Sue

hammerman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Completely agree with you Louisa and you have to > have your wits about you when walking in some > places along Lordship Lane! You have to have your wits about you when walking anywhere .....

ed_pete Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "God some people on this forum do moan a lot. Or > am I missing something? " :))

intexasatthe moment Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We only have one side of the story ,makes a better > press article if one side is an out and out > villian .Reality might be slightly different . > Whilst of course that's true, the woman in question is quoted as having admitted to playing loud music on at least one occasion. And if what she is quoted in the article as having done to harass her neighbours is untrue, then presumably she could get an apology printed, at least. I'd be a bit surprised if they would publish something like that without being pretty sure it was accurate. What I can't understand is, if the wall is in fact (and we don't know for sure, do we?) encroaching on her land, why she has apparently waited until it is completely built to make a fuss about it. The only reason I could think is that she is going to try to wring a vast amount of compensation out of them. What a nightmare.

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is a new trend where the bullies accuse > those they bully of bullying them. It's not a new trend. It's standard practice for bullies, or at least some bullies. I've been on the other end of it :( There's a psychological defence mechanism called projection which could in some cases account for this, so I'm never quite sure whether the person concerned realises what they are doing. You've got to be quite mentally disturbed to be that kind of person anyway, surely.

hammerman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Great! Something that a simple phone call or email > by Sue to Southwark could have been sorted out. If you read the thread, you will note that I reported it online to Southwark. But don't let the facts get in the way of having another go at me.

Yep, as in any walk of life, delivery people vary greatly. I don't think you can pin it down by company (all drivers from ***** are great, all drivers from ****** are rubbish). However if it is true that there is a significant amount of thieving happening, then the relevant companies should be doing something about it (well, they probably are, but maybe they need to take more rigorous steps).

Maybe they spend the mornings in Peckham Rye park .....

Well, if you aren't doing/haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to worry about, eh? (Lights touchpaper and stands well back ..... :)) )

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well for a start I think the outside seating area > for the restaurant and pub should be removed or at > least made less obstructive. They?re hardly used > this time of the year, and yet they manage to take > up a huge amount of space. We also have bins and > lampposts in the most ridiculous places possible. > Have you tried to walk along this stretch when a > buggy or wheelchair is having to fight for space > with stupid deliveroo bikes parked up on the > pavement obstructing peopl. > > Presumably the tables and chairs belonging to restaurants etc are on their own land. The normal pavement width is in addition to them. As for the "bins and lampposts in the most ridiculous places possible", perhaps you could post up some pictures as examples, as I have never noticed this. Or complain to the council if you think they should be somewhere else? And complain to Deliveroo if you think their bikes are causing an obstruction?

I have a Micra. I went with Direct Line this time, having been with another company for some years. In past years I got several slightly lower quotes, but I stuck with who I was with because of their good customer service. I went on to all the comparison sites this time, but if memory serves Direct Line aren't on them. I think I heard about them via the Money Saving Expert site which said you had to go to them directly for a quote, which I did. I think that must have been online too, but I can't remember now. Obviously the proof will be in the pudding if I have to make a claim (which I sincerely hope I won't have to) but my premium is very considerably less than I was paying before. Definitely worth getting a quote and checking them out and see what you think.

I don't know whether this is the same article, but I read one today via Facebook about this case which said that the neighbour has been causing a considerable noise nuisance, presumably deliberately. Southwark Noise Control have evidently been called out on several occasions. The council won't act re the alleged encroachment (is that a word?) because they say 4cm is too small an amount to bother with. So the nuisance neighbour will have to take the allegedly encroaching one to court. My sympathies are all with the allegedly encroaching one. I don't suppose he instructed his builders to deliberately extend 4cms onto his neighbour's land, if indeed that is what they have done. And then, as said above, to have to live next to this woman, who sounds horrendous, after having spent a fortune doing up his house ...... poor bloke. And he probably couldn't even cut his losses and sell the house, even if it was all sorted out, because who would want a neighbour like that, and it has been well publicised :( ETA: Surely it is the architect, or the builders, at fault? Aren't they then required to put things right or to pay this woman compensation, not the owner of the house? Somebody must have effed up if they got the position of the boundary wrong. I think the article I read said that they had gone by the position of an existing fence, which the woman now says was not the boundary. But somebody should have checked, surely. ETA: When I think of all the trauma I have been caused by so-called builders, reading this makes me realise how very very much worse it could have been ..... not that that's much consolation.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "They have outlined what we can expect to happen > when the supply is turned back on" > > Aaa-Haa. I know the answer to this one !! > When supply is turned back on you get like water > coming out of your taps again and stuff. No, ACTUALLY, KK :)), they say it might splutter and look cloudy due to trapped air in the pipes. They tell you what to do if the pressure is low or the water has not come back on at all. They tell you to contact them if what you have done doesn't work. I know you are a DIY genius, but some of us (aka me) find that sort of thing useful :)) They also tell you to contact them on a 24 hour line if you have a medical condition which means you need a constant supply of water. I genuinely thought it was a useful, customer-friendly letter (or two letters, about different dates and times).

It's a load of bollocks. We are talking 4cm. The poor guy seems to have gone out of his way to try to resolve things, and the neighbour has refused mediation. Having been involved in a disagreement with a "builder" who also refused mediation, I have every sympathy. Why would somebody who thought they were in the right refuse mediation?

I have two letters. One says there will be work on 22 February between 11am and 5pm. The other says there will be work on 28 February between 10am amd 4pm. I thought it was good they were giving us advance warning. They have quite fairly said that they don't know exactly what they will need to do until they have dug down to inspect the pipe, and will try to fix the issue without interrupting the supply but that isn't always possible. They have said they need full access to the road and will put cones where they are going to work. They have asked us to help them by leaving the cones where they are and not parking there. Fair enough, surely! They have suggested filling kettles and storing water etc. in case they need to turn the supply off. They have outlined what we can expect to happen when the supply is turned back on. I thought both letters were very clear and helpful, personally.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Encountered some very dangerous walking at > numerous times of the day, along various stretches > of LL. I am particularly concerned about the > stretch between Franco Manca and The Bishop, right > opposite the busy junction with East Dulwich > Grove. Buses turning right, pedestrian crossing in > front of you. Various obstructions including lamp > posts, bins, uneven surfaces and large puddles on > wet days. It?s causing people to walk out into the > road, a busy stretch at that. It?s only a matter > of time before a accident happens. > > I walked along this morning and noticed a man in a > mobility scooter was forced to wait whilst others > casually walked on through without an ounce of > consideration. I really think something needs to > be done. > What do you suggest is done, other than enforced mass education in consideration for others?

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Now my mail always has a rubber band round it - I > imagine at the sorting office I'm being treated > special :) Sorry to disillusion you but I think you'll find it has a rubber band purely because all the letters are for the same address :))

2wans Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > But I've had countless deliveries stolen by > Hermes. Apparently they have stand ins over the > weekend & that happens to be every single time I > have had my parcels stolen. They are signed by the > deliverer & Hermes will refuse to give more > information on this... Crikey, it's not rocket science for Hermes to identify the people who were supposed to deliver the parcels reported as stolen, is it? And find a pattern? It sounds like they are not doing very thorough pre-recruitment checks on the people they employ if they have a lot of thieves amongst them.

Oldschoolboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- How much more does local trade > have to suffer as a result of the council > constantly ripping up our roads?! The council can't win. If they don't do the necessary work then they will get inundated with complaints because of that. Give them a break!

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The brown bin team today (in Underhill) tell me > that they were not on last week - it was a > substitute team - which might explain why my bin > was missed, and perhaps your bags. Anyway, my > collection was fine, so I hope your will be also. Ah, OK. So the substitute team did not know that they were supposed to take the bags? Anyway, all's well, my bags have been taken this morning :) Thanks for your offers of help, James and Renata (though it is James whose area I am in).

hammerman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Only trying to help - no need for the long rant! Sorry if it came across as a rant. I did try to end with some humour :))

Click and collect isn't associated with any particular parcel company, is it? It's just one means of getting your parcel. Many shops apart from Londis provide the service.

They are supposed to collect the sacks, that's why the council provide sacks. They always have done in the past. I have a very small front area and don't have room for three wheelie bins even though I use the smaller sizes. Also I think they are a total eyesore, especially the blue bins, and I like to use the tiny space I have for plants, not bins. I have very little food waste and I use a brown caddy for that. ETA: Surely you are supposed to put your garden waste directly into the brown bin, not into the bags and then into the bin?! Maybe this is why the library is constantly running out of the bags and has been rationing them?! Also, the brown bin collection is every week, not fortnightly. It is the blue and green bin collections which alternate. I am amused that you are putting hedgerows into your brown bin, Hammerman. It must be a very large bin or very small hedgerows!

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you have seen numbers together I think they are > more likely to be actual rats rather than water > voles. If their tails were hairless they certainly > were. It would be great if there were water voles > about. Not sure now. We saw them singly, but two or three in one area and another one on the way back in a nearby area. Must admit they didn't look like that photo of a water vole, but they didn't look like ordinary rats either.

fishbiscuits Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's the 21st century, not the 19th century. > > Let's have something modern, efficient, fit for > purpose... rather than a perpetual cycle of naff > mock Victoriana. Agreed. The new lights are perfectly inoffensive and quite in keeping with their surroundings, in my opinion. Unlike the hideous bendy ones elsewhere. Why is nobody complaining about them?

We saw several water rats in Peckham Rye Park yesterday, in the area just up from the Oval. Also a bit sad to see a female duck on the edge of the lake/large pond who seemed to be ill or hurt. She was having trouble walking and seemed very subdued :(