peterstorm1985

Salsaboy, I think you are mistaken; the BBC Rogue traders company was 1st Active Drainage Ltd, so 1st Drainclear is probably just one of many perfectly acceptable CCTV companies that you may choose to use if you really need one but it's very unlikely that anyone will. It may be that the change in the law requiring Thames water to take responsibility for the shared part of public sewers has lead to a drop in business for these companies which is why they are resorting to underhand advertising tactics.

I notice that bonbon1979's only other post also advertises this company. I smell a rat. People with shared drainage only very rarely have a CCTV survey done and now that the law has changed and the water company has responsibility for the shared bit of public sewers it would be more sensible to ring Thames water in the first instance. If you only have shared private sewers - which you mostly find on modern estates with private roads etc - then you might want to contact one of the many CCTV companies that exist.

Sue, It could still be a simple, understandable, mistake - you quite rightly ask if others are on the same street as you. It could just be that the road was not listed on the brown bin collection sheet; a mere typo

We've had no problems with the latest collections but on the few occasions in the past when our bin has got missed (hiding behind the hedge!), I have rung the main number 020 7525 2000 to report a miscollection. When dealing with Southwark I always send a confirmation email (environment@southwark.gov.uk) to confirm my telephone call, and restating the details, and that has has always brought results. If you don't report the problem they won't know. We all make mistakes sometimes - it's not fair to expect Southwark staff/contractors to be better then ourselves. If there is a problem with the website (as tomsav found), I'm sure they would find it very helpful if you send an email to report the issue.

Agree with Alan Medic. Also, for those who are more motivated to contact the councillor more often, this forum must save a lot of time as questions asked and answered publicly, are less likely to be duplicated. I also much prefer the accountability of open discussion. Email/letters for matters of a more individual nature. Never telephones - always best to have a record of what was said.

fazer71, a retaining wall for a train track isn't the same as a wall for a stable loading condition. I guess they would have to pile it, which means heavy machinery. And if they have to keep the track open for the duration of the works, that will add a significant amount due to night working - they couldn't work that close to the track with trains running. In order to get direct access to the works they'd either have to close the garden centre or knock down the ticket office, which would then need rebuilding.

Either wash in the last of the washing up water, or chuck in the dishwasher. Never do a special wash - that's a crime.

Has anyone got photographic evidence of what they are doing? I've often found that a couple of snaps sent to the right people makes all the difference. Pictures tend to stop that endless round of conversation.

Applespider Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > So... is there one number we can call to reduce > the bin number The links on the post above (two above yours) goes to all of Southwark recycling contact details. Only one telephone number appears on all links

If you are generating that much damp air then you need to increase the ventilation more than anything. Temporary double glazing will stop the condensation on the windows but the dampness will still be in your flat. You may find that the lack of condensate (which you can mop up locally) could make it worse as the water will still be in the atmosphere, and you could find that carpets/curtains start to rot. Opening the windows for half an hour a day would make all the difference. Or perhaps a bigger dehumidifier

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > peterstorm, > > I would disagree that dogs barking at wildlife are > distressed, You may disagree from your own experience, however, one of my neighbour's dogs gets so upset if a fox comes into their garden that, if not removed from the room from which it can see the fox (big picture window), it works itself up into such a state that it is sick. Doesn't look too happy when that happens. The most annoying noises are those that are repetitive so dogs barking endlessly can fall into that category, and so can children practicing scales - fortunately the latter rarely continue for that long.

First mate, the OP referred to it being distressing and I can empathise with that. A dog barking for joy (eg seeing a lead taken off the hook, demanding for a ball to be thrown etc) is fine, as you can hear the happy sound. It's also a variable sound which is why it doesn't irritate. But constant yapping, either through loneliness or barking at wildlife in an attempt to guard the house, tends to contain a distress note that some people recognise. I know I do. It's like hearing a child cry in pain. You want to do something about it and it can be quite distressing/depressing to hear it continue for hours on end.

Our washer dryer has exactly the same plumbing as an ordinary washing machine. There is an internal condenser in the machine so you don't get a great big outlet hose. But the dryer bit of a washer dryer is expensive to run compared to a tumble dryer.

The 'mini size blue bin' is the box you had previously. If you don't want the blue wheelie bin just ring up and ask for it to be collected.

As long as the rat had washed its hands before touching the food, then its fine by me.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi peterstorm1985, > The logical conclusion your suggesting is no > inspections. > The Food Safety Agency believes it has evidence > such inspections have improved public health. The logical conclusion is that inspections should continue to highlight those establishments that are inherently dangerous - using condemned meat, cockroach infestation etc, but not for Southwark to expect us to all get excited that a fast food outlet selling deep fried artery clogging muck has a higher food safety rating than a shop or restaurant selling food that might actually have a few vitamins. If you want a system that is actually of use then it needs to have more detail.

Has anyone mapped the route of new Waitrose developments to see when we should expect ours to arrive?

Blue bin is for recycling. Blue box is now a handy storage container in my loft. Thanks Southwark, that just saved me a a few quid.

But James, a single number is absolutely meaningless. An establishment may be spotless but if the owner doesn't have a properly documented record of his practices he is going to get a bad rating. No paperwork is not the same as dangerous food. A dirty kitchen floor isn't dangerous (for the consumer) until food comes into contact with it. No contact and there's no stomach upset but you'll still get a bad rating if the inspector sees grime underfoot. A spotless kitchen may pass the test on the day of inspection but if the owner has a variable attitude to food sourcing the ingredients could be a killer in a 'perfect' establishment.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is a iwind up. Surely....? Ditto. I was thinking of starting a thread on any support for a Waitrose/M&S in ED but I'll just check if TLBV has already done that.

I've never felt sick after eating something from the ED Deli but definitely suffered after meals at establishments with higher ratings. Why would that be? Perhaps because it depends on exactly what the failing is and where in the process the trouble occurs. The star ratings are too simplistic for that. I'm all for inspectors checking kitchens for contaminated/illegal meat but let it stop there. Oh, and a few dogs hairs never did anyone any harm.

How else would you hold the boards in place? I've never lived in a house where the floors were fixed in any other way. Are the heads of the nails round or rectangular?

There can be more than four houses feeding into one sewer, and it's only the sewer pipe that needs to be on the slope not surface ground level so don't be fooled by that. Kidkruger's idea sounds entertaining but illegal - if you intentionally block the flow of sewerage and cause damage on neighbour's land as a consequence you'll be paying for the damage. If any of your neighbours have extensions (or decking) at the rear of the property (inspection holes are often at the back, not front of the house) they may have built over the manhole - bad practice but common.

Doesn't matter how good the flat is inside, if there's something nasty on the details the estate agent hands over to potential buyers then you've got trouble. Is there anything? Do you live above a funeral directors or in an ugly high rise block? If not, then it's the price. Get a mate to pretend to want to buy a flat and get a bunch of details of other properties that the agent is selling in your price range, then see what's different.

If you're in a terrace and you want to drop notes round, you may want to make it a few more than just the houses immediately either side - sometimes it can be a row of houses all joined into one. We got a leaflet through the door saying that the law is due to change. From 1st October 2011 Thames Water has responsibility for the shared bit of public sewers even on private land so you shouldn't have to pay anything from then onwards. They'll soon track down the culprit.