Too Good To Be True

The main reason parents don't send their kids to say, Peckham Academy, isn't because they're worried about mixing with poor children. If this were the case (as BB100 points out) they wouldn't live in SE London at all. The usual problem is a school spends so much time getting the weak kids to just over 5 grades A-C, they can't stretch the bright kids. So if you ask, "How many of your pupils went to top universities last year and what subjects did they study?", the answer is a huge disappointment. This is exacerbated by the fact that many teachers won't be academically able themselves. Is a Lampeter graduate teacher with 2 D's at A-Level going to get pupils into UCL, Imperial, Cambridge etc? Why take the risk? I think the answer is for schools in challenging areas to pool their bright pupils with bright teachers+university academics for a small proportion of the week. They do this in Bristol. Not seen any evidence (yet) of such a scheme in this area.

If it's minor vegetation damage, they usually just repair the bricks. There is also a school that believes underpinning is a bad idea, especially in terraces. It encourages weaknesses between the underpinned and non-underpinned structures, which move at different rates. Remember that underpinning is a massive money-spinner for builders. Shaila - which insurer are you with at the moment?

Try these guys: http://www.woodstockinsurance.co.uk/subsidence-home-insurance/ Towergate are also worth a try. Hiscox if you have a high value property. Give your existing insurer some grief. All insurers are under an obligation to "treat customers fairly". I don't think they can just pull your cover or double your premium just like that. Let the forum know how you get on. Plenty of houses with minor subsidence in East Dulwich.

I found laminate warps easily and looks shabby pretty quickly. I now only buy engineered wood flooring, but it's much more expensive (?40 per sq m or so). Sounds a bit pompous perhaps, but at ?4.50 a sq m, it's probably worth the risk? If you don't like it, it's not the end of the world.

I'm not convinced nationalising the utilities is necessarily a good thing. If an old leftie like David Lipsey acknowledges the private sector has done a good job in the prison service, I don't see why they can't do a good job with utilities. They just need to ensure the regulator is led by someone with a spine and have extremely strict lobbying rules. I think we can agree the current system is appalling.

What Burbage said. We use Ovo and they seem OK. No idea whether they are the cheapest, but their bills are reasonably clear and they appear to pay some sort of interest on any balances held. British Gas/nPower are awful.

Google Nexus 4. I've owned both iPhone and Samsung Galaxy in the past. Nexus just as good. Half the price and without all the Samsung own brand rubbish on it.

I've also lived near Loughborough Junction. That's an order of magnitude worse for crime although I gather it's improving a great deal.

Have lived on Dagmar Road and Grace's Road. Never a problem crime wise. Probably similar levels of general crime to ED. Burglaries lower I reckon as less suburban. Neighbours were literary agent, smattering of housing association, two architects, pharmacist, head of marketing for BBC TV, a furniture specialist at one of the big auction houses, couple of Dulwich college staff, lots of journos, media types. Again pretty similar to ED I imagine. .

I will big up Southwark Council when they can send me visitors parking permits within 6 weeks of ordering them.

I think it's this: http://lightboxlondon.com/lordship-lane-2/

Sorry if this has been done, but what is the house with the paintings by the LL/Heber Road southbound bus stop? You can't miss it. Apparently there was an opening party last night.

Perhaps devolution and tax breaks for point 2 (like the old special enterprise zones in China). It is a tough one. I meant radial infrastructure rather than house-building.

I think any answer should involve: 1. Building up - there's no reason why we can't have high quality high rise of the sort you see in Singapore (large communal gardens, swimming pool, well sound-proofed, decent-sized rooms etc). I don't think the younger generation are as rigidly anti-flat as their suburban-utopia parents. 2. Encouraging the expansion of a second UK metropolis. Building radially from London just encourages inequality. e.g. HS2/cross-rail will just encourage more people to commute into London, making London property more valuable and increasing the benefits bill for those in social housing. Why not start building radially from, say, Manchester, until it reaches the population density required to sustain all the great amenities London has?

Does it make sense to have social housing disproportionately concentrated in expensive central London boroughs? Hypothetical example: If Southwark is 50% social housing and Bromley 20%, over the long term it might make sense to shift council housing to Bromley to the point at which the proportions are equal (say 35% - avoiding either becoming disproporionately middle class/council house). The money saved could be spent on reducing the chance of future generations needing social housing, say by spending more on schools.

I assume that figure doesn't include housing association, but does include private leaseholders where the council owns the freehold. I was initially surprised, but then remembered every street I've lived on has had some council residences.

Thanks for highlighting this survey. I've replied using the Southwark Council portal. Will you be sharing the findings with Family Mosaic and other publicly-funded housing providers? Seems important for at least the third question (and probably all three).

The law firm Rubinstein Phillips Lewis has a solicitor with international probate and family law experience. (Declaration: one of my family works there) Hope this helps if you choose to go down that route. Good luck.

'equally happy going out or curled up on the sofa with DVD and a bottle of wine' = Imaginative. Definitely not socially dysfunctional.

Large bolt cutters are the most effective. No lock, however expensive, can defend you against high quality 40 inch+ bolt cutters.

Out of interest, when you have a subjective technical problem like subsidence, how do you ensure the insurance company does their job properly? What's to stop them doing a superficial touch up job and then tripling your premium so you don't renew? Can you appoint a neutral structural engineer and add that to the claim?