Penguin68

A driver might have worried that this could have been an attempt to car jack him/ her. Such are the suspicions we now live with.

my virgin is working alright - near barry road. Now that's a post that needs a context...

Is there anything that can be done to stop cars ?rat running? on the roads parallel to Lordship Lane? For example, could through roads be turn into no through roads? Not only do people who live locally drive through these streets quite normally to get about, but the number of times Lordship Lane is (partially) blocked over a year, when alternative routing is absolutely necessary if we are not to be trapped in ED, makes this suggestion so nimby it disappears up its own fundament. I have seen no evidence of 'rat running' in local streets parallel to LL - although the Melbourne Grove route is a sat nav option. But I doubt if (most) people in Melbourne Grove want it to be a no through road. The road network around LL does allow some traffic sharing, certainly, but normally of local traffic - taking pressure of LL which is already over-used. The issues of rat running are most frequently ones of vehicles travelling too fast on local roads during rush hour, not an issue (Barry apart) around here as simply navigating the parked and unloading cars and vans can be a nightmare. Unless this is a call for roads just to be for my car only, in which case bring it on. On the other hand, if the area is to be a Controlled Zone it will soon be dead commercially, so all it will be good for is through traffic trying to get to somewhere worth visiting.

There used to be two classes - the banked and the unbanked - now there are three, the IT savvy, smartphone owning banked - who can manage most transactions on-line - my bank even allows for paying in cheques over a smart phone imaging the cheque; the normal banked without IT skills or equipment - and the unbanked. Until the first two classes fully coalesce High Street branches should still cater for both. Where they don't they are offering their simple banked customers very poor value for money (we 'pay' for 'free' banking through lending banks our current account - and indeed savings account - money for virtually no interest).

Plusnet also provide fibre in the area. NO - The only two network providers in ED are BT (via Openreach) and Virgin. ALL other providers use (lease) BT Openreach infrastructure - Virgin is not required to act as compulsory wholesaler to other operators. And Plusnet actually is, in itself, a BT subsidiary (managed wholly separately from BT Retail). Plusnet (as others except Virgin) offers fibre services over leased BT infrastructure. You can get fibre services from many retail suppliers in ED - but there are only two wholesale network infrastructure providers. BT Openreach provides lines 'as if' they were the retailer's lines (as far as the end-use customer is concerned) - that is what 'unbundling' means - and these suppliers have their own equipment (racks) in BT exchanges which are wholly controlled by them, but 'the final mile' (often far more than that) in copper or fibre (BT) or coax and fibre (Virgin) is only provided by two companies. (Excluding mobile data broadband)

There seem to be genuinely operational reasons (not necessarily overwhelming ones) for closing the Sylvester Road sorting office as regards its size (in relationship to the mail and parcels now going through it) and the facilities (rather more the lack of them) for postal staff at the site. However the area served by the office is a large and populous one, and one not particularly close to the new Peckham site, which is awkward to get to and offers no parking (unlike the current sorting office). It is an area where there are many working people who are not always (ever) in during the working week to accept deliveries. I am surprised that there has never been any consideration for finding an office (or existing business) local to ED where undelivered mail could be left for collection - as parcels were left e.g. in the Forest Hill Road Post Office. Most sub-post offices, for instance, do have a secure location where undelivered mail could be left. The pressure on the Peckham Office for undelivered mail collections will be high, and I would have thought likely to get higher (that's why - mail volumes - Sylvester Road is said to have outgrown its site). Maybe our local MP and councillors might agitate for some sort of local collection point for mail.

The BT fibre service (Infinity or Infinity 2) is widely available in ED.

Actually, the way you go about complaining about anti-social behaviour is altered by the status of the people being complained about. Complaints about Council and social housing tenants can first be directed to their landlord, who may take action based on their (landlord's) requirements for acceptable behaviour from their tenants. That would be different for e.g. owner occupiers. The stated fact that these are 'the only' council tenants on the street is less relevant.

I had (still have) a hairline crack on the outside of my house (running about 6ft), which I decided 30 years ago wasn't an issue, after advice. In that time it has, if anything, got even more hair line (i.e. smaller). When I bought the house it had a concrete drive and pathways (round a scrubby lawn). I replaced all this with porous brick pavours over compacted sand. This may have led to more rainfall getting through to the undersoil hence helping to close the (tiny) gap. The surveyor's estimate was that the cracking was most likely caused by the removal of a tree from the front garden - I would guess exacerbated by the later (pre war) addition of a tied-in brick garage to the side of the house. Subsidence can, of course, be a real issue but it is not nearly as common as people believe, nor do signs of movement predicate immediate collapse. A friend near ED station had work done on his house which disclosed a wall 6 inches out of true, caused, we discovered, by bomb damage. The house continued to stand, and still does, 65 years later. Insurance companies look for any reason to refuse (or hike up) premiums. It's easy money for them or a good way of refusing risk. Ideally (for them) Insurance Companies would only insure properties over which there would never be a claim. 'Subsidence' offers them a great get out of Jail Free Card.

The speed of recovery will depend on whether the insurance pays out quickly or not. And that will depend perhaps on whether the owners can demonstrate that they have taken proper care to maintain and service the kitchen (i.e. are not seen as contributing to the loss). Insurers tend to look for reasons not to pay (or to pay in full); and will drag out payment for as long as they can. I suspect (I do not know) that the fire will require a full kitchen re-build and possibly complete redecoration (and maybe re-build) of the restaurant space as well. There may also be structural damage to the building. This will not come cheap. It is not clear to me that this would be readily affordable without insurance. The suggested carelessness of the staff in leaving oil untended (if that is what transpires to be the case) should not however impact the claim (that's what you insure against).

If the Alleyn's groundsman was actually blowing leaves from street trees out of Alleyn's grounds and into the street that doesn't seem quite so heinous.

If you don't have children under 18 (even if you once did have) - don't bother with this survey, you will be turned back. Any opinion you might have of local independent schools is of no interest if you aren't a potential punter - even if you might have been a former parent using one of the schools - or indeed a potential parent.

One would hope, none, as it is used, I think, only for emergencies, including transfers. No use would equal no emergencies, a good thing.

fauna - animals - it's flora for plants. Unless the debris being blown into the road includes e.g. poo (or dead animals)

This problem may be exacerbated by those who have put impermeable paving around/ in front of their properties, or whose properties are adjacent to the pavement, as there will be little moisture to re-charge the depleted clay. If putting in hard standing, permeable brick paviours, gravel over membrane etc. is a better choice than concrete or stone slabs set into mortar.

It may be (I am not saying that it is) that more BME households fit the social housing 'needs' criteria in Southwark (indeed, if so, that is a sort of indictment about equality issues anyway) - but the racial profiling of households per se as regards housing allocation does not happen.

Yes - I should have mentioned restrictions on working with gas or electricity without appropriate qualifications and certificates. (Not, however, I think plumbing, where neither gas or electrical work is required). And of course builders (like any employers) are covered by Health and Safety regulations.

It is not, in most cases, illegal to work without indemnity insurance, simply unwise (unless you are a taxi driver where driving uninsured is illegal). Builders are not licenced, although some will belong to trade associations (i.e. Federation of Master Builders) which require adherence to operating guidelines. Local authorities do have bye-laws which will set, e.g. acceptable times for types of building works (excluding normally emergency works to e.g. secure buildings) - and builders may be in breach of those and be prosecuted (very unusually). Builders must work within guidelines set out by local planners regarding technical aspects of build (outwith issues of planning permission) - Building Regulations. Additionally there are laws about treatment and removal of hazardous materials (i.e. asbestos). Unlicensed disposal of building rubbish (fly-tipping) is also illegal on public land and can be privately prosecuted on private land.

But they may chose to penalise some constituents in order to benefit others. That's simply an extension of the graduated taxation that is inherent in differential council tax rates (loosely) linked to housing values. Just saying...

Southwark's car plan makes a lot more sense in the north of the Borough than it does in the south - but then Southwark has always ignored the needs of the old Camberwell borough, focused as it is round Tooley St. The joining of the two areas never made sense, and makes even less sense now. If we had a borough of our own to make the case for better local transport maybe we would have got some, but the north has always been well served, so why should Southwark bother? Our local road topologies are far more forgiving for private transport, and we are far more in need of it than those in the north with their rail heads and tube lines.

Thanks to the IRA many litter bins were removed and have never been replaced (there always used to be a small bin for tickets at bus stops, for instance). Although there are litter bins around, you have to be local, in residential streets, to know where they are. Habituating individuals to throw litter in bins is less easy when they are not (much) in evidence. So people have become used to using the street as a large public bin, particularly if it isn't a street near where they live. And we live in an age of fast take-away food and drink when you will tend to have far more litter about you than in the past, when there were more bins available anyway. Until schools, and parents, start to make more of a fuss about it, then we will never train people not to be litterers. There are already a couple of generations mainly lost to the cause of non-littering. And we will not convince people to carry litter about with them until they can find the occasional bin.

Try googling the address, it may link to an agent.

Our neighbours moved out a couple of weeks ago and left their rubbish piled up in the front garden. This included food which has now attracted rats. That's up to the landlord or his/ her agent. On a normal let, costs of such clearance, if needed, would be covered by the tenant's deposit - assuming it hasn't already been repaid. Normally an agent would check the property before doing that, or a landlord. The council might/ could take enforcement action against the landlord.

Whilst it is now illegal to charge differentially for use of a credit card, I do feel slightly sorry for small traders who have to pay quite high fees (compared with major companies and chains competing with them) to their credit card charge agency. I try, wherever possible, to use a debit card (charges are lower) for these transactions. But where they do try to charge, that is clearly now illegal. And where I need the protection (for high value purchases) of buying by credit card I will also use that.

The significant change in Post Office deliveries has been the removal of casual staff; this was a pre-privatisation move, if memory serves, and whilst it led to this sort of problem when covering summer rostas (or during e.g. a flu epidemic) it also meant that far more letters arrived not tampered with. When I was young (1950s) casuals were particularly employed at Christmas, when you could expect 3 domestic deliveries a day(!). Overall I'd rather not get deliveries on a few days in the summer than find (as I did) my new cheque book intercepted and the cheques kited across Kent.