buddug

Huguenot wrote: "it's clear that JB has been working with buddug for months trying to resolve this situation." That is hilarious Huguenot. It's clear he's been working with me for months? How on earth did you come to that conclusion? I've made it clear that all James had to say when I approached him was "just buy the freehold." Nada, zilch, full stop, end of story. I think that is grounds enough to "harangue" him publicly, especially when his thread is titles "can I help" and he has invited leaseholders in the past to come to him for assistance. It's all fake. And as to: "To suggest that unresponsive poorly skilled contractors is tantamount to terrorism shows a separation from reality that knows no bounds", just to give you one tiny insight into my life as a southwark leaseholder - I had just finished decorating my flat and laid new carpets. Five months later water damage came in through the wall into my living room caused by southwark contractors leaving rubble in the guttering when 'repairing' the chimney stack. Rubble 'removed', charged for having rubble removed, (!), charge when challenged taken off service charge bill. Wall had to be hacked out, terrible mess, left like that for a couple of months to dry, replastered, redecorated by my own decorators. Two years later, same thing happened on other side of wall as all the rubble hadn't been taken away and had gone down the gutter down pipe, bursting it. Again, wall hacked out, left to dry for months, replastered, redecorated. This time I'm told I have to use decorators on southwark's 'approved' list. They bodge so badly I refuse to pay their extortionate ?1,800. For instance, green paint all over my white bookshelves and cupboards, skirting, picture rail. They take me to court. One year later, and three court sittings, judge rules in my favour, having seen the pictures. Meanwhile, my own decorators come in again. Wall hacked out as plaster the bodgers used was in fact polyfilla, replastered, redecorated, this time including all the woodwork because of the paint splashes. So after three lots of major works in my living room, carpet looks 15 years old, according to carpet cleaner, and beyond repair. Southwark coughs up ?3,060 for me to replace them and shells out ?2,000-odd for the redecorating needed. On another occasion, newly laid lawn wrecked by scaffolders - both playing football on it and dumping an old bath full of cement on it. Southwark pays out for new lawn. Garden gate wrecked by another set of scaffolders. We are charged to repair it. Charge taken off when challenged. Shall I go on? There's plenty more. And finally, as to James Barber not manipulating the CPZ consultation results, just take a peek at some of his posts on that thread. Out of interest, Huguenot, are you James Barber?

I found this: "Yesterday in Parliament Mike Penning, the minister in charge of roads and road safety, said: ?We also need to ensure that the motorist, who predominantly pays for our roads, is not inconvenienced too much.? Seems I'm in good company in my mistake, since the minister in charge of roads didn't know car tax hasn't paid for roads maintenance etc since 1937 either!

Otta, have you ever heard of road tax?

???? wrote: "Unpleasant post budug you rude old bat, would you say any of that to his face? No course not" Ha ha! "rude old bat" - I love that! But yes, I would say all that to his face - it's not abusive, (like rude old bat, although I always hoped to become one!) - and will do so when I see him at the East Dulwich community council on the 24th. Although I hasten to add I shall keep my comments strictly to the issue of the CPZ as that is why I'll be there. And he already knows exactly who I am. Chippy Minton: Thanks for your support of my right to criticise. I wonder sometimes whether James started his 'help' thread without realising it wouldn't be all praise and lovey-dovey gratitude. To be honest, I'm sure he's not too bothered by my comments - he's already getting enough stick from the many other posters who are baffled by his pushing of the CPZ and his spinning of the results of the consultation which flies in the face of reason. Otta: I don't expect James to be an expert on housing law. But I expected more than "just buy the freehold" from a local councillor. And yes I am bitter when I see him on the CPZ thread pulling out all the stops for the handful of residents on two roads (while ignoring the majority of nearly 2,000 residents and businesses against)simply because they are being inconvenienced by commuter parking, when he was able to ignore the request for help from someone (and I can't be the only one) being terrorised in their home by Southwark housing department and watching helplessly as it's wrecked internally as well as externally by their cowboy contractors consistently over the years, with no end in sight to it all.

Otta said: "makes you come over as a bit of a shit" Now who's being abusive? And as to "why should the council give a toss what the residents want", maybe because they're our democratic representatives, and are there to serve us? Hello? Of course I don't expect James to be an expert on everything, but I do expect him to at least pretend to pull his finger out.

Hear hear Chippy Minton re your post: "just because James Barber posts on here does not make him a good councillor and the fact that he does, doesn't make him "brave" or mean he is putting his "head above the parapet." He, like all the others, is one of our elected representatives - democratically accountable - and is duty bound to the community and its constituents (including those that did not vote for him!)." Let's remember that shall we. James is a politician, and he should indeed expect criticism. 'Bullying' does not come into it. He is not a child, he is a grown man and one of our representatives, God help us. Grumpyoldman (and I consider myself an official Grumpyoldwoman), as you said, we have the right to complain (though not, I agree, to be abusive), but then how does it follow that we should up sticks and leave? I love living here. It infuriates me that James Barber and his ilk want to make East Dulwich/Peckham borders a less pleasant place with their defence of a CPZ. It would make it a hostile place, as someone else has said, and hurt our unique local businesses, which have helped in the main to enhance the area. Some councillors and southwark officials want to turn East Dulwich into Camberwell - just one long bus lane, where no one can park. Good businesses can't thrive and grotty ones take their place, so the place looks deprived and ugly - something that came out in the Camberwell community council meeting on the 9th. James, you have to admit, has said some pretty fantastical things over the past few weeks, bringing into extreme doubt his acceptance of democracy, spinning the obvious majority vote against the CPZ beyond the wildest dreams of even Tony Blair and Alistair Campbell, and still, disingenuously, says he hasn't made up his mind. I'm sorry, but I find that sinister. And yes, I'm fed up of his party political posting of crime statistics every time some poor sod wants to share that they've been burgled. I told him not to when I was burgled and he didn't, thankfully. And to invite southwark leaseholders to come to him for help nauseates me after he told me he could do nothing when I went to him for help a year ago. 'Just buy the freehold' is all he could say. He thinks we're all loaded here and he's living in a gentrified bubble - witness his thread on Waitrose which he initially termed 'aspirational supermarket', with no idea of how the other half lives. I think his wish, which is apparent to all despite what he says, for a CPZ, unlike other southwark lackeys who only want to bring East Dulwich down, is to elevate East Dulwich to the uber gentrified likes of Fulham, where residents have their own rather posh private parking bays. Just as bad. I for one will be glad to see the back of him on this forum, and at the next election.

Hi Zebedee. I realised it wasn't your real name, which is why I said Anne Reckless was sadly my real one! But I didn't know he was once a character in the Archers - I'm not a big fan, but do listen to it from time to time when I need a comfort fix! It's still a great poster name though. By the way, I've just edited my previous post to address another issue you raised about speaking to these people face to face. And I've consciously refrained from actual abuse in all my posts (though God it hasn't been easy!). It's just that it's infuriating when our elected representatives behave in a certain way, while at the same time presenting themselves as rational, caring individuals.

Loz wrote: "Buddog - you finally, after 13 years, have found someone that may be able to help you, and you are behaving like an a**e to him." Hi Loz, you're not reading my posts carefully. I turned to him in desperation early last year and he could only suggest I buy the freehold, as though that were the easiest thing in the world. He's only saying he'll help now because I've brought his inaction to the public domain. He's simply playing to the gallery. Ignore him. Hi the-e-dealer: James's CPZ stance whatever it is as it's all over the shop and it certainly isn't a democratic one, on top of everything else, would be hilarious if it weren't so tragic. And by the way, Zebedee Tring (great name!), I am not anonymous. I am in fact Anne Reckless (yes, sadly, that's my real name) of Oglander Road, as James knows full well. And as to not being willing to say the same things to him face to face, I will be attending the East Dulwich community council meeting on the 24th and will have plenty to say to him over the coffee and sandwiches, as I did with poor Peter John, our great leader, at the Camberwell community centre on the 9th. In his case, however, I later emailed him to say how much I admired (sincerely, I hasten to add) his courage in mingling with the unwashed masses, like myself!

?!

Jonsuissy wrote: "In these circumstances it would have been possible, would it not, to cycle" Oh yes, of course, a woman cycling from London Bridge to East Dulwich at 2am every morning would be perfectly safe.

James wrote: "Re reading your and dfazer71 posts on leaseholder housing management I'm unclear how I can address 13 years of past history." Same old same old. Well James, you said you'd try and help fazer71. And as to my 13 years, costing taxpayers ?10,000 in money down the drain (and much hassle and upset for me) you could ask some serious questions of the housing department to explain their mismanagement and profligacy. Do I have to tell you how to do your job as a councillor? And yes it is past history, but I asked you for help on some ongoing problems early last year and you said you couldn't do anything. No doubt if I'd asked you five years ago for help, or indeed 13 years ago when it all kicked off, you similarly wouldn't have been able to help. I and my upstairs neighbour are currently being charged ?500 for repainting of the peeling external paintwork which was done at my request to make good the bodged work done by southwark contractors previously - that didn't even need doing in the first place. Maybe you could start there, to save me yet more inconvenience and the expense of taking them to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal. But I'm not holding my breath.

james wrote: "Grove Vale new ponding/puddles. The contractors will be on site tomorrow or Friday. They will slightly adjust the levels of the footway and introduces small gulley." Well, a bit of good news. But your silence on another matter speaks volumes. But I do hope you can help fazer71, and address the ludicrous situation where local (or national) taxpayers have spent an unnecessary and completely wasted ?10,000 in 13 years on my flat due to lax administration and damages due to bodged work.

James wrote: "Cars a necessity? Half Southwark households exist without cars." So that's your agenda. You're anti car! Or do you have one? Whatever, it's a vacuous statement to make as it really depends on the individual - their individual needs, whether they can afford to run a car, obviously, and their work situation. I, for instance, like many workers, had to have one as I worked near London Bridge until 1.30am every night for a year. It would otherwise have involved a nasty walk in the dark on my own to the bus stop from the office, a terrifying wait at around 2.30am in Peckham bus station (!) and not getting home till nearly 3am (plus the walk at that time down my street). Night workers - and nurses, in particular, will work well into the night, much more than I had to, and so they need cars, both men and women. Or, James, do you want London to stop at midnight. Get real, for God's sake. We can't all live in a bubble like you do.

James wrote: "So if anyone lives in a house sub divided into two flats and both are leaseholders of Southwark council then you can buy the freehold and no longer have Sotuhwark Council Housing ruling you. If 2 flats in house subdivided into 3 flats you can also do it, etc." Oh James, do go away. This does not address fazer71's problem. The other person in the property is a tenant of Southwark council, not another leaseholder. Southwark owns that flat. So he can't buy the freehold. Read people's posts properly before you start spouting the regulations without applying them to a particular case.

Hare wrote: ..."more seats were filled later in the meeting - sadly, some by folk who had timed their arrival based on the information on the Agenda which indicated that the CPZ item would be taken at 8.55 when, in fact, it was brought forward at the discretion of the Chair. Packed would, I think, be a slightly overheated description of attendance since there remained vacant seats over in the section furthest away from the door, which is where I was seated." Not true. The anti-CPZ contingent, including me, were there from 7pm onwards. It was packed. Almost every seat was taken in the whole hall.

I was there too. It was packed. Peter John, the leader of the council, could hardly not go back on his word after his statement in writing that if the majority consulted were against the CPZ then there would be no CPZ was read out. Well done to everyone who spoke. If we hadn't been there in force, who knows how it would have gone. That's why the East Dulwich meeting on the 24th is so important. (I have to say it was a joy to witness councillor Barrie Hargrove's face when Peter John agreed to no CPZ - he looked livid, and his face turned a rather beautiful shade of red...)

James Barber is woefully ignorant on this issue of freeholds, as he has just shown, and which is why he can't even begin to help anyone on the matter. I think a lot of the problems for leaseholders are due to incompetence. For instance, the reason the external painting cost my upstairs neighbour and myself only ?500 was because Southwark housing failed to consult properly and a section 20 notice had to apply, reducing the extortionate sum the contractors were trying to get to a limit of ?500. Similarly, when I first moved in 13 years ago and we suffered the 'major works' fiasco, which in our case dragged on for years due to bodged work, we were charged nothing because Southwark failed to follow the correct consultation procedures. Great for us, especially after what we'd been through, not so great for Southwark taxpayers. I managed to corner council leader Peter John tonight at the community council meeting and told him my neighbour and I had cost Southwark taxpayers ?10,000 in lost payments due to the section 20 notices, plus compensation and damages paid us by Southwark due to cowboy contractors over the past 13 years - ?10,000 paid for by taxpayers! I said it would have been cheaper to just have given us the freehold when it became apparent things were going so wrong. He said he'd take the matter up. We shall see.

I've got room for three in my car. Tel: 0208 299 3330.

Fazer71. Looks like you've been terrorised by southwark housing in the same way I have. I've suffered work that wasn't needed too - soon after I moved in my neighbour and I were hit by 'major works'. It included repainting externals. There was nothing wrong with how it was, but literally three months after the painting was done it started peeling because the cowboys hadn't done any preparation work, sanding, undercoat etc. The housing department say they came back to repaint. I have no recollection of this, but it's irrelevant because needless to say it started peeling again and ended up looking like a slum from the outside. I finally got them to send other contractors to repaint after wasting my time for three years with the constant internal damage caused by other work, plus a court case, and although they did a better job, it also started peeling in parts. This was finally made good. But to add insult to injury we are now being charged ?500 for the repaint making good the initial bodged job that wasn't needed in the first place! I told James Barber all this, and told him I can't be the only leaseholder in East Dulwich/Peckham borders (never mind the rest of Southwark) to whom this sort of thing is happening, but he said he could do nothing, adding every now and again: "Why don't you just buy the freehold"!!! Oh yes, James, I just happen to have ?5,000 down the back of the sofa... We're all filthy rich in East Dulwich, don't you know! And let's have paid-for parking bays in a lovely CPZ just like Fulham, oh, and an "aspirational" Waitrose.

But seriously, folks. These cowboy contractors are more likely chosen, not due to kickbacks (I hope!), but because they are the cheapest who bid for the tender. You then get what you pay for. It is pure typical council short-termism as it costs them more in the long-term due to the messes they make. So James, what are you and other councillors who should be extremely concerned about this waste of our taxpayers money, going to do about it. Nothing, probably. The usual mouth and trousers...

Hi fazer21 and fellow sufferer! I agree with your: The problems then would be that the housing officers would all leave the council as they wouldn't be getting the kickbacks form the incompetent criminal contractors." (only joking, lawyers!). But I can't for the life of me find any other reason for southwark's reluctance to ditch their loss-making freeholds. And you're also right when you say: "Southwark as the freeholder is the worst possible freeholder you could ever ever ever have." They out-Rachman Rachman. Even one of their own housing officers admitted to me recently during the latest catastrophe, and I quote word for word: "xxxxx [ie their current contractors] are the worst we've ever had." That's worse than Botes, one of their previous contractors, who were so bad they went into administration, despite their kickback, oops sorry, council contract!

Hi Peterstorm1985. I suggested this to the council actually - to sell freehold to us at a peppercorn price, e.g. ?1. But they said they couldn't as they have a 'duty' to repair and maintain the exterior of these properties, despite the fact all they have ever done to my property (and outrageously they keep saying it is their property, despite the fact I bought it) is wreck the exterior and interior. The real reason is that they are stupid, stubborn, pig-headed, arrogant, reckless of taxpayers' money, spendthrifts, ignorant, short-termists, stupid (did I say that?), profligate, (add your own adjective)....

Er, James. You said: "Talking to Southwark accountants if they could they'd give freeholds away to tenants as technicalyl they show as an asset but in reality they're a liability and give poor service to boot." But if you already know, as I know (I told you they'd tell you to sling your hook), that councils can't give away freeholds, why are you wasting time talking about it to southwark accountants??

james wrote: "As a result of your query I investigated the leaseholder conundrum at length with council officers vs freehold and also delivered and kncked on all leaseholders na tenant doors in East Dulwich ward with my colleagues." Well, you didn't bother to tell me that. I take it that was in relation to service charges for bogus repairs, and for everyone to ask to have their service charges broken down for transparency's sake, which they're not at present? I like your idea of asking Southwark accountants to give us the freeholds as holding on to them does not deliver taxpayer value-for-money, making an actual loss to Southwark council, even without the compensation they must pay out. So what did they say - sling your hook, I imagine.

First Mate quoted a previous poster as saying: "It's a totally hostile environment." That is spot on, financially (especially when it comes to workmen and deliveries) and in terms of stress. We shouldn't have to put up with this in our own streets. I for one wouldn't relish seeing parking 'officers' strutting (or scootering) up and down my street ready to pounce on the slightest infringement. There are numerous documented horror stories of residents with parking bays being fined or clamped in them, as that poster also verified, because the council claims they haven't paid on time (you have to keep renewing it every year - why, if not to try and catch people out) even when they have, or their car is an inch out of the bay, etc etc.