Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Meld Wrote:

> Do we know for sure that the house was in fact

> sold recently and for ?700k etc etc or is it one

> person speculating who claims to have inside

> knowledge about it? Much like on a recent

> dangerous dogs thread on here where a full

> description of the dangerous dog's owner was

> posted by someone who was sure that they knew who

> it was - before it transpired that they had the

> wrong guy!


There is a freehold house on East Dulwich Road which sold in Jan 2010 for ?715,000 where the new owner has applied for planning permission to convert the property into multiple flats. All of that information is available online from independent sources (e.g. Southwark planning pages, Zoopla, Land Registry). Planning permission for the conversion was only granted on 1 April based on the docs on Southwark's website, so the new owner couldn't have taken much action with the property before that.


Is it definitely the same property the squatters are in? I don't know that for a fact, but certain things they have said match up with the description of the property above, in particular the ref to steel shutters and that it was sold in Jan 2010.

Thanks Siduhe


I think you have given a very concise synopsis of the situation the owner of the property finds themselves in. I hope that the GGT have the decency to vacate the property immediately after the owner asks them to do so.

pk Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> *Bob* Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > If the house is still untouched in a year, I'll

> go

> > round and deliver a delicious casserole to any

> > residing squatters.

> >

> > Up until then, I feel the benefit of the doubt

> > should reside with the person who only recently

> > paid over ?700k for it.

>

> i kinda agree with bits of it, but i don't think

> that the (presumably) rich, (possibly) ruthless

> property developer really cares about the social

> side of things - creating homes to take people

> off the streets, they're in it to line their own

> pockets and the flats won't be cheap i'm sure (or

> that (s)he needs the help of those on this board

> to fight their battles, when they want the

> squatters out i'm sure they'll get them out)

>

> Property developers extending and turning

> beautiful old housing into flats for the own

> personal gain are now seen as the good guys and

> the victims, who woulda thunk it?

>

> (i have assumed that the property in question is

> indeed the one that was recently bought for ?715k

> and for which planning permission to turn into

> flats has been sought and granted, if not, i

> accept that the above might not be relevant)



PK, what do you think should be done with that house if not converted into flats? It is enormous. Do you really think it is suitable for a single family occupancy? Back in the day a house like that would have had servants.

Nowt gets people riled quite like HARDWORKING HOMEOWNERS being VICTIMISED like this.


I'm almost tempted to move out of my house that I WORKED FOR and let these VILE PEOPLE squat in it, just so I can get more material for my next book from this here forum.

cate Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> pk Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

>PK, what do you think should be done with that

> house if not converted into flats? It is

> enormous. Do you really think it is suitable for

> a single family occupancy? Back in the day a

> house like that would have had servants.


it's nothing to do with me what's done with it

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Fascinating to read spectrum of views.

> Huge shame that Southwark Council have 15,000

> people on its social housing waiting lists while

> Southwark had, the last time I formally asked

> about a year ago, 5,500 empty privately owned

> properties.

> I personally don't feel comfortable with squatting

> but clearly the levers created by central

> government to discourage properties being left

> empty are not working.

>

> Southwark Council can and does try persuading

> private owners to return properties into use but

> the Compulsory Purchase Order process is so

> painful that it can only rarely be used. Equally

> Southwark Council can only borrow money at rates

> decreed by central government which are a factor

> more expensive than the open money market. So

> can't borrow the sums required to kick start those

> 5,500 homes coming back into use.



Thanks, plimsoll. Figures for Southwark don't match those posted by James Barber above. I wonder where his data comes from?

thebestnameshavegone Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I love a bit of data.

>

> You can back any half-baked opinion you have up

> just nicely if you choose your source carefully.


Definition of data:


da?ta

   /ˈdeɪtə, ˈd?tə, ˈdɑtə/ Show Spelled[dey-tuh, dat-uh, dah-tuh] Show IPA

?noun

1.

a pl. of datum.

2.

individual facts, statistics, or items of information


Damn those pesky facts eh, always getting in the way of a good solid opinion.

Meld Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> *Bob* Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Did what?

> >

> > I don't understand. Unless you're somehow

> saying

> > the house wasn't sold recently?

> >

> > Please explain?!

>

> I meant quoting speculation as fact.

>

> Do we know for sure that the house was in fact

> sold recently and for ?700k etc etc or is it one

> person speculating who claims to have inside

> knowledge about it? Much like on a recent

> dangerous dogs thread on here where a full

> description of the dangerous dog's owner was

> posted by someone who was sure that they knew who

> it was - before it transpired that they had the

> wrong guy!




As a local estate agent, and someone that viewed it, its not speculation. Its also recorded on Allsops Auction website as sold at that figure.

jenren Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You can make data lie to you.........


Yes, of course, 'there are lies, lies and then there are statistics'. But most remotely credible opinions or reports about situations occurring across a whole country will be backed up by...data.

Meld Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> thebestnameshavegone Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I love a bit of data.

> >

> > You can back any half-baked opinion you have up

> > just nicely if you choose your source

> carefully.

>

> Definition of data:

>

> da?ta

>    /ˈdeɪtə,

> ˈd?tə, ˈdɑtə/ Show

> Spelled Show IPA

> ?noun

> 1.

> a pl. of datum.

> 2.

> individual facts, statistics, or items of

> information

>

> Damn those pesky facts eh, always getting in the

> way of a good solid opinion.


What a stupid post.


What do climate change deniers do, if not selectively choose / ignore data?

Figures for Southwark don't match those posted by James Barber above I'm just guessing, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Southwark council figures don't come from the Council tax listing showing properties on reduced council tax because empty - obviously building may also be empty but not claiming the reduced tax - i.e. sold but not yet moved into; waiting for refurbishment, registered as second homes (different discount scheme) etc. etc. There are two types of 'empty' - one is that the house if furnished but no one is living there, the second is that it is entiterely empty of everything. My guess is that it is this group that Southwark is reporting, with the 'empty but furnished' group excluded (or perhaps vice versa) - quite easy to get different figures by using different definitions of 'empty'.

thebestnameshavegone Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Meld Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > thebestnameshavegone Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > I love a bit of data.

> > >

> > > You can back any half-baked opinion you have

> up

> > > just nicely if you choose your source

> > carefully.

> >

> > Definition of data:

> >

> > da?ta

> >    /ˈdeɪtə,

> > ˈd?tə, ˈdɑtə/ Show

> > Spelled Show IPA

> > ?noun

> > 1.

> > a pl. of datum.

> > 2.

> > individual facts, statistics, or items of

> > information

> >

> > Damn those pesky facts eh, always getting in

> the

> > way of a good solid opinion.

>

> What a stupid post.

>

> What do climate change deniers do, if not

> selectively choose / ignore data?


I'm not sure that's just confined to climate change deniers, given the recent climate-gate scandal, but this is off topic so why bring climate change it?


As for calling my post stupid - perhaps your original post was the stupid one? What else do you base an opinion about a national problem on, if it's not based on facts/data/statistics? What you heard from the bloke down the pub?

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Figures for Southwark don't match those posted by

> James Barber above I'm just guessing, but I

> wouldn't be surprised if the Southwark council

> figures don't come from the Council tax listing

> showing properties on reduced council tax because

> empty - obviously building may also be empty but

> not claiming the reduced tax - i.e. sold but not

> yet moved into; waiting for refurbishment,

> registered as second homes (different discount

> scheme) etc. etc. There are two types of 'empty' -

> one is that the house if furnished but no one is

> living there, the second is that it is entiterely

> empty of everything. My guess is that it is this

> group that Southwark is reporting, with the 'empty

> but furnished' group excluded (or perhaps vice

> versa) - quite easy to get different figures by

> using different definitions of 'empty'.



Thanks Penguin, that's interesting.

I love Milo's blart about "what people do when they're hiding their real motivations" What exactly do you think their disguised agenda really is?? How silly.


My belief in property rights can be found in this useful summary:


"The fundamental purpose of property rights, and their fundamental accomplishment, is that they eliminate destructive competition for control of economic resources. Well-defined and well-protected property rights replace competition by violence with competition by peaceful means."


I can confirm to you that I have absolutely no other agenda (for those that requested, have I explained myslef now? Even if I haven't I never actually said I would, unlike the manipulative and menacing GGT).


What squatters do, whether they realise it or not (and judging by GGT's grammatical incompetence probably not) is play their little bit of turning society into a destructive, violent place devoid of social responsibility - where might is right.


That's why they're a gang (a team), and their posts are laced with implied violence (or their euphemism of 'uncooperative force'). No-one else posts on here as a 'team', the GGT do because they're trying to intimidate. They're already metaphorically punching the rest of society in the face, so why stop there?


I not only think that's retarded, but by extension then if they are rejecting society, they are not entitled to be a part of it, or entitled to use its laws to defend their 'rights'.


If you'd like a concise clarification of what a property 'right' is, it's not getting up in the morning with a hangover and stealing someone's house:


"A property right is the exclusive authority to determine how a resource is used, whether that resource is owned by government or by individuals. Society approves the uses selected by the holder of the property right with governmental administered force and with social ostracism.


Private property rights have two other attributes in addition to determining the use of a resource. One is the exclusive right to the services of the resource. [The otheris ] the right to delegate, rent, or sell any portion of the rights by exchange or gift at whatever price the owner determines (provided someone is willing to pay that price). "


What these prattish squatters are doing is suffering 'ostracism', and for good reason. If you want to destroy society, then don't expect it to welcome you with open arms.

Huguenot's post has me thinking back to iaineasy's post on page 4 http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,447811,450869#msg-450869, in which he says:


"In amsterdam ther is a system where squatting is encouraged in empty buildings but under given conditions where the squatter agrees to caretake the building and give it back in good condition, when the owner needs it back, if they stick to the agreement they are offered another place to stay ensuring low homelessness for the squatter and building kept safe for owner."


Would something like this be an acceptable and practicable way of meeting and reconciling different groups' perceived needs and rights?

I think back to the early eightees- Bonnington Square, Hubert Grove, Mildmay Grove, Engelfield Road N1,Victoria Parks Cadogan Terrace (a lesbian separatist squat that one)- all empty council properties that would have been demolished if it hadnt been for the squatters sitting it out until councils had a change in aesthetic values.For councils it was cheaper to rebuild than conserve.


I had friends living and squatting in incredibly derelict slug-ridden properties. The houses survived because of them and those roads are now preserved and genteel mostly private victorian terraces instead of rat runs and high rises that the council wanted to replace them with.


Alas they could not save the beautiful old and huge houses on the site of the now yuk Angel Estate in Brixton which could have provided much social housing in themselves, nor Coronations Buildings the site of M15. Our loss.


Different from the GGTs maybe, as this house has a future and an interested owner, and it seems rather opportunistically motivated - rather than direct conciousness raising action in the belief property is theft, development rides on the back of blah blah blah .


Nevertheless please don't forget squatting has a radical and useful place in British history that has often been regenerating and creative..

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...