[Talk-GB] Envelopes map

[David Woolley]

On 19/01/2022 20:30, Rob Nickerson wrote:
> I guess the first thing to work out is if we see the building occupant 
> as part of the address of that building. For residential properties we 
> don't, so following that logic, why should we include the (current) 
> occupant of commercial buildings within the address?

I think that is a grey area.

Firstly I'd note that real building names are not immutable, but tend to 
be set by the landlord.

The last company I worked for was a tenant in a building with a name a 
bit like <pub name> House, but bought the freehold on and moved into a 
building, in which it wasn't then the sole occupier.  The company name 
was XXXX Ltd, and they renamed the building to XXXX House, and the full 
address was:

XXXX Ltd.
XXXX House
99-103 Some Street.
.....

Their tenants would have substituted different names on the first line. 
  The company itself has since rebranded its trading name, but their 
address still reflects the formal company name.

I'd also suggest that most places of worship and schools have names that 
are associated with the building, even if that can change radically, 
e.g. when a local church became a mandir.

Whilst my first example did have a "house" number, the second class of 
cases tend not to, or at least no-one knows them and you wouldn't use 
them in addressing an envelope.