrelevant to the question of whether any place is a "public place" in this sense; land may be in public ownership and yet not be a "public place" (e.g. the grounds of Aras an Uachtarain) and conversely lands may be privately-owned and yet be a "public place" (e.g. a car park attached to a shop or a shopping centre).

The grounds of an apartment block would, I think be a public place, even if gated, so long as the gate is left open and entry is in practice open not only to residents but also to visitors, tradesmen or (as in this case) anyone else who wants to drive in for any reason. It might be different if the gate was open but there was a prominent sign saying "entry for residents and guests only", or words to that effect.

Absolutely incorrect.

The grounds of an Multi Unit Development are private property, but which for obvious reasons, need to be accessed by the public. Thats why OMC's have to purchase public liability insurance.

Ownership of land does not change due to the presence of a gate or a sign or otherwise. If I own a field, and remove the gate, it does not become public property.

Peregrinus

SozBbz wrote: »

Absolutely incorrect.

The grounds of an Multi Unit Development are private property, but which for obvious reasons, need to be accessed by the public. Thats why OMC's have to purchase public liability insurance.

Ownership of land does not change due to the presence of a gate or a sign or otherwise. If I own a field, and remove the gate, it does not become public property.

But for Road Traffic Act purposes, it doesn't matter whether a place is public property; ownership is completely irrelevant. It matters whether it's a public place, in the sense already explained.

So, for example, under Road Traffic Act s. 38 it's an offence to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place unless you hold the appropriate driving licence. You can certainly commit this offence in a supermarket car park or in the grounds of an apartment block. (Whereas you don't commit it by driving, say, on a farm that is not publicly accessible.)

irish_goat

Sprinkle bird seed all over her car every day. She'll soon get the message.

Robbo

Next person who advocates a childish act of criminal damage gets a ban.

SozBbz

Peregrinus wrote: »

But for Road Traffic Act purposes, it doesn't matter whether a place is public property; ownership is completely irrelevant. It matters whether it's a public place, in the sense already explained.

So, for example, under Road Traffic Act s. 38 it's an offence to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place unless you hold the appropriate driving licence. You can certainly commit this offence in a supermarket car park or in the grounds of an apartment block. (Whereas you don't commit it by driving, say, on a farm that is not publicly accessible.)

To what end though? Do you think the Gardi want to go around arresting people for parking? Theres plenty on the statute books that doesnt actually get enforced as we all know. There's nothing to suggest this person is unlicensed.

kirving

SozBbz wrote: »

To what end though?

In that despite the property being private, the OP could potentially expect a ticket for intentionally blocking the other car in, or face criminal damage charges for interfering with the car.

Mrs OBumble

Its quite likely that the parker works for a commercial tenant of the complex, and is authorised to park there by that tenant.

Claw Hammer

Peregrinus wrote: »

Entirely depends on what legal rule we are talking about. An awful lot of the Road Traffic Act provisions apply to traffic in a "public place", and "public place" is defined as any street, road or other place to which the public have access with vehicles whether as of right or by permission and whether subject to or free of charge. Ownership of the land is completely irrelevant to the question of whether any place is a "public place" in this sense; land may be in public ownership and yet not be a "public place" (e.g. the grounds of Aras an Uachtarain) and conversely lands may be privately-owned and yet be a "public place" (e.g. a car park attached to a shop or a shopping centre).

The grounds of an apartment block would, I think be a public place, even if gated, so long as the gate is left open and entry is in practice open not only to residents but also to visitors, tradesmen or (as in this case) anyone else who wants to drive in for any reason. It might be different if the gate was open but there was a prominent sign saying "entry for residents and guests only", or words to that effect.

I would not regard the grounds of an apartment block as being a public place even if there was no gate or sign. The grounds of an apartment block are the same as the driveway of a house from the point of view of whether or not it is a public place. The only people permitted to park there are residents or their invitees. To be a public place it must mean that the public or a substantial portion of them can access the parking in question. This will apply to parking outside shops churches et cetera but not apply in a residential development. This would be the case even if the residential development itself was public housing.

odyssey06

Claw Hammer wrote: »

I would not regard the grounds of an apartment block as being a public place even if there was no gate or sign. The grounds of an apartment block are the same as the driveway of a house from the point of view of whether or not it is a public place. The only people permitted to park there are residents or their invitees. To be a public place it must mean that the public or a substantial portion of them can access the parking in question. This will apply to parking outside shops churches et cetera but not apply in a residential development. This would be the case even if the residential development itself was public housing.

Gardai have done cars for no tax in a supermarket car park iirc but I can't imagine this being done for the car park of an apartment complex - even if the car park isn't gated.

kingtut

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Its quite likely that the parker works for a commercial tenant of the complex, and is authorised to park there by that tenant.

She works for a beauty salon / hairdresser that is completely seperate to the complex. The owner of the business does not live here.

ronivek

kingtut wrote: »

She works for a beauty salon / hairdresser that is completely seperate to the complex. The owner of the business does not live here.

The implication made earlier was that the apartment complex was part of the same development as the commercial units next to it; and that it is very likely the same management company would have been responsible for all common areas for both the apartment complex and the commercial units.

Nobody in this thread can answer this question for you. You need to find either a neighbour who is an owner and can make inquiries about the management company or you need to put pressure on your letting agency to either get in touch with your landlord or to pass on your landlord's details to you.

If you wanted to share the address of the complex and/or the name of your letting agency via private message I *may* be able to offer a little more help; but honestly I think you're better off spending your time and energy looking for another apartment to lease.

handlemaster

You can put a sticker on the car saying private parking. They can be a bitch to get off

Lenar3556

ronivek wrote: »

The implication made earlier was that the apartment complex was part of the same development as the commercial units next to it; and that it is very likely the same management company would have been responsible for all common areas for both the apartment complex and the commercial units.

Nobody in this thread can answer this question for you. You need to find either a neighbour who is an owner and can make inquiries about the management company or you need to put pressure on your letting agency to either get in touch with your landlord or to pass on your landlord's details to you.

If you wanted to share the address of the complex and/or the name of your letting agency via private message I *may* be able to offer a little more help; but honestly I think you're better off spending your time and energy looking for another apartment to lease.

I suggested that that might be the case as there is a salon within the development, but the OP has since confirmed the offending one is actually down the street!

Lots of new posts.

A, Gardai or Guards. Garda or Guard. Stop with this mutant english/ Irish spelling. It reflects poorly on us that so many can't spell a basic word.

B, perregrinus is mostly correct in the use of 'public place' regardless of what other people consider or don't consider. It's a legal definition but it doesn't apply in this situation anyway. The person in question does not have access by right or by permission too the knowledge of the op. It raises very interesting questions regarding clamping but that's for another day.

C, The term needed here is 'public road' or 'public parking' which this is not. Again we have other users who have inquired about this. So, the parking cannot be enforced at this stage as the spots are not designated or owned by a set person. That's the ticket aspect dealt with. Gardai also don't arrest people for minor traffic offences either.

D, blocking in which has been mentioned here by numerous people is specifically covered under the road traffic act and to a lesser extent the Criminal damage act;

RTA Section 113(4) "This section shall not apply to a person taking, in relation to a mechanically propelled vehicle which is obstructing his lawful ingress or egress to or from any place, such steps as are reasonably necessary to move the vehicle by human propulsion for a distance sufficient to terminate the obstruction."

CDA 1991, section 6. "protect himself or another or property belonging to himself or another or a right or interest in property which was or which he believed to be vested in himself or another and, at the time of the act"

It's a parking issue that while annoying, doesn't really effect the op. To suggest damaging someone's car over it is an escalation beyond reasonable.

hullaballoo

Peregrinus wrote: »

But for Road Traffic Act purposes, it doesn't matter whether a place is public property; ownership is completely irrelevant. It matters whether it's a public place, in the sense already explained.

So, for example, under Road Traffic Act s. 38 it's an offence to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place unless you hold the appropriate driving licence. You can certainly commit this offence in a supermarket car park or in the grounds of an apartment block. (Whereas you don't commit it by driving, say, on a farm that is not publicly accessible.)

Claw Hammer wrote: »

I would not regard the grounds of an apartment block as being a public place even if there was no gate or sign. The grounds of an apartment block are the same as the driveway of a house from the point of view of whether or not it is a public place. The only people permitted to park there are residents or their invitees. To be a public place it must mean that the public or a substantial portion of them can access the parking in question. This will apply to parking outside shops churches et cetera but not apply in a residential development. This would be the case even if the residential development itself was public housing.

I agree that in the ordinary course the curtilage including residents- (and their invitees-)only parking spaces would not be "a public place" in a private apartment complex such as the OP's. Provided there are no signs permitting public use etc.

But it seems that the OMC which would or should have ownership over the common areas including the car parking spaces has been dissolved. By virtue of the State Property Act 1954, this land now vests in the State and therefore, there is a question over the status of the roadways and parking spaces.

I am not saying I am right, I am simply putting this forward - the roadways and spaces are the responsibility of the owner, being the State. The State afaik delegates the taking in charge of roads to the local authority area the road is in. In such a case, the road and spaces may by operation of law be under the rubric of the relevant local authority. In that case, it becomes a public road which in turn makes it a public place.

Just to add a caveat that I do not think this matters just that it's more interesting than bananas in exhaust pipes.

Dr Turk Turkelton

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Lots of new posts.

A, Gardai or Guards. Garda or Guard. Stop with this mutant english/ Irish spelling. It reflects poorly on us that so many can't spell a basic word.

Sorry to pull you up on this Niner leprechaun but I believe it goes like this:
1- Guard
2- Gardai
3 or more- nnaaaardeee

Hairy Japanese BASTARDS!

Wrap sandpaper on the wipers.

Smear red sauce on the windscreen.

Mod
Boards.ie does not agree with this advice