Google Mail Calendar Documents Reader Web more »
Recently Visited Groups | Help | Sign in
Google Groups Home
Flat numbering
There are currently too many topics in this group that display first. To make this topic appear first, remove this option from another topic.
There was an error processing your request. Please try again.
flag
  2 messages - Collapse all  -  Translate all to Translated (View all originals)
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Follow-up To:
Add Cc | Add Follow-up to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers that you hear
 
David M  
View profile   Translate to Translated (View Original)
 More options 1 June, 23:21
Newsgroups: ed.general, scot.general
From: David M <da...@bogus.domain.dom.invalid>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 23:21:29 +0100
Local: Mon 1 June 2009 23:21
Subject: Re: Flat numbering
[NB: scot.general added, as it seems appropriate]

Aaaaaaaaaaarrrghhh!!!!  This is *spooky* timing for this thread. As
mentioned in an earlier episode, I have recently found the new nice flat
I was looking for, and am now going through exactly this kind of address
torture with various intransigent computer systems.. :-(

I'm very pissed off, so my contributions to this thread will involve
varying amounts of swearinginess..

SAm wrote in ed.general

> In article <MPG.2478969e7bb01746989...@news.tesco.net>,
> no.s...@this.address says...
>> I once had a problem convincing someone over the phone (can't remember with
>> who) that "Flat 1F4" was a valid part of my address. They insisted on having
>> a number only. I would assume you just add on as you go up and round, so 1F4
>> = 8, 2F1 = 9, and so on.

> You have to know how many flats there are per floor to do that.  If there
> are six per floor, 1F4 would be 10, and 2F1 13.  If there are variable
> numbers per floor, it doesn't work at all.

Here's what I don't get.. The Royal Mail, bless 'em, have obviously
spent a great deal of time, effort and probably money, devising a
canonical number for every flat in the UK, viz "streetnum/flatnum"
(notwithstanding that their canonical number rarely, if ever, matches
the traditional flat number - "street num (floor/flat)" - that has been
passed down from landlord to tenant, and owner to owner over many
years..).

So, I have to ask, why the fuck has the Royal Mail never sent out an
official letter to each address saying "Here's our official record of
your address: please use it and we'll try not to lose your mail, and
irritating call centres and computer systems, if you're lucky, will
probably, not definitely, but probably, not tell you that you don't
exist."

It may be a fucked-up system, but it's the system that the Royal Mail
have decided to use, so why don't they actually *tell* people what they
(RM) think their (our) flat number is?

> The solution I've seen is to use 'Third Floor Right' in the 'house name'
> field.

Nah, the bastards have been lapping up (as well they ought to) tales of
despair over "input validation" and "SQL injection" and it now seems
that well over half of the organisations whom I'm trying to tell that
I've moved are getting excessively huffy to user-supplied data.
Particularly excessively huffy when it appears that their data is
"garbage in.." compared to the everyday address used by Real People.

Want to enter your flat number in the house name field?
=> YOU CAN'T HAVE A SLASH IN THE NAME!!! Go away.
(This is, I suppose, the sole saving grace/useful bodge of Edinburgh's
inelegant and confusing nfm flat format, rather than the more normal n/m,
although I doubt the Victorians were thinking of disallowed characters,
centuries down the line..)
or
=> Our database doesn't have house names for these addresses, so we're
not going to let you enter one, even if that is the only way you can
somehow try to stuff your real address into our data.

Want to enter your traditional flat number in the flat field?
=> Our database only has the canonical number that nobody knows. You
clearly don't really exist, even though the Royal Mail have been
delivering mail to the traditional flat number for decades. Go away.

Of course, when it says "Go away", what it actually says is: "Phone us
on a non-free (fuckers) 08xx phone number during some restricted hours
(sorry, but dinner and chilling-out come first at the end of the day),
and of course we don't actually have a 'Contact Us' link on the website
where you could tell us the information that you'd only have to repeat
to some bored minimum-wage school-leaver, who'd still tell you that you
don't exist."

Actually, one almost wonders if this is part of our beloved Government's
grand Databodge\\\\\base and National Identity Card plan: "Oh, I'm
sorry, your address isn't in the database, you evidently don't exist, no
Government services for you, non-citizen.."

As I said, you could usually get the desired result with the "stuff your
flat number into the house name" field bodge, but it seems that the
bastards are really starting to get picky now and I'm finding that's no
longer working in many, many cases.

I've got so fed up that if the bastards are going to insist on the Royal
Mail version of my address, then Royal Mail can damn well tell me what
it actually is. So I emailed them, and, to be fair, got a quick reply.
I'm just not very convinced that it's a correct reply..

My flat number is (something like ;-) 99 2f1.

There are no flats on the ground floor, 2 flats on the 1st, 2nd and 3rd
floors.

Royal Mail's address finder reckons we are 99/1 .. 99/6. So far, so sort
of sensible (but why the fuck have you never actually told anybody which
flat gets which number?).

So I filled in Royal Mail's contact form, and gave them my full address
and asked them what flat number 99 2f1 corresponded to.

And they (and why I do I get the feeling that it was the proverbial
minimum-wage school-leaver who just typed the numbers into the website,
the same as I had done) replied and told me that:

 99 2f1 would be 99/2.

Uh-huh. Why do I get the feeling that the PMWSL is a non-Scot and
doesn't understand our flat numbering conventions and just stripped off
the last part?

I'm going to assume that Royal Mail actually had some sense and that
their numbers do follow some kind of logical order.

Given that I'm on the 2nd floor, and given that there are also flats on
the 1st floor, I'm thinking it's very very unlikely that my flat is
going to be 99/2, as surely /2 would be used by one of the 1st floor
flats? I reckon it's more likely that my flat would be 99/3 or 99/4, but
the question is, *which one*? Do I feel lucky, punk? No, I don't.

And it is a genuine problem, even though, for most mail, the postie will
come in to number 99 and realise that the envelope with my name on it is
clearly meant for the door with my name on it, and will deliver the mail
through the right door, even though the address doesn't exactly match. But
there are circumstances where you've got to have the right address:

TV Licence: I'm sure they'd love to find an excuse to attempt to fine you
if it turned out you'd unwittingly been paying for your neighbour's TV
licence instead (fortunately, the TV Licence website is one which does
still let you manually enter your address!)

Credit ratings: potentially far more serious, with the wrong flat number
you might find your credit score gets associated with a neighbour with
serious financial problems..

Banking and internet shopping: card payments refused because your bank
and the shop have different opinions over your address, not good..

I've lived in many flats over many years now, and this system has always
been a disaster, and it's always a real pain whenever you move. Is anybody
up for some kind of organised lobbying campaign to get our MPs (once
they've taken a breather from guzzling at the trough, that is) to try to
sort this out once and for all?

Bah. I feel marginally better for getting that off my chest, though.. :)

David.

--
David M. -- Edinburgh, Scotland. --[en,fr,(de) <-- corrections welcome]
*Please remove quotes not needed for context and interleave reply text*
*No-context, excess-quoted, slug-trailed, zero-content posts filtered.*


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Sam Wilson  
View profile   Translate to Translated (View Original)
 More options 4 June, 17:56
Newsgroups: ed.general, scot.general
From: Sam Wilson <Sam.Wil...@ed.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 17:56:02 +0100
Local: Thurs 4 June 2009 17:56
Subject: Re: Flat numbering
In article <9s0ef6-92l....@pepper.local.lan>,
 David M <da...@bogus.domain.dom.invalid> wrote:

> Given that I'm on the 2nd floor, and given that there are also flats on
> the 1st floor, I'm thinking it's very very unlikely that my flat is
> going to be 99/2, as surely /2 would be used by one of the 1st floor
> flats? I reckon it's more likely that my flat would be 99/3 or 99/4, but
> the question is, *which one*? Do I feel lucky, punk? No, I don't.

Count them as you come to them up the stairs.  If yours is the first
door you come to on the 2nd floor then you'll be 99/3, if the second
door then 99/4.  The lady who lives at 1f1 akd N/1 in our stair ends up
putting out all sorts of mail that people upstairs have just had
addressed to N/1 without bothering to think about what comes after the /.

That said I much prefer the xFy system and, since the local authority
has the power[1] (and possibly obligation) to number premises and they
consistently use that format it's the one I think we should all use.

Sam

[1]
<http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&search
Enacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0
&PageNumber=0&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=2191918&ActiveTextDocId=219
2134&filesize=3546> or <http://tinyurl.com/pvo7lx>


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
End of messages
« Back to Discussions « Newer topic     Older topic »

Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2009 Google