Tommy1000

Interesting reads. I hadn't realised that wearing helmets was such a bone of contention, though I did know it wasn't a legal requirement. Granted it's not going to help in a number of situations, but it would in some. I would certainly wear one if I cycled in London. I'm not sure whether or not legislating is the answer for wearing headphones, it's a difficult one. Comparisons with driving a car with the radio on, for example, don't withstand much scrutiny. You're already sitting in a vehicle with it's own engine noise and, in having a radio on, are not blocking out much else (notwithstanding that yes it is a distraction in exactly the same way). Wearing headphones on a bike, however, you're depriving yourself of so much more. The author of that piece is weighing up a few extra weeks, months or years on a (potentially great) number of people's lives in old age against a possible premature death of a cyclist caused by wearing headphones. I'm not sure those two things are as easily weighed up as suggested. It's beyond me why it's deemed appropriate in press releases to include statements of the kind mentioned when they're seemingly not relevant at all.

Jesus. How about both? Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think the OP is lecturing, preaching or anything of the sort. She appears to be making a suggestion that could save someone's life. No-one's saying that the cyclist isn't behaving legally, but it's plainly debateable whether not wearing more visible clothing etc is 'safe'. If it had been a near miss with a car then, no, the OP would probably not have posted something equivalent. But then it's not car crashes which have been dominating the news for two weeks. There are also different things at stake: the same situation involving cars is far less likely to result in the tragic loss of life. This also might make such a plea less likely. Edited for typos.

Not sure why you're focussing on apportionment of blame which is absent from savage's post, davidk. Indeed why can't savage come on the forum, admit a mistake, explain what she will do in the future to reduce the chances of something similar happening and, at the same, make eminently sensible and reasonable suggestions as to how the cyclist might cycle more safely? Unless you're disputing that high-vis clothing - to take one example - is a good idea? You said "It is the cyclists responsibility to ride in a way that is appropriate for the conditions. His clothing and safety gear is irrelevant." This is inherently contradictory. Clothing and safety gear could not be any more relevant to ridiing in a way 'appropriate for the conditions'. We can only hope that you don't go around dissuading cyclists from wearing high-vis clothing which will greatly increase their liklihood of being seen by drivers.

We're in Nunhead, not far from the station, and we heard it too.

I think any debate as to the merits of people's own anecdotes is a distraction. I don't think anyone on here is denying that motorists and cyclists alike can, and frequently do, behave like idiots. The difference I think is that nobody is trying to defend the motorist and their breaking the law. LadyDeliah, however, is doing exactly that when it comes to cycling on the pavement. We would all give pretty short shrift to any motorist that thinks they're above the law and, for example, unilaterally decides that it's ok for them to jump a particular red light (regardless of whether or not such decision jeapordises someone else's safety). Of course, some motorists do this (and worse), but I'd be amazed if any such offenders would put much effort into defending their actions. That is exactly what a cyclist is doing when they decide that certain laws don't apply to them. They presumably think it's fine for them to ride on the pavement, and this could be because they don't care or it could be because they think that they can do it safely. The point is that it's not their decision to take, beyond their own personal bubble a decision has been taken that, for the greater benefit of all, (adult) cyclists aren't allowed to ride on pavements.

gamechanger is right - legally speaking you're required to disclose to your prospective buyer any disputes with neighbours. The potential pitfalls with this are that the landlord might not be planning on selling any time soon (so won't care) or, even if they are, be happy to lie and not disclose the information. If, however, they are planning to sell in the next few years then it might help the OP insofar as the landlord either pays for soundproofing or - to try and avoid having to pay - engages and tries to do something about the problems. They should be motivated to do something really as they may either lose a tenant over it or never get piece and quiet for the complaints. The kind of behaviour described is (you would think) unlikely to stop should the OP move out and a new tenant move in.

Sounds awful. It's bad enough living below (for example) a pleasant neighbour with a heavy foot, let alone someone who - based on what you describe - is going out of their way to disturb you. She may well have a personality disorder. She may just be a nasty piece of work. Given that your neighbour most likely does not have dementia, I wouldn't take much notice of anyone stepping up as your neighbour's apologist. Considering what you're putting up with, I would say that your first post is remarkably measured. It would be bad enough if it was just passive-aggressive behaviour you were contending with, but it sounds way past that. There are a number of areas you could look at: - I wouldn't let the council take no responsibility and would push them again. Late night operation of domestic applicances is explicitly listed on their website: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/412/noise_problems/377/be_a_considerate_neighbour/1 This is also common sense / decency, which is certainly not trumped by someone looking to save a few pennies on their electricity bill (what a bizarre excuse to offer on your neighbour's behalf). - The aggressive behaviour: if you receive any kind of threat from your neghbour again (thinly-veiled or not) consider calling the police. If you receive anything at all along the lines of 'getting someone round to sort you out' then certainly call the police (perhaps on the 101 number). - I don't have any direct experience with the EPA, and chesterpuss may be correct, but on a first reading of what it's intended to cover ('unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of one?s property') I perhaps wouldn't be so categoric that it will not offer you any assistance. - Tort of (private) nuisance. i think it unlikely that you'd ever go down this route, however, it's certainly something you could bring to their attention (say, for example, if you ever document all of your grievances in a letter also setting out what action you may take should they not stop doing those unreasonable things which are disturbing you). - Keep a written record of everything: noise (uses of washing machine late night etc), altercations etc. - Have a look at the forums on this site: http://www.noisyneighbours.net/ You may find some useful strategies. Good luck.

We would also be very interested in the same recommendation... Thanks

I would second Cpt Bishbosh's recommendation for Jon (drainsandmains), one of the best and most reasonable tradespeople I've dealt with.

These look effective: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Contech-ScareCrow-Motion-Activated-Deterrent/dp/B005MW9VOM

Would have no hesitation at all in recommending Jon from Drains and Mains: 07771 586759 He recently unblocked ours as well as installing a whole new waste system. He got the job done on time and was very reasonable, clean and tidy with his work.

Indeed - pretty standard TopTree post.

We used R.E.Movals with a Smile, who were really good. One of the more reasonable quotes we had too. Very fast and efficient on the day. Also one of the team was excellent at dismantling and packing up any flatpack furniture we had. http://www.removalswithasmile.co.uk/about.php

There's certainly a fair degree of ambiguity here - not the OP's fault but because of the contract's drafting. Based on the info provided though, I'd be inclined to agree with Kid Kruger's advice. And this purely on a practical basis; it would be very surprising indeed if the estate agency pursued you. KK's advice about being as clear as possible (and implicitly documenting it) about your dissatisfaction is also a good one - you would have a paper trail in the very unlikely event that the agents did pursue you. On the legal side of things, contractual interpretation can be a difficult one, especially when it's (based on what you've said) vague in some areas and silent on others(!) On balance though, my view would be that you're entitled to serve three weeks' notice. Silver fox makes some valid points around the possible intention behind the wording, but I wouldn't be sure at all that it can't possibly be taken to mean a 3 week contract. The estate agent that sold my flat 2 months ago took it on on a 3 week contract, without complaint. So it's perfectly plausible that agencies view 3 weeks as a minimum amount of time to make good on their intiial advertising (etc) investment. You're right to flag the curious wording of the notice bit too: if it truly meant that the earliest that the contract could end was after 12 weeks, then why phrase the notice bit the way it's been written. Why wouldn't you say 'contract is for a mimimum of 12 weeks, and at any point after expiry of 9 weeks, 3 weeks' notice to terminate may be given'. I'm not sure how much weight should be put on the word 'minimum'. Think about a residential lease that's phrased as a 12 month contract but with a 1 month break which may be served after 6 months. You can call it a 12 month lease / contract all you like, but it's not really as either party can effecitvely terminate on 7 months. Finally, one of the key things in contractual interpretation is the 'intention of the parties'. What did you think the sole agency period was when you signed up? If, in reality, everyone thought it was 12 weeks and there are e-mails or another form of communication to support this, then you could run into trouble if they did take legal action. If (in the unlikely event that) they did take legal action against you, you'd like to think that anyone looking at the contract wouldn't interpret their poor drafting in their favour.

Another recommendation for Niko. On very short notice he visited to assess our broken shower and came back within 24 hours to fit a new one (both visits out of hours but cost still very reasonable). He's done a very good job, with no mess etc. As Saila says, not easy to get a plumber with his credentials these days. Niko: 07818607583

motorbird, not difficult as such just time-consuming. We'd been hoping to start works before the 2 month period was up, at least by a couple of weeks anyway. Our surveyor served notice on the council, who then - after some time - appointed their own surveyor (which I understand they always do, rather than agreeing to use yours). They or their surveyor have not been difficult but have been doing things frustratingly slowly. I think we're now just planning to start the works on the expiry of the 2 month notice period, after which point the party wall award / agreement will have to be done concurrently with the works... Presumably you have a surveyor lined up?

Hi Dev, We're in a similar situation - consent granted by one neighbour and the other side is council-owned, so we're having to go down the full surveyor and party wall award route for that side. Interestingly, the surveyor we've retained to do the council-owned side party wall stuff hasn't even suggested offering his services for a schedule of condition on the consenting side. I don't know exactly what level of detail they would go into when producing the schedule part which would accompany the photos, but ?800+VAT does seem rather a lot to me. I'm not a party wall surveyor of course, however, I'd be surprised if you ran into problems with validity provided you went to a good amount of detail etc. And when I say that I mean take lots of photos, describe the current condition as accurately and in as much detail as possible and then, when you and the relevant neighbour are happy with that description and photographic evidence, both sign your schedule of condition (which references and annexes the photos) saying that it's an accurate reflection of the party wall from your neighbour's side as at [insert date]. And preferably get your signature independently witnessed. If you both then have a copy of that document, I'm hard-pressed to imagine why you might run into validity problems. Someone more knowledgable on these things might correct me though if I'm wrong here! We get on well with our consenting neighbours, and trust them not to try and pull a fast one and claim we've caused damage when we haven't. So we haven't as yet even put in place a 'home-made' schedule of condition. I may just ask our surveyor his view on whether or not it's worthwhile - I'll re-post if I find out anything helpful/interesting.

I would say now is a good time to sell, given what's happened to prices in South East London! Depends also on where you're moving to I guess (if you need to sell to move), as you could sit tight in the hope that property prices continue to rise as fast as they are. This of course won't be such a good idea if you're upsizing in the same area. Some think that we're in the middle of another property bubble that will burst so, if they're correct, now would be a good time to sell! Having bought this year, I hope that;s not the case, but worth considering. In terms of more specifically which month / season etc, I'm not sure it will make much difference - there's still a shortage of property on the market...

Does anyone know if they do sweet pork buns?

Has anyone used Balham Joinery for a new front door? Or anything else really... We're getting some quotes for a new door and some other bits and pieces and were wondering if anyone was familiar with their work. Many thanks.

unklereemus, I should try and notify the landlord of the problem, if you've exhausted all possible routes with the neighbours themselves. Do you know the landlord's identity, or at least which letting agency was used to let the property? When you refer to the council, are you talking about the Southwark Noise and Nuisance team? I'm not sure that's right that just because it's not music it's not under their remit... Once you've exhausted all the other options you could consider suing them in the magistrates court: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theoneshow/consumer/2009/05/19/how_do_you_deal_with_noisy_nei_1.html