Penguin68

We don't yet know, do we, to what extent the local problems may have been just transitional? Or, if they've been more fundamental, how easily and quickly they can be overcome? In either case, I'd suggest giving it a little more time before coming to any firm conclusions. Poor/ No service has been an experience for many since mid-end July. And is continuing for some at least (my deliveries are, currently, daily but this has only been true so far this week alone, and no delivery yet today). I have not received a weekly journal on the normal delivery day - Friday - for 13 weeks running. That means that Royal Mail has been offering poor or no service to people in SE22 for a quarter of the year. So far. 'A little more time' gives us the next mile-stone at half a year. And will include Christmas when the post is anyway (and understandably) under stress. The move was poorly planned and the loss of staff suggests very poor staff management and planning. I know that emergency posties were being drafted in from North London just before the closure, and probably after. Assurances to our MP have been reneged on (apparently) and proper provision for close to a doubling of activity at Peckham was never made. Sorting mail on the street (particularly as normal winter weather closes in) cannot be an acceptable 'new normal' surely? I think they have now been given enough rope - more than enough - and continued letting them off the hook is now unacceptable. We have the rope, we have the hook, now to fulfil the metaphor...

As Christmas looms up my best advice is to tell anyone who might be minded to send you a parcel by Royal Mail not to. Parcel Force is still probably OK. You should get cards by the New Year. Once again my weekly political magazine wasn't delivered. Which makes 9 or 10 Fridays out of 9 or 10. Complete disgrace. But I have had 4 days of delivery this week and it's only day 5, so maybe things are looking up.

She just said no more redeliveries from Monday and that we have to collect If true this is outrageous, it specifically reneges on what Helen Hayes was told directly at her meeting, and what those of us who actually got a letter from Royal Mail about the closure and move to Peckham were told in writing. An absolute disgrace, if true. And means that Peckham, alone amongst any other sorting office is offering a worse service to customers already disadvantaged.

It is reported (in the Bristol Post, amongst many other red-tops I think) that whilst offering no threat to people, these Harlequin ladybirds, blown in from abroad, carry STIs which impact our native ladybirds. Interestingly that is a similar problem that our native red squirrel faces from the New World Greys. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/uknews/4778259/harlequin-ladybirds-stis-where-from-look-like/ https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/std-carrying-harlequin-ladybirds-invade-2094326 https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/harlequin-ladybird-horror-stories-sti-13397006 https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1029944/ladybird-invasion-harlequin-infestation-STDs-uk-swarm-can-you-catch These are wonderful 'foreigners are awful' stories from the popular press - no doubt the next set of headlines will demonstrate how these Harlequins are reducing house prices and taking our jobs.

First delivery today since Thursday - 18 items delivered (of which one wrongly addressed and 3 bits of junk mail(!) - why?!!!). All I ask for is 6 deliveries a week, with the normal small handful of items each day). Arriving in a timely fashion.

It's even more annoying to be on a 176 sitting in the traffic jam I don't disagree. But I prefer to choose a transport mechanism which isn't quite so hit and miss. A combination of the Orange, Jubilee and Northern Lines is more complex, but also generally more certain. I frequently travel with someone for whom walking (quite) long distances poses difficulties.

The 176 does go to Leicester Square. Except when it doesn't. In the evening rush hour it is frequently terminated on Waterloo Bridge, when Trafalgar Square and The Strand get grid locked. About 40% of the time in my experience, which may just have been unlucky. Very annoying. I gave up on the bus if I wanted to get into the West End around 6.00 and didn't want a 20 minute walk to get there.

This week I have had only 2 days of delivery - Tuesday when I had two deliveries, by different postmen, and Thursday, just one delivery. Last week I also had only 2 days on which there were deliveries. Since end July I have never had more than 4 days in a week in which there was a delivery, more frequently only 2 or 3 days. When we had a normal postal service I very rarely (perhaps 2 or 3 times a year) didn't have a delivery on each of 6 days a week. I live in an inner city suburb, never impacted since end July by adverse weather conditions or by an epidemic which might remove postmen unexpectedly. As annual leave normally has to be booked months in advance the fact that the summer is a leave period should not (and over the previous 29 years did not) impact the frequency of delivery, but rather more the timing. The Royal Mail delivery service (and I use that word quite wrongly) offered to us has been shameful. There are no excuses other than a complete failure of management. I will not even try to go into the additional failures either to offer a reliable re-delivery service or to provide any acceptable form of collection service - also a complete disgrace and one which Royal Mail was explicitly warned of by our Parliamentary representative. The ability to fail and not to care are a function of the domestic monopoly enjoyed by the Royal Mail (which was also enjoyed by them before privatisation). Re-Nationalisation of this shower would in no way obviate their complete incompetence. Complaint is clearly not a remedy - this must be taken up by our parliamentary representative in PQs and ideally a reference to Ofcom.

Clearly the strategy is working...? https://citywire.co.uk/money/royal-mail-dives-on-shocking-profit-warning/a1160363?re=58794&ea=224852&utm_source=BulkEmail_Money_Weekly&utm_medium=BulkEmail_Money_Weekly&utm_campaign=BulkEmail_Money_Weekly

It seems from the OP that the desire is, in part, to change the offer, such that this might be taken as a new enterprise being funded, sitting as part of an established enterprise. Nobody is being obliged to offer funds, and there are alternative ways of participating where you do get something (courses) for your money. If Kickstart have accepted the funding proposal presumably it does fit with their mission.

There will be a very long time before that happens. If Royal Mail proposes that, it will lose its monopoly of the final mile for domestic deliveries of (letter) post - indeed it will be replaced by alternatives, as it already is being for parcel and package delivery. In central London we will not be disadvantaged - but I wouldn't move out into the countryside if I were you. An alternative network for parcels and packages is already in operation, including 'posting' into it.

Unless you have a tracking number they will not look randomly for 'missing' post - it may turn up, it may not. If you ask them to redeliver, in my experience they don't, even when they give you a number and confirm a re-delivery date. I had no delivery this week on Monday, two (by different postmen) on Tuesday (11 items delivered over the two deliveries) none on Wednesday, nothing yet on Thursday. I have a news magazine which should be delivered on Fridays - it hasn't been since the end of July. And that is actually tracked! This has gone so well beyond a joke it's ridiculous. We are now well into our third month (25% of the year) of random delivery - never 6 days a week, first class delivered at any time or not at all. Missed deliveries are not redelivered, and the 'collection' option is now, in Peckham, simply insulting. Royal Mail are wholly abusing their monopoly position for final mile domestic delivery in SE22. This has got nothing to do with privatisation I fear and everything to do with management that doesn't care - the closure and selling off of Sylvester Road was probably commercially and operationally justified - the way in which the work was moved, and the failure to take into any account what close to doubling the activity at Peckham would lead to in terms of demand is simply and plainly appalling management. The appalling managers should be fired. As should their managers. As should theirs. Which won't happen unless this is escalated to the body responsible for oversight. And probably not even then.

You also need to check the local planning and building rules - even where building falls under 'permitted development' in terms of additional space created, you must meet rules about not changing overall building (roof ridge) heights and any issues about types of permitted dormers etc. The planning office is good at giving general advice. Getting your plans (even where they do not require planning permission) agreed and validated also makes subsequent sale easier. As councils can change rules over time (they didn't allow 'Juliet' balconies when I was building, then they did) don't presume that what you see built locally to you is still allowed.

James Barber wrote:- Hi P68, London's population has risen by 2 million ... I don't know what this is a response to, as I haven't (until now) posted on this thread.

It would be interesting to see how the local GP cachements interlock. I suspect this is a tidying up exercise - when those outside the FHRGP area are excluded that will free-up space for those inside the area but not registered (but perhaps registered 'out of area' for another practice). If other practices are doing the same thing this may simply be a shuffle around. There are arguably some advantages to this - where the practice falls in strict boundaries, demographic etc. information can be more readily applied for demand forecasting. Although I suspect this may be more 'in theory' than yet applied to practice management. As there are so many locums etc. the 'continuity of care' principle is already jeopardised anyway. My guess would be that each of us falls into the area of 2-3 practices now, giving some choice.

The delivery people are well aware of the problems we are facing, and it wouldn't surprise me if, as front-line staff, they are getting the blame for what is clearly poor planning and management (together with unhelpful actions from staff choosing to leave this sinking ship and leading to chronic understaffing - which is hardly the fault of those left). They had hoped for a better work environment (and more money from Inner London Weighting) - instead of which they have increased pressure and work and presumably less job satisfaction. But the 'service' and I use that word quite wrongly, is an entire fiasco. A 'perishable' item promised for redelivery on Friday has not (yet) appeared - and will have perished when it does. No postal delivery in Underhill yet, who knows if we will have one? I waited till my phone lost battery for the 03456 000 606 re-delivery number to answer - no use (I now know) in using the web site, which just lies. For the Royal Mail this was not a matter of bad luck (like a flu epidemic cutting back staff) but a self-inflicted wound, and one they were warned about by our representatives. Simple remedy is not enough, Ofcom should also now punish.

The position being taken by the Ivy House, at least publicly, seems entirely reasonable. They do welcome individual trades union membership, they seem open to issues around zero and fixed hours contracts. It should be remembered that zero hours contracts, which do not bind the employee to specific hours or days, are, at times, attractive to employees - who may be looking for casual work to backfill an uncertain career - typically but by no means exclusively those e.g who are actors). Unless they employ more staff than I think they do they are not obliged under law to enter into collective bargaining and recognition of a union for that purpose, but discussing issues with the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers? Union (an entirely appropriate union in this case) seems very positive. Unfortunately walk-outs and dismissals are normally a focus for bad blood, so coming out of this for them may not be easy.

Workers can go on strike without the involvement of a union BUT it's got to be legal. The details are:- (from the link) When industrial action is lawful There must be: a trade dispute (ie a dispute between you and your workers about employment-related issues) a properly-conducted industrial action ballot a written notice of industrial action sent to you The industrial action must not: be secondary action, ie taken by workers whose employer is not involved in the trade dispute be in support of an employee dismissed for taking unofficial industrial action promote closed-shop practices (ie when employers agree to employ only union members) or enforce trade union membership against non-union firms involve unlawful picketing This appears to have been a walk-out subsequent to dismissals without ballot or notice. However I believe that the management is still hoping to negotiate, and that there may be union (but which, I wonder?) involvement to assist a settlement. That is all to the good.

The law concerning recognition is quite detailed. Any employer employing fewer than 21 employees cannot be compelled to recognise a trade union, or undertake collective bargaining, and it is the union, not the employees, which must request recognition. On that basis I doubt the Ivy House has any statutory requirement to recognise a Trades Union. https://www.pitmans.com/insights/blog/when-does-an-employer-have-to-recognise-a-trade-union/ https://www.gov.uk/trade-union-recognition-employers http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=4018 This does not stop Ivy House staff belonging to a Trades Union, asking for that union's assistance in any personal dispute or asking for a representative of that Union to go with them into any dispute meeting. If the staff have been employed for under 2 years they can be dismissed summarily. Clearly there has been a break-down in trust etc. between the Ivy House and (some) of its staff. That is sad. If the staff have been dismissed then they cannot also be on strike, so I assume that it must be others who have withdrawn their labour, although this is not, then, a recognised strike. The Ivy House management is in the right (legally) in not offering recognition, based on the size of the business and the fact (if true) that a request for recognition has not come from a recognised union, but of staff themselves. I wonder which Union (if any) is involved, I would assume Unite or GMB in the catering industry? They are quite possibly in the right (legally) in dismissing the staff (based on their length of service), and we do not know what (if anything) other than a request for recognition led up to this. If employed for a sufficient length of time for any dismissal to be challenged, TU membership would normally never be considered sufficient cause at a tribunal.

Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression ?serve? or the expression ?give? or ?send? or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. By which I take it to mean that if an item is posted via first class post on working day x it is deemed to have been delivered by working day x+1 - assuming that that is the day by which it is due. In which case no penalty would be allowable for 'late return'. That is only effective if, in general, delivery of first class post 'next working day' is a norm. If the post arrives, then, a day later (2 working days after posting), it is still assumed to have arrived 'on time'. In SE22 rather than a day late, it is more likely to be a week or 10 days late, or not at all. I have no idea whether letters posted in SE22 are also being unreasonably delayed. That is why proof of posting is deemed to be proof of delivery - when there is a penalty otherwise to be exercised on an item arriving after a given due date (tax payments come to mind). I have not chased down the law but I would be much surprised if a similar allowance would not be given where a late payment was received for a civil debt, but where the cheque could be shown to have been posted in good time for normal delivery.

The context is about sending legal documents, the inference must be that if proof of posting in these special circumstances are proof of receipt the same would be true of other items posted. I should perhaps add that, of course, letters posted can go astray, but in order to demonstrate that you have 'posted' something you do not have to demonstrate that it has also been received, proof of posting itself being sufficient. My argument is that, currently, and to SE22, a proof of posting would not be any indication of likelihood of receipt. Inter alia I asked for a (perishable) item (package) to be re-delivered today; a Post Office van pulled up outside my house, but delivered only to the house opposite. I am not now expecting any delivery (and I have had no post delivered either), today - although I hope to stand confounded. If they do get round to delivering it on another day, I may well not then be in to receive it. In SE22 the Royal Mail is a broken reed.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/30/section/7

The letter from Helen Hayes seems well written and very much to the point, including the 'we told you why this was a bad idea, offered alternatives and now look, what we said would happen has happened' element which would play well if this does become an Ofcom matter. Although the individual posties are clearly and in the main doing their best against great odds, and are not individually at fault at this, collectively the Royal Mail, of which they are part, is locally a shambles. It used to be that with some occasional exceptions the Royal Mail was something you could rely on - legally proof of posting was also deemed to be proof of delivery. No longer, at least in SE22. The fact that they don't have a leader now in the UK is irrelevant. The leader would never have been directly involved with this debacle anyway. It will be a Regional Director who agreed this, and who should now remedy it. And if his/ her bonus is on the line, good. It is extraordinary that an MP has not, at the least, had a holding response. A PQ at PMQ's should ask what the Minister responsible https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers/minister-of-state-business-and-enterprise is planning to do about this shambles. A good political point can be made about the failure of the privatisation to safeguard service to customers.

I doubt very much whether the sample size will be sufficient to identify delivery problems in just one postcode area. I am happy to stand corrected. You will know, although I understand you may not be able to tell me, but is the sample taken sufficient to be statistically significant at the SE22 level? And is it reported in that way, to that level of detail?

I would think that the corollary of 'reducing car use' is to reduce car ownership. And 'improving public transport' is hardly the watchword in our neck of the woods, with TFL reducing bus frequencies, for instance.