peterstorm1985

JSA is normally paid on the basis of contribution (NI) rather than means tested so is often not considered a 'benefit'. ie you can't get free eye tests if you're only on JSA. When you're not working, even if you have got some savings, there is a huge difference between ?50 and ?3 so it's good that Southwark merely wants evidence of unwaged status via JSA to qualify. If you have enough not to even want to claim JSA then I think you've chosen not to have the discount. (Although there are some for whom that 'choice' may be for other reasons such as caring etc that may not seem so fair)

If you have home insurance then you will have to include the value in your home insurance, otherwise - in theory - you risk being under-insured (although I'd be stunned if they ever went into quite that much detail when you make a claim). BUT, don't ever even think about trying to claim on your home insurance. a) because the value of a second hand phone is likely to be less than the excess and b) because claiming for any small item never works out as worth the increase in premium they sting you for. Is it really worth insuring?

If you ease the parking problem, you merely make owning a car more attractive for those that don't yet have one*. Unless there are real restrictions on the number of permits that Southwark hands out in exchange for cash, a CPZ will never stop parking stress in the longer term, particularly with the likely increase in numbers outlined by James Barber. There is a natural level of irritation that most of us will suffer and one that we will not. If Southwark made more efforts to impose the current parking restrictions that exist, ie towing cars off double yellow lines, a few more residents might decide a car isn't for them. *Before kids and all the associated hassle a single space anywhere in the street makes owning a car look attractive. Only once kids etc come along does that space 'need' to be closer to your door. But by then you've already got the car/lifestyle. Am I the only one to suspect that Foxtons have already written the wording to promote the CPZ to naive potential purchasers as a guarantee of easy parking.

gm99 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Southwark's own website refers to CPZs being > 'usually introduced under experimental powers' and > further states 'experimental procedures also allow us to > review the zone soon after introduction and make > changes where necessary'. You are quite right - thank you for highlighting this. But, as you say, there is no explanation for how this would work in practice (which may simply mean that the 'lite' version gets changed to an all day version) and, as I hope has been referred to frequently enough for the significance to be obvious to everyone, the proposed CPZ includes streets that have lower levels of parking. Consequently, any measure of success will be against parking capacity over the whole zone. So, if you live in Derwent and cannot find a space but there are spaces available in Ondine, you will have nothing to complain about. It sounds to me as if better stats should be acquired for the streets with the greatest pressure now (actual cars parked/free spaces at various times of day, not just percentages that mean very little), and an absolute promise from Southwark that if the parking pressures are not alleviated on a street by street basis, then a removal of the CPZ would follow. Somehow I doubt anyone is going to be able to get that.......

Have you tried contacting the manufacturer?

PSJ Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was thinking the same, but when passing their > today they were working at laying the path from > the main road to the platform. Safety rules won't prevent all work from being done during the day, only those things that carry a risk of falling onto the track, materials slippage, machines that could slew across the track or into any live equipment etc. That often means that no work is done during the day but laying a path sounds like something that could be done with no inherent risk.

henryb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I suspect the reason is the isn't any sensible > planning around providing adequate public > transport links to these hubs. Has any analysis > been done on where the commuters are coming from? This is one of the most frustrating things. The surveys carried out made no attempt to ascertain who the 'non-residents' parking actually were so, despite the local residents feeling that commuters are too blame, there are no actual numbers to confirm the size of their contribution to the problem and certainly no attempt at all to find out why they have used their car to get to the station. There are good bus links to ED station for the majority of those who are beyond walking distance. Of course, there may be a few who simply prefer the car, and some for whom minor disability (but without badge) mean a car is easier than a bus but, considering the likely real numbers of commuters parking (a percentage of the 20% 'non-residents') it is quite possible that they are just people who use the car to get to the station on the very odd occasion ie when they have something heavy to carry, or know they will be bringing something/someone back with them on their return.

teddyt Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >I haven't seen a single workman there in the three > months the scaffolding and temporary bridge went > up. I'm guessing you've been looking in the day time. Due to the proximity with a live track I would have expected most works to be done at night when there are no trains.

mummypig Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Isn't there a proposed trial period of about 18 > months? So we can give it a go and then see who > was right / wrong. > Wherever did you get this idea from? There is no official suggestion of a trial, certainly not one that could reverse the installation of the CPZ. The only 'trial' that may happen is the 'lite' version of the CPZ (if that's what gets the vote) before it goes for the full on. And I guess you haven't read much of the rest of this thread. The streets are empty across East Dulwich at weekends (except those just off Lordship Lane) simply because so many people go away, or out each day, not because there is a lack of commuters. There are certainly commuters parking during the week but the statistics that you dismiss so easily clearly show that they are a relatively small percentage (and may be a very small percentage as there is no distinction between them and local business people who will be entitled to pay for a permit). The CPZ will reduce the number of on-street parking spaces and the reduction in commuters will not compensate. The only way you will get easier parking is if sufficient numbers of residents choose not to pay and park further away. I walked up Derwent Grove on Thursday, very late evening (9.30ish). Unless some commuters were working very late indeed, they certainly aren't the problem.

citizenED Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Could I ask whether any of the people who are > pro-CPZ ever park outside another person's home? Yes, I rather wondered why there was such a complaint that those in the CPZ could not find a space when they came 'back' to their road during the day. This suggests that they went somewhere and not always (I guess) to a large municipal or private car park. I suspect there are a few roads that have schools in them where the residents have a significant problem at certain times of the day (Oh no, maybe that's coaches not cars). As I have previously stated, I live outside the CPZ, in one of those roads that will be affected by dispersal; but I have off-street parking so will not be directly affected. As such, I think I can take a reasonably objective view. From where I stand this scheme will only ever alleviate the parking problem if a fee is charged, as some people will choose not to pay and park elsewhere. (The stats for 'commuter' parking simply do not provide the requisite freeing up of spaces when a reduction in legal spaces is accounted for). But it only works for as long as the CPZ does not expand. Due to the proximity of Lordship Lane, the potential for dispersal simply isn't there so an extension is inevitable. When that happens it will be just too far to walk for those who have chosen not to buy permits, and so they will dig deep into their pockets for the permits. Their cars will go back and then all of those in the CPZ will be paying for permits but getting nothing more than they get now. The sad thing, and the reason that I really object, is that some of those people are not as well off as the majority of those who can afford the time and technology to discuss the matter here.

Network Rail engineering works Took a minute to find this- if you look on the Network rail site it tells you where work is being carried out (You just type in your travel date and Train company and there's a list). If you look on the Network rail site it gives more info about what is being done and why

A smear of jam on the inside of the door handle. Will annoy him greatly but no one is going to get a criminal record.

Peckham native Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well I'm within the proposed CPZ (Ondine Road) and > have no parking stress! Can always park during the > day within a few car lengths of my house. The > only time I've had to park further away is late at > night when most residents are home. I was out & > about in my car on Friday and several times > arrived back at home to find multiple spaces (10+) > within sight of my house. So obviously I don't > want to have to find ?125 + visitors permits to > park where I, at present, can easily park for > free! But, unfortunately, your street (Ondine) needs to be included in the CPZ otherwise, once the CPZ reduces the total number of parking spaces, there is no chance that those who pay for a permit will be able to 'park within the zone' without it. It might be worth taking some photographs of spaces outside your house and sending to a few people (perhaps the residents of Derwent Grove - it will be nice for them to know where they'll be parking once they've paid for their permits.)

Just a thought, but have the residents of Derwent Grove etc considered campaigning for their road to become a no-through road, ie one end be blocked off. The annoyance factor of driving all the way down a no-through road and then having to turn around and go all the way back does tend to put off a lot of people intent on parking. It might be sufficient to encourage the evil 'commuters' to park somewhere further away without all this strife. At the moment it is terribly easy just to do a circuit looking for a space. I know it would also be annoying for residents but those who drive during the day tend to be slightly less time affected than those who are trying to catch a train so may be prepared to put up with the occasional hassle compared to a (perceived) increased of spaces caused by less commuters.

I agree with TownleyGreen. A bolt through the brain is the way to go. A bit like snapping the head off a lettuce. If you twist it and allow each leaf to break separately; that's just plain cruel.

Thanks Penguin68 for a very comprehensive explanation. I took it slow, and read every word, and think I got my head round it. Simplistically, whilst a lot of broadband suppliers rely on BT for the fundamental supply, nevertheless, enough of the service is dependent on their own equipment (or the customers') such that, when things go wrong, it would be a mistake to assume that the fault can be traced back to BT. On occasion it may be BT's fault but don't let Talk Talk or anyone else use BT as an excuse for their own failings. I use to be with Talk Talk. I didn't sign up with them; they bought out my previous supplier. From the moment they took over, the service went downhill. They clearly had staff issues as I had endless emails telling me who the 'new' local service manager was. I had a constant stream of phone calls trying to get me to 'upgrade'. This was a year ago. Now I'm with BT. I'm very glad we changed. They do ring you to try and flog Infinity but otherwise leave you alone.

gsirett Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > NEWSFLASH from Grove Vale Library > > (I did the following calculation with the nice > chap from Southwark in the library yesterday) > There are currently safe 691 parking spaces > available in the proposed CPZ area (although, > amazingly, they did not have this figure anywhere. > I had to work it our with the help of the very > nice council chap) > > I think the figure being banded around is is > c.20% commuters (although, according to said > nice chap, that does also include the girls > working in GM?s, some of the people working at the > hospital, and the nice man from Caf? > Mirto)........so > 20 % of 691 is 138. Equals 138 commuters. This > leaves (stay with me on this)....... > 553 residents are currently able to park in the > zone. > The scheme proposes 507, yes you read it right, > 507 residents spaces > > THAT IS A REDUCTION IN 46 PARKING SPACES FOR > RESIDENTS. > Residents of proposed CPZ area.......still sure > you?re lives are going to get better? Thank you for taking the time with this - exactly what I expected from a perusal of the survey results, consideration of the proposed design, and a walk around the area at approx 9pm on Friday evening. (Of interest was that one of the roads just outside the CPZ, Tell Grove, had 100% occupancy at that time) I cannot believe that James Barber still thinks that the data supports the CPZ. The only way it can work is if enough people choose not to buy permits. But they'll only do that while they can park their cars within easy walking distance, something that won't last long when the CPZ gets extended, which it undoubtedly will.

mastershake Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I lived in herne hill before this. a cpz was > imposed which only chatged for parking 12-2. local > businesses weren't hit, commuter parking stopped > being a problem (it was a serious problem before), Mastershake: Do you have the stats of any survey carried out at Herne Hill prior to the CPZ going in? The reason I ask is that the survey carried out in the proposed ED CPZ area does not suggest that the commuter problem is a great enough proportion such that the removal of these cars will result in sufficient freeing up of spaces to justify the cost to residents - not when you consider the reduction in actual spaces that a CPZ creates. Indeed, as the survey did not separate out commuters from other non-residents, it is wholly possible that the situation will be worse. I am confused as to why you have to park 10 minutes from your house in the day time as there are always spaces within less walking distance of the station (as confirmed by the survey).

MrBen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The average SE22 3 bed terrace is now 600k odds. > If you work on four times joint that requires a > deposit of say 50k plus a combined household > income of ?140,000. How many households have that > income in reality? Prices still seem high to me. But most people don't start with a 3 bed house (Do they?) They begin with a one/two bed flat and work their way up the ladder, so by the time they're on to a 3 bed house they're more likely to have ?200K equity/deposit and a combined household income of ?100K. And there are a heck of a lot of those in London.

Thomas Micklewright Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ha try veganism, I use 1/4 of the land water oil > of your average meat eater. Average? Is that a meat eater in the UK, or globally? And are you taking on the persona of the average Vegan (UK/Global?), or your actual personal intake? I've looked on the back of all those packets of dried food(?)stuffs in SMBS and there are some scarily distant (air/sea miles) countries of origin.

I think we may need to be careful of some of the statistics. Not all residents have cars. I'm assuming that anyone over 18 is counted as a resident so in a house of two adults but only one car, that's only 50% who might want a permit. In a house with two parents and two children over 18 with two cars between them, that's more car than the length of frontage but still only 50% potential take up of permits. Perhaps My Barber could clarify the definition of 'resident' to help - it would be amusing if even children counted. (Apologies if anyone has already ascertained this - the thread's getting a bit long to check every sentence)

Did they say who does?

Bobby P Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > If I were cynical, I'd say politically it's a > jolly good time to have a parking consultation for > people living on these roads (ending on Nov 11th), > whilst the situation is at its most acute... I'd say you were a highly intelligent individual

Maintenance twice a year seems a bit excessive (Gas certificates are only needed annually for rental properties). My boiler is approx 35 years old and manages to have an every other year service and be fine (Fingers crossed). Obviously some makes are better than others and we've had quite a few replacement parts. Sounds like it may be a case that someone has decided that they are no longer economic to maintain and put them on the replacement schedule but hasn't manage to expedite the changeover. I'd doubt we're quite at the hypothermia (not hyperthermia - very different thing) level yet but sensible for the elderly to wrap up well and take in plenty of hot drinks. Compensation will depend upon what their contract says.

Type Southwark Abandoned vehicles into Google.