dulwichbloke

She came to my house in The Gardens yesterday evening and tried to pull the same scam about a dead mother at a hospital in North London. It was the same person who appeared a few months ago at five in the morning saying she was locked out and needed money for a locksmith. I pointed this out to her and told her to bugger off which she did but not before offering me ID (right!) nd telling me she lives at No 2A (which she plainly doesn't because I sked her to point out that house and she was very hesitant. I should have called the police, but I don't have much confidence they would show up in time to nab her and I was a little distracted with something else at the time. If anyone else has this scammer calling, please do me a favour and do what I should have done and chucked a bucket of icy water over her! Thanks.

Cheers. I shall do that and if poss attend the meeting next week.

I agree! This is the most absurd and dangerous junction I have come across in London and that is saying something. I have nearly had several accidents there (and seen many other close calls) trying to turn right onto Peckham Rye. When I am coming from the Lordship Lane direction I wonder whether the lights coming the other way are out of sequence. I know that people run red lights, but cars routinely come through well after the lights have turned red in my direction. Some fool has even seen fit to make it a box junction, which means it is nigh on impossible for more than one car for each lights change to (legally) turn right at rush hour. For 2 years now I have been meaning to write to someone about this, but just haven't got round to it and I'm also not quite sure where to write. I would have thought that the authorities must know how dangerous/difficult it is - after all the police must drive down there and turn right many times each day. Surely there will be a fatality there before too long?

SMG - I wasn't sugesting it was their fault - I have no idea who is to blame, which was the gist of my posting. I can't say for sure what I would 'do' next. However, I would certainly (at the earliest opportunity) check my legal position by attending at a solicitors which undertakes property law cases and presenting all the relvant facts/documents to them. Then I would consider their advice and if no progress was being made by common sense attempts at negotiating with other relevant parties, (which is invariably the best way of sorting such problems out) I would commence legal proceedings (assuming I were in the right) with a view to remedying the situation as soon as possible. I would do this quickly if my business depended on it and I had been advised I had a good case. I would seek and injunction and/or damages depending upon the facts/merits. I would also consider entering into formal mediation with the other parties through the court system, although that would require the consent of all parties to the proceedings. Such mediation can be effective and less costly than going to trial. G&B's blog suggested that no legal proceedings had been commenced. I suspect that any solicitor worth their salt would probably advise against posting accusations/laying blame on other parties on a public internet blog. But then again, I could be wrong

...although in many other contexts, (i.e weekly, when reading the NOTW) I do rather enjoy leaping to conclusions based on conjecture and hearsay/rumours!

LegalBeagle, I'm not sure that statements about who is legally responsible for remedying the situation are particularly helpful, or likely to be accurate without knowing all the facts. For example, much will depend on the terms of the lease and it is usually the tenant who is responsible for repairs (but that will depend on the terms of the contract - i.e. the lease). If the blockage is not in part of the demised premises, contrary to what you suggest, it does not follow that the 'landlord' would be liable. That presupposes that the 'landlord' is the same person who owns the land where the blockage is located. That may well not be the case and even if it were that is not necessarily conclusive. There may be some grounds for an action based on the tort of nuisance (for which interim, or other injunctive relief may be available) but the defendant in any such action may well not be G&B's 'landlord'. Without having all the facts available it is simply not possible (and even dangerous - because some may even rely on what you say) to say who is liable to remedy the problem. I note that in an early posting, the owner of G&B was laying the blame firmly at the door of a neighbouring business, not the landlord. The only thing that appears to be certain, is that we don't know sufficient facts to form a reliable view on the rights and wrongs of the problem. I hope it all gets sorted in favour of a common sense solution and to everyone's advantage (or at the very least to the advantage of the person who is, in fact, in the right and therefore the most deserving). However, as I have said before, I didn't think G&B's tactic of slagging off their neighbours in public was constructive, or necessarily fair or correct. I'm not knocking your opinion, which you are obviously entitled to hold, but I am urging caution on anybody before jumping to conclusions on partial facts.

It would be a sad loss and I hope it doesn't close, but I have to say, on one visit I found the owner to be quite rude and far from welcoming. I then read her ranting blog which seemed to me to be quite in keeping with my impression of her on that meeting. Some of what she was saying in her blog appeared to be contradicted by the other 'facts' and it really seemed to me to be out of order so far as the vitriol directed at her neighbour was concerned. The net effect of her rantings on me was to encourage me to shop at her neighbour (which I did over xmas) but not to go back into G&B (which I didn't over xmas). Having said that, I do like the place and the quality of the food and wine and would still be disappointed if it closed down. I just think that she has an extremely unfortunate manner in particular on the issue of her drainage. Her approach is short sighted and will not improve her situation.

Yep, I saw a load of different types on sale this afternoon at Dulwich DIY for about ?4.95, or thereabouts. They even had about 6 different types hanging up and switched on, so you could see what they look like. Might nip in tomorrow as one of my sets has just suffered their annual breakdown!

To make it clear... I didn't refer to the RSPCA to suggest I am an expert in this area - just to illstrate the fact that I am not the sort of person who doesn't give a sh*t about animal welfare!

I have been a member of the RSPCA for years (I don't speak for them - I just support them as I abhor any sort of cruelty to animals) but I have to say that I don't think leaving your dog outside for however long it takes to have a coffee and a cake constitutes cruelty - even if it is raining and/or cold. Any dog I have ever had has loved diving into freezing cold rivers and running about wet in the winter months! They don't feel the cold like we do. I think its a bit daft to suggest that leaving a dog outside for a short time in the rain is cruel. The fact that the dog was even out having a walk in the first place is a good sign that it gets proper attention! Obviously the risk of theft is another matter entirely, but that wasn't what the original observation was directed towards. Dogs are dogs - they love the outdoors, getting wet and sticking their noses up peoples arses. I can't imagine they were suffering because of 2 out of 3 of some of their favourite things.

Yawn!

OK, so a few individuals resent 'chains' - so what? A chain of shops/coffee houses is nothing more than a single shop which has progressed, having become succesful and grown in size isn't it? Chains of shops don't just suddenly appear from nothing. M&S started as one store, so did Woolworths, so did the Body Shope etc etc. The majority of single owner run units become 2 units, then more (e.g Green and Blue to name only one example) given half a chance. They are, after all (usually ambitious and brave) people running businesses and trying to make a living and they naturally want to expand if their business is doing well - it's hardly unnatural or a crime! Eventually, if they do really well, they become a 'chain' of stores (because they provide goods that people want at a price they will/can afford to pay). Sorry, that's the real adult world. If you don't like it, there's not much you can do about it - except moan, I suppose, but what's the point in that? Why not moan about something about which you can make a difference? I think in reality the comments I read on this site are more to do with inverse snobbery. I have read posts from people bitching about chains and how LL should stay the same, yet in the next sentence praising Iceland for being a shop for 'real' people. Is Iceland not a large chain owned by a multi millionaire businessman (and other shareholders)? Because it is cheaper to shop there, it appears to be more acceptable to a few. Fair enough, if your complaint is that certain shops are too expensive (although surely there's room for a range of shops catering to a range of pockets?), but lumping your objections all together as being against 'chains' is intellectually dishonest - it's not chains you are against - its retail units selling at prices you think are too high. As for Cafe Nero, although I've only been in there about 3 times I'd be sorry to see it close, merely on the grounds that there would be an empty unit which would probably stay empty for quite a while. Also (a few) local people would lose their jobs and generally it wouldn't be good for the local economy. Frankly, the crime of selling a few toasted whatevers and muffins without getting permission is hardly the sort of thing that warrants such excitement. Its hardly as if the Council and its rules and regulations are always working to our benefit as a community is it?! I would have thought that a significant fine would be proportionate. End of rant.

She clearly (and cynically) chooses to wake people up at 5 or 6am precisely because she hopes they will be too tired to think straight. A bucket of water is due to her.

Thanks for the advice Nero, but that is pretty much what I did (I was ridiculously polite to her) and I regretted it... it wasn't "simple" as you suggest - I had been woken at 5am after 3 hours sleep and had to work later in the morning, so I was completely f*cked off. The reference to raging was to me raging as I lay in bed unable to get back to sleep - thanks to the inconsiderate lowlife having woken me up with her fraudulent scam.

She did us at 5am about 6 months ago! I was so tired and confused so early in the morning (having been woken up) that I didn't get up the nouse to punch her hard in the mush! It took me 15 mins of raging (because I couldn't get back to sleep) before I decided that I should have done that. Obviousy, in reality I would never have done such a thing, but I wished I had called the Police or at least given her some verbal abuse. To top it all, she started off by saying (she claimed to be locked out from a flat across the road) that she had waited before ringing the bell, until a reasonable time to allow people to be up and out of bed! Like she was doing me a favour. Bloody cheek! At least she didn't get any money from me, although she kindly volunteered to accompany me to a cashpoint!! Nice. If she miscalculates and comes around again, I shall not be so hopelessly polite to her.

Who can say whether G&B have offered compensation? They may have refused to. Also, access is not so simple when it entails drilling/digging up the floor of your shop (then re-laying it) with all the screening off or removal of stock/displays against the unbelievable dust that would create. Then there's the issue of agreeing on the quantum of lost profit and closure of the shop. The law does indeed provide certain recourse to someone in G&B's position (depending on the facts of course) but it appears that G&B have not commenced proceedings, which suggests to me that they may not have the mreits on their side. Then again, it could be for other reasons, however, given the apparently dire consequences of not getting the matter sorted out, such reticence may not be due to financial reasons. But then again, who knows. I must say, if someone had stuck an eccentric rant (invoking the power of the Almighty) on a public blog about me, I probably wouldn't take too kindly to it and it would be unlikely to make me more disposed to putting myself out to help them. I have seen so many disputes of this sort go public and involve other neighbours/bystanders and such an approach is almost always counter-productive. I certainly have never seen it improve matters. I have only had one experience of the owner of G&B and that was not good - she spent the whole time huffing and tutting while bashing on her laptop (composing her latest blog entry no doubt) while she sat next to us at the back of the restaurant. She seemed to be very up-tight about something and was not at all welcoming. However, the food and service were good so we gave the place another go. The next time there was no huffing/tutting owner and the food and service remained good so we will return (assuming it is still open that is!). I hope they get this problem sorted out.

Bob - I thought you might pipe up again. I agree with your observations. I have seen probably 20-30 full-on neighbour disputes over the years and often my view on them changes as I learn all (or more) of the relevant facts. Expert surveyors often disagree on matters such as the cause of pipe defects/blockages, even during court proceedings - pre-action, the respective party's builders/plumbers are even more likely to disagree. Sometimes they even have vested interests themselves. Perhaps a formal mediation may assist G&B and Celestial to reach agreement and to get the matter sorted out quickly?

Bob - that was plumbing new depths! Good spot though! I wish I could claim to have intended the humour, but my jaded mindset at lunchtime on a Friday (which hopefully will extend to 3pm) just wasn't up to it.

That's not enough information for me to be jumping to conclusions about boycotting someones business! I know from a lot of personal experience that hearing one person's side of a dispute can often not be reflective of the true position (of course, it might be in this case - I have no idea - which is my point really). If G&B have insurance, hopefully they will be covered for at least some of the works required. As for access, after all these months and communicating through lawyers, I assume that the legal position has been considered and advice given as part of that process. Although I don't think anyone should rush into unnecessary litigation, if the legal merits are on the side of G&B they could have applied for an injunction or some other order facilitating access, yet they don't appear to have done so. Perhaps the rights and wrongs of the dispute are not so clear. I hope they can sort out their situation though - neighbour disputes can be draining and costly and clearly G&B's business depends upon it. I have only eaten there twice, but I enjoyed it a lot and certainly plan to go back. I wish them well, but won't be boycotting anybody just yet on the basis of what I have read. Nor, I'm afraid, will I be attempting to invoke any assistance from a higher power. The best higher power to deal with this would, eventually, be a Judge - but hopefully it can be sorted without such delay and expense.

No worries. Hope your move goes smoothly. If you have any other queries just let me know. I may not know the right answer, but I'm seldom short of an opinion!

I have lived in The Gardens for a few years and I love it. It beats any place I have lived before. It is extremely quiet (almost like being out of London) and very pretty. The square is deserted during this time of year, but in the summer months it can be reasonably busy when sunny (usually sunbathers and picnicers), although certainly not packed. The Clockhouse is quite a good pub, although not everyone on this site agrees - mostly because the food has gone downhill (I agree that it did, although I haven't eaten there for a few months now). Its nice to sit outside when the weather is good. The Rye Hotel is another good local with excellent food and a huge garden. It's good to be near such an excellent park as well. The Common (the bit you see from the road) is the dull part - if you walk inside the large brick walls and visit the park, you will be amazed at how pretty and well landscaped it all is (several million quid of EU grant money was recently spent restoring the park to something like its original Victorian state). It is much prettier and interesting than the park in Dulwich Village. It also feels safe, but is not too busy. There's also a new cafe just opened up there which has good cakes. You should get a key to the garden on payment of a licence fee (I think it is still ?100 p.a.) and for that the lawn and the plants are very regularly tended. When the odd anti social person leaves barbeque remnants in the garden, it seems to be cleaned up within no time at all - I assume by the groundskeeper. Sometimes there is some noise in the evening if there's a barbeque in the garden, but we have found that it is not very often and not particularly audible because of the large trees around the square which seem to block out most of the noise. The Tilt Estate Co. used to own many of the properties on the square (they are all divided into flats), but about a month ago they sold up to someone, so it remains to be seen what difference if any that makes. There has been a rolling programme of refurbs of Tilt properties (still as flats) and I would guess that may continue, or quicken, because the properties must be pretty valuable in a refurbed state (subject to secure tenancies etc.). A house on the Peckham Rye side of the square is presently on the market for ?1.5 million. Unfortunately, a few of the Tilt properties have had their original features (the square was built in about 1875) wrecked by some poor post-war building extensions, but all in all it's not too bad. Oh, and if you feel like shite, there's a good doctors' surgery at the entrance to The Gardens! I hope you enjoy living in The Gardens as much as we do. Welcome!

Snorky - **This is not an instruction - merely an observation - snorky does not condone or solict criminal activities** Maybe not, but Abu Hamza ran this same line as his defence and he won't be released for another year or so!! (I hasten to add that I'm not comparing you to that loser!)

I don't think the latest thread makes you appear obsessed... I got that impression already from the question on your original thread that suggested traffic wardens should be ticketed for stopping their scooters on yellow lines while they ticketed cars which were illegally parked! That said, I sympathise with you. There's nothing more annoying than feeling fleeced on a parking ticket/tow away. Last time it happended to me I became obsessed as well!

Dominic and his sister are the beneficiaries of the trust (I think). I understand two properties in The Gardens were named after them by their grandmother (one is called Dominic House or Dominic Court). They are slowly but surely renovating the houses owned by the Trust in the square. All but a handful of the houses are divided into flats and owned by Tilt Estates (the Trust). The Gardens are very quiet and pretty. Residents of the houses/flats have keys to the garden square. There are sometimes barbeques and parties during good weather in the square, but there are many trees/bushes with thick foliage which keeps the noise down to a minimum (or at least it does on the side I live on). The best kept local secret is the superb park in Peckham Rye - it is like stepping out of London. It feels safe and is very well kept and very pretty. Well worth a visit.

Was this anywhere near the small park by Sainsburys on DKH (by the football club)? There was an exceedingly suspicious looking man wandering around there by the children's playground at about 4.30 on Tuesday.