u/Sharp-Cantaloupe-918

I want to ask how you all decided where to live, because I feel like I’m currently suffering from analysis paralysis and I genuinely don’t know what the right decision is.

I’m coming up to 30, and I’ve lived in Kent for the majority of my life, although I’m originally from Sussex, namely Seaford, which I absolutely love. I love the beaches, the cliffs, the South Downs, etc.

My dad still lives there but most of my family and friends are in Kent though, and so is my job. Having said that, my job does have offices in Sussex, so I could potentially request a move to one of those. I’d be a little bit hesitant to do that though as I’ve already moved office once before when I moved up to London to be with my boyfriend for a while, and he’s since moved back down to Kent with me because it was just a lot easier for us being closer to family to help out with our dogs, and not having to commute via train to London is a blessing. I feel like asking again would be seen as a bit of a p!sstake haha.

We’re now looking at buying somewhere, and this is where I’m really struggling. Kent is lovely, and realistically we could look anywhere from Thanet down towards Folkestone, and some of the more rural areas in between. Part of me thinks we should just buy somewhere in Kent, because this is where our family, friends and jobs are, and it would be the sensible option.

But another part of me is really worried about buying in Kent when my heart is still so much in Sussex. I keep thinking about Seaford and how much I love it, but then I wonder whether that’s just me being whimsical and romanticising it.

We’re currently renting and I really hate paying rent every month when that money could be going towards a mortgage and building up some equity. I also want to have a baby within the next couple of years, so ideally I don’t want to be doing that in rented accommodation. I’ve always had it drummed into me by my parents that renting is basically throwing money away, so there’s definitely some of that influencing me too.

But then there’s another part of me that thinks, why am I even limiting myself to Kent or Sussex? I sometimes think I’d love to just move somewhere completely new, like Scotland, Devon or Cornwall, and start a bit of a new life somewhere. I’ve lived abroad before when I was younger (Australia and New Zealand, as well as travelling around Asia), so the idea of moving somewhere completely different isn’t totally foreign to me.

And then, of course, there’s the flip side of that. I don’t want to move somewhere miles away and barely see my family. I know I’d really struggle with that.

It feels like I have so many possible lives I could choose from that I’m struggling to choose any of them. The second I think about buying somewhere, I immediately think, but what if I actually want to live somewhere else? And the idea of buying somewhere almost makes me feel a bit claustrophobic, like I’m suddenly shackling myself to that place forever.
At the same time, I know you have to make decisions at some point and put down some roots. Even my dad has basically said to me, you’ve got to make a decision eventually; you can’t always be this indecisive.

So I’m really interested in how other people decided where they wanted to live. Did you choose somewhere based on family, career, lifestyle, affordability, where you grew up, or just a gut feeling? And did you ever have that feeling of “but what if I choose wrong?”

I’d especially love to hear from people who were in a similar position around 30, particularly if you were deciding between staying close to family and moving somewhere that you felt more drawn to.
How did you actually make the decision?

TLDR: I am on the verge of looking into buying a home and have analysis paralysis between Kent, Sussex, and beyond (Scotland/Devon), because I’m petrified of shackling myself down somewhere where I’ve spent majority of my life and regretting it, whilst being able to acknowledge that being close to friends and family is so important in life!

I want to ask how you all decided where to live, because I feel like I’m currently suffering from analysis paralysis and I genuinely don’t know what the right decision is.

I’m coming up to 30, and I’ve lived in Kent for the majority of my life, although I’m originally from Sussex, namely Seaford, which I absolutely love. I love the beaches, the cliffs, the South Downs, etc.

My dad still lives there but most of my family and friends are in Kent though, and so is my job. Having said that, my job does have offices in Sussex, so I could potentially request a move to one of those. I’d be a little bit hesitant to do that though as I’ve already moved office once before when I moved up to London to be with my boyfriend for a while, and he’s since moved back down to Kent with me because it was just a lot easier for us being closer to family to help out with our dogs, and not having to commute via train to London is a blessing. I feel like asking again would be seen as a bit of a p!sstake haha.

We’re now looking at buying somewhere, and this is where I’m really struggling. Kent is lovely, and realistically we could look anywhere from Thanet down towards Folkestone, and some of the more rural areas in between. Part of me thinks we should just buy somewhere in Kent, because this is where our family, friends and jobs are, and it would be the sensible option.

But another part of me is really worried about buying in Kent when my heart is still so much in Sussex. I keep thinking about Seaford and how much I love it, but then I wonder whether that’s just me being whimsical and romanticising it.

We’re currently renting and I really hate paying rent every month when that money could be going towards a mortgage and building up some equity. I also want to have a baby within the next couple of years, so ideally I don’t want to be doing that in rented accommodation. I’ve always had it drummed into me by my parents that renting is basically throwing money away, so there’s definitely some of that influencing me too.

But then there’s another part of me that thinks, why am I even limiting myself to Kent or Sussex? I sometimes think I’d love to just move somewhere completely new, like Scotland, Devon or Cornwall, and start a bit of a new life somewhere. I’ve lived abroad before when I was younger (Australia and New Zealand, as well as travelling around Asia), so the idea of moving somewhere completely different isn’t totally foreign to me.

And then, of course, there’s the flip side of that. I don’t want to move somewhere miles away and barely see my family. I know I’d really struggle with that.

It feels like I have so many possible lives I could choose from that I’m struggling to choose any of them. The second I think about buying somewhere, I immediately think, but what if I actually want to live somewhere else? And the idea of buying somewhere almost makes me feel a bit claustrophobic, like I’m suddenly shackling myself to that place forever.
At the same time, I know you have to make decisions at some point and put down some roots. Even my dad has basically said to me, you’ve got to make a decision eventually; you can’t always be this indecisive.

So I’m really interested in how other people decided where they wanted to live. Did you choose somewhere based on family, career, lifestyle, affordability, where you grew up, or just a gut feeling? And did you ever have that feeling of “but what if I choose wrong?”

I’d especially love to hear from people who were in a similar position around 30, particularly if you were deciding between staying close to family and moving somewhere that you felt more drawn to.
How did you actually make the decision?

TLDR: I am on the verge of looking into buying a home and have analysis paralysis between Kent, Sussex, and beyond (Scotland/Devon), because I’m petrified of shackling myself down somewhere where I’ve spent majority of my life and regretting it, whilst being able to acknowledge that being close to friends and family is so important in life!

I work in marketing at an accountancy firm. My employer sponsors professional qualifications and has a written L&D policy that explicitly states it applies to all employees, regardless of whether they're a student, fixed-term, permanent, etc. It states that you will get an incremental pay rise each time you pass an exam. There is no extra wording to specify any differential treatment.

I recently passed the first exam of a marketing qualification (employer-sponsored) and reported it to L&D expecting the pay rise. Nothing happened, so I chased it up. L&D came back and said, essentially, "sorry, the policy isn't very clear — this policy only applies to client facing staff - the trainee accountants don't get a September payrise like you do which is more based on performance and market rate". I'm pretty sure the whole firm receives a tiny pay bump in September, as it's more of an inflation adjustment.

Here's the kicker: I'm fairly confident a colleague in the same department — a business development and marketing exec — got a ~£400 bonus for passing her CIM Level 4. I'm doing CIM Level 6, a higher qualification, in the same department, sponsored under the same policy, and got nothing.

Is it worth pushing this further (HR, in writing, citing the other colleague), or am I just going to end up looking like a troublemaker over £150-400? Has anyone had luck getting an employer to actually honour vague policy wording like this?

I'm looking for some honest advice from people who've been through this with very elderly dogs.

My little Yorkshire Terrier is around 16–17 years old. She was recently diagnosed with a grade 4 heart murmur. Over the last week or so, she's started coughing more frequently (a few times an hour at its worst), often ending in a little gag. Other than that, she's honestly still doing really well. She's bright, eating normally, gets excited for her walks, still enjoys long walks, and generally seems happy and like herself.

I took her to the vet today. They said they don't think she's in obvious congestive heart failure, and they couldn't hear fluid in her lungs, but they also said they can't tell exactly what's causing the murmur or the cough without a £500 chest X-ray. They mentioned it could be heart-related, but they can't be sure.

In the meantime, they've prescribed Libeo (furosemide) as a trial. They explained that if it helps, she'd then need regular blood tests (around £250) to monitor her kidneys because of the medication. They also warned she'll likely drink more, wee more, and there's a risk of dehydration.

This is where I'm really struggling.

My dog absolutely hates the vets. She gets incredibly distressed by visits, and at nearly 17 years old I don't know whether putting her through repeated appointments, blood tests and potentially more medication is really in her best interests.

Financially, it's also a significant amount of money, but my biggest concern isn't actually the cost. It's whether I'm doing all of this for her, or because I feel like I should.

I know heart disease is progressive, and I know no treatment is going to make her young again. Part of me wonders whether starting this cycle of:

• medication,
• monitoring,
• blood tests,
• adjusting medications,
• managing side effects,

is genuinely likely to improve her quality of life, or whether it's just prolonging the inevitable for a dog who has already lived an incredibly long and happy life.

I'm not anti-vet or anti-medication. If I thought something was likely to make her feel noticeably more comfortable, I'd absolutely consider it. I just don't know where the line is between treating symptoms to improve quality of life and putting a very elderly dog through increasingly intensive medical management.

Has anyone been in a similar situation with a dog of this age? If you chose treatment, do you feel it genuinely improved your dog's quality of life? Or if you chose to focus on comfort and monitor them instead, do you feel that was the right decision?

I'm not looking for someone to tell me what I want to hear—I genuinely want honest experiences from people who've been in this position.

Hi all as the title suggests, after moving out of a two bed rental which we lived in for one year (rent was 1350pcm), the LL is suggesting we owe £490.
The property is undamaged. The things he is trying to claim for are:

* Rust on the log burner - £75. We literally had a few fires in the winter, didn't ever have anything on top of the log burner, or spill water on it. In fact, the property was quite a damp house and we had to buy a dehumidifier to remedy this at our own cost. I don't see how we could have caused rust through 'neglecting the log burner'.

* Weeding and garden tidy up - £75. Ok so when we first got the property, there were already a few small weeds which have admittedly grown. However, the claim is £75 for literally a little 10ft long maybe 1ft wide strip of earth that runs alongside the path up to the doorway. The back garden is paved over so no weeds there.

* Saying a privacy blind is broken on the front door - £50. It's not, it was fully functioning when we left.

* Scuffs on the wall and a few holes from wall plugs - £100. When we moved in there were already nails and wall plugs, but eitherway, aren't scuffs on the wall consistent with fair wear and tear?

* Oven clean - £190. The oven probably was slightly dirtier upon return, but not awfully so. I scrubbed the oven door down myself. Surely this charge is a bit OTT, would accept some liability for it but not almost £200?

Any thoughts would be appreciated. The property really was looked after, and cleaned well on a regular basis. I know the LL was already peeved because he wanted long term tenants and we left after 1 year due to relocating.

We're looking to dispute this through our rental holding deposit agency, but wanted to ask if anyone else has had any experience with things like this. I mean, come on, rust on a log burner?!