General ED Issues / Gossip
Discuss life in London's East Dulwich
17,414 topics in this forum
-
- 1 reply
- 647 views
-
- 2 replies
- 675 views
-
- 1 reply
- 1k views
-
- 43 replies
- 7.2k views
-
- 11 replies
- 2k views
-
- 2 replies
- 804 views
-
- 0 replies
- 114 views
-
- 0 replies
- 525 views
-
- 3 replies
- 214 views
-
- 0 replies
- 141 views
-
- 0 replies
- 153 views
-
- 0 replies
- 172 views
-
- 25 replies
- 5.9k views
-
- 1 reply
- 630 views
-
- 0 replies
- 125 views
-
- 0 replies
- 748 views
-
- 13 replies
- 2.8k views
-
- 222 replies
- 18k views
-
- 22 replies
- 2.3k views
-
- 46 replies
- 3.8k views
-
- 16 replies
- 3k views
-
- 90 replies
- 8.4k views
-
- 20 replies
- 2.9k views
-
- 43 replies
- 4k views
-
- 8 replies
- 1.4k views
-
-
Latest Discussions
-
By Jenijenjen · Posted
Had council stock not been sold off then it wouldn't have needed replacing. Whilst I agree that the prohibition on spending revenue from sales on new council housing was a contributory factor, where, in places where building land is scarce and expensive such as London, would these replacement homes have been built. Don't mention infill land! The whole right to buy issue made me so angry when it was introduced and I'm still fuming 40 odd years later. If I could see it was just creating problems for the future, how come Thatcher didn't. I suspect though she did, was more interested in buying votes, and just didn't care about a scarcity of housing impacting the next generations. -
Actually I don't think so. What caused the problem was the ban on councils using the revenues from sales to build more houses. Had councils been able to reinvest in more housing then we would have had a boom in building. And councils would have been relieved, through the sales, of the cost of maintaining old housing stock. Thatcher believed that council tenants didn't vote Conservative, and home owners did. Which may have been, at the time a correct assumption. But it was the ban on councils building more from the sales revenues which was the real killer here. Not the sales themselves. -
I agree with Jenjenjen. Guarantees are provided for works and services actually carried out; they are not an insurance policy for leaks anywhere else on the roof. Assuming that the rendering at the chimney stopped the leak that you asked the roofer to repair, then the guarantee will cover that rendering work. Indeed, if at some time in the future it leaked again at that exact same spot but by another cause, that would not be covered. Failure of rendering around a chimney is pretty common so, if re-rendering did resolve that leak, there is no particular reason to link it to the holes in the felt elsewhere across the roof. -
By Dulwichlass · Posted
Hey, I am on the first floor and I am directly impacted if roof leaks. We got a roofing company to do repair work which was supposed to be guaranteed. However, when it started leaking again, we were informed that the guarantee is just for a new roof and not repair work. Each time the company that did the repair work came out again over the next few years, we had to pay additional amounts. The roof continues to leak, so I have just organised another company to fix the roof instead, as the guarantee doesn't mean anything.
-