Just thought I'd let you know, that EBuyers process of incompetence doesn't end at the ordering phase.

I ordered a motherboard from them just under a year ago, it arrived and has been working until October 11, whereupon the broad refused to boot correctly following a routine system restart for an update.

Twice the board went back to them, and twice came back "No Fault Found" on the second return, the board which was only partially damaged when returned to them would now not even attempt to start let alone go into the post phase.

After yet one more return, and several phone calls to their 10p per minute support line, I have now been accused of damaging the board myself and they are using that as an excuse, unless I can prove they damaged it.

Needless to say I will not be dealing with these charlatans again.

First title will only sell through a solicitor. My solicitor wants to charge £60+VAT as an intermediary for buying it. What is the way around this? This whole thing seems like a gravy train for someond!

On researching CRL I discovered that the area where I live was granted an ancient charter dating back to the 17th century. Amongst the entitlements is one which gave the people of the area freedom from taxtaion. I bet I cant enforce that on today or perhaps it still stands, that would be great.

Thanks for the hints. Have the same problems for month, and can't fix it. Please note that Gnome3 is also totally crapped and doesn't even load with two separate X screens. The developers say in Bugzilla that nobody needs this and you have to stick with TwinView (which causes ugly tearing in videos for me and makes XBMC unusable)

+1 for creative asterisk uses.

It's sitting alongside vim and gcc in my top ten list of "pieces of software that will eventually become so useful, all other software will become obsolete"

Really interested to read all this, we are buying a flat which this has been flagged on so I am currently digging around for the info. I was surprised by M Mathers comment about insurance against this for as litle as £15, but have looked into it further it does appear to be the solution to high costs. Sadly my solicitor had already done the search otherwise I would have just paid the £15 for cover and forgotten all about it, however for peace of mind £15 seems a small price to pay (bearing in mind the cost of a property!).
I have checked out the company on companies house and that the underwritters are registered with the FSA and all seems OK.

My understanding is that the main risk is joint and several liability. In other words the church need only chase the owner of one property -and there may be hundreds liable- and leave the owners of the property with the impossible task of recovering the money from the rest. Does the insurance cover the risk of the whole(and potentially unrecoverable) repair cost or only the bit applicable to a particular property? And does the "church/trustees" have the requirement to ensure that they list every liable property ( by 2013) so that in the worst case individual liability is small.

This is why I let William go to the lagoon.

If people want to get rid of this, it's the politicians who have to do it! Not the Church of England.

Chancel repair liability can only be abolished by Civil law.

And the PCCs who ask for this money are not "self-serving supernaturalists", who are legally bound by charitable status to pursue the best financial interests of their charitable body.

A number of commentators appear to have misunderstood the scale of the problem.

It is correct that every property in England is within a Church of England parish, but not all parishes will have a chancel repair liability.

Very broadly, this will only apply in parishes which existed before the Reformation, so any new parish created since then (and a lot were created in the 18th and 19th centuries) will not have any liability.

Various estimates exist, including the estimate that 5,200 parishes are affected, out of about 16,000. Even then not all the land in these parishes carries the liability, only certain land (as discussed in earlier comments).

Another estimate is that 3,780,500 acres carry a potential liability, which is roughly 10% of the area of England.

I hope that this might put the issue in context.

As I understand the 2003 Regulations, anyone now owning land subject to chancel repair liability will retain that liability for as long as they own the property, whether or not the liability is registered at the Land Registry.

But on the first sale after 2013, a purchaser will take free of any liability unless it has been registered.

So the need for insurance will vary immensely, but I think that there is a clear conflict of interest in companies who carry out searches also trying to sell the insurance policies.

As an anti-theist I am seething inside about this issue. These self-serving supernaturalists, whether a claim is made or not, continue to selfishly cause mental hurt and anguish to the thousands of people who buy and sell their home. And all over a piles of stone that are now largely ignored by the populus of the 21st century. Someone said this country was secular, it clearly is not, church and state are not seperate. If it were to become secular these anachronisms would be abolished once and for all.

Archery just takes time and practice, but the best thing is just taking part :)

(and the Wallbanks (the famous case) knew (in legal terms) about the liability, as Mrs Wallbanks ancestors had bought the land, and their was specific mention in the deeds that it was subject to chancel repair. Legally speaking, they owned the land in full knowledge of the blight of chancel repair.)

Another point: the "unconfirmed reports" that the church has an army of solicitors working on this. Not true! The Church Commissioners have, I gather, a small team (I think of 2 people!) that is registering the liabilities on the Commissioners' land (which is mainly agricultural), and they are responsible at least in part for over 800 chancels in the country. Registration for a chancel that the Commissioners have no land liability attached to is solely the responsibility of the Parochial Church Council and any solicitors they choose to hire. The Commissioners (again, I'm not 100% sure about this) also have retained the liability for much land that they sold long ago, so your house might be lucky and not be affected after all!

Sorry, one more point(!):
the following links are hugely informative, and can point you in the right direction (also, the book "Chancel Repair Liability: How to Research It" is very good, if a little dull).

http://www.peterboroughdiocesanregistry.co.uk/chancels.html

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/research-guides/chancel-repairs.htm

http://www.stedmundsbury.anglican.org/assets/downloads/governance/DChancelRepairliability-V62.pdf

http://www.stedmundsbury.anglican.org/assets/downloads/yourchurch/DAC/chancel%20repair%20laibility.pdf

Read them all! They are very useful, and hopefully will show you that CRL is not the terrifying demon everyone makes out. With careful research, you will often find that, if any, any liability your property bears will often be neglibly small, if it is ever registered.

Also, you are only safe if the liability has not been registered at the FIRST SALE AFTER 2013. If the registered title does not change hands by, say, 2015, even the liability is NOT registered, it still stands until that land is sold, and it can be registered at any point until sale after the 13th October 2013.