Siduhe

We have BT broadband - Infinity I think - (but not the BT television service) in SE22 and it's rock solid reliable. You pay a bit more for the service but I can only remember one time the service went down in the last few years, and that affected most of the country. Speeds are fairly constant too - it doesn't fall off too much at peak times. Worth it for us.

Did your page have an ED trading address listed on it? That's a regular reason that posts get taken down and your phone number suggests the business isn't ED based.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Officers have said that as soon as they know > they'll tell me. > I'm hopefully Thames Water will put something out > explaining to residents what is going on - I'm an > optimist! Seems to be a few sets of TW works at the moment - emergency works on Wood Vale/Melford Road notified yesterday evening, starting today! Fingers crossed they will be done in a day or two as expected.

I use the basic model Yurbuds in the gym - really comfy if you run for a long time, and good for sound - you don't need to turn the volume all the way up to hear anything.

According to TFL it's temporary. The Zenora stop is listed as currently affected: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1210262,page=1

Thanks DaveR, I get what you mean about the document. I was more referring to what I was told when I applied to renew my passport as a married woman, pretty much the same as what Pugwash was told, and I was directly sent a link to that document. They accepted it didn't apply to me because I wasn't planning to use my married name for any official purpose. So someone the Passport Office Enquiries centre is definitely giving out this advice (or at least was 18 months ago). Thanks for the clarification.

It's worth checking out the document I posted above - if you are going to use your married name in any official context (bank account, mortgage, tax etc) then the Passport office do require you to change your passport to your married name once married. It's only if you are going to carry on using your maiden name for all official purposes that you can keep your passport in your maiden name, which is what I did. It is pretty confusing and it sounds like the Passport Office took the wrong approach with Pugwash's passport.

I'm in exactly the same position as you, but when I renewed my passport 2 years ago, I wasn't required to change it into my married name - I was able to keep my maiden name. There is some useful guidance here which says you can keep your passport in your maiden name if you use that name for all purposes, and get a note attached in the passport saying you "are the wife of". It is only supposed to be where you use both your maiden and married names that the situation you are in arises - when the passport has to be in your married name with the note that "you are also known as". I appreciate it's not a solution to your immediate problem, but could you get the passport changed into your maiden name, which is what it sounds like it should have been all along?

From the TFL site http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/11560.aspx - not sure how current this info is:

We also got egged. Didn't even ring the doorbell. I was cooking and I guess they saw/heard me in the kitchen and decided to pelt the window by my head. Didn't break anything but gave me a bit of a fright. Front wall is a right mess. Sigh.

My understanding is this is what Admin does - removes all references good and bad. Except this post, which sets out the position of this forum better than I ever could. This is the top result if you google the name of the business and the East Dulwich Forum. http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?30,915467,915467 Edited for clarity

The Met were on their way to Wandsworth at that time last night. Could that have been it?

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 17/20. Who knew one could get a green reindeer > bagatelle? > > Actually that will be the name of my next band. Are you me? This is what I texted to a friend when he sent me the quiz - "17 out of 20. It said 'seriously, you scare children and parents alike, all while wowing them with your design sense'. And who knew Ikea sells decorative green cubed reindeer?"

motorbird83 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That's not true. Everyone has the right to access > their neighbours property to carry out work > (including on the boundary). This is a matter of > law-- see point 18 in the attached guidance on the > Partywall Act > Not exactly. There is a statutory right to access your neighbour's land to carry out work in pursuance of the Party Wall Act. It's section 8(1) which says: 8 Rights of entry. (1)A building owner, his servants, agents and workmen may during usual working hours enter and remain on any land or premises for the purpose of executing any work in pursuance of this Act and may remove any furniture or fittings or take any other action necessary for that purpose. [my emphasis] So if you are doing improvement works which fall under the Party Wall Act, and you follow the process in the Act (i.e. putting an agreement in place and agreeing to pay surveyor's costs if necessary) then you can access your neighbour's land and they can't stop you. What you can't do is just insist on accessing land to do works on your own land as of right without following the Act. You may be able to do it in an emergency, or if you have a contractual/land law right to do so. This is what I was referring to in my earlier post when I said I thought that formal agreement would be required - sorry if not clear. Edited for spelling

Unless your neighbours have a right of access to your property built into the property documents, they can't insist on access to your land. We live in a semi-detached property and there are certain rights of access for maintainance and emergencies 'baked' into the legal documents between the two properties, but these don't extend to improvement works. We did have to do works on one boundary of our house - which meant negotiating an agreement with the neighbours and a formal party wall agreement which was required by law - there doesn't have to be an actual wall, if the works being done involve excavation near to and below the foundation level of neighbouring buildings (as in our case) then an agreement is required. It sounds a bit like your neighbour is trying it on - at the least I would ask him/her what basis they want access to your land, what works are involved and whether they will sign a party wall agreement - this is all assuming you are the next door property owner (not a tenant).

This is exactly what I understood the proposals were about - giving the maximum possible group of people the chance to use the park at popular times and recognising that the park is particularly popular with groups of people (families) that will find it a lot more straightforward to drive there. Otherwise it's a bit like saying, so long as I can park it doesn't matter what happens to anyone else in my situation. Not suggesting that anyone here has said that, but the proposals seem a reasonable balance to me. If you need to drive, the time you can park is limited to help other people in the situation. Also to stop what turned into really silly parking during the summer - people were parking on the pavement and blocking off the buggy/disabled access on a regular basis.

Well, definitely not passers-by (all in overalls, boots, high-vis jackets etc) but also not doing any actual work when I went past. Sounds from what Penguin38 says that they got going a bit later in the evening. It was more the comical shaking of heads that was going on - like a bad sitcom.

Just spotted. Temporary traffic lights, a hole in the road gushing water, five blokes standing around said hole shaking heads, one with hand down hole gushing water. I am not optimistic...

This posted recently on the O2 status site:

maxxi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Someone was just taking the P. *bows down*

My emails come via O2, been down since midday and according to our IT dept, no ETA for a fix. Isn't affecting everyone (about half of our office).

Yes it's a smoke controlled area - see about half way down this page. http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200075/pollution/1360/air_pollution/5 Think this is the link you need for exempted fireplaces: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/1992/approved_smokeless_fuels_and_exempted_fireplaces

pablopuncheur Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This debate should really be about responsible and > considerate road users versus inconsiderate and > irresponsible road users. The mode of transport > they choose is irrelevant. A bad driver has more > in common with a bad cyclist than they do with a > good driver. > > Some folks just seem to think that the world > revolves around them and you should bloody well > get out of the way whether they're a pedestrian, > cyclist or motorist. Unfortunately these debates > always end up into peds v cyclists v motorists and > we just go round and round in circles. This puts it very well IMO. Was inspired to post following meeting a cyclist on the pavement coming towards me - him turning off London Road onto Wood Vale. Where the cars park up it gets pretty narrow and was fully expecting him to bowl past or keep coming (which drives me nuts). But he didn't. He stopped, waited for us to go past, then did the same again to let someone else come through with a pram. No fuss, no stress. And because he was so obviously respectful, someone walking the same way as him stood aside and let him cycle through. If every cyclist/pedestrian interaction worked like this, there would be a lot less stressing on both sides I suspect.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You can set it to top up with a five pound > minimum, not twenty I think the ?5 is only at ticket offices. Tfl sent me a email a few months ago saying you can now only select an Auto top-up amount of ?20 or ?40.