Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Our green bin has been sitting waiting to be emptied for 9 days and after much back and forth with the council (where they kept promising to empty it) I finally managed to ascertain that the bin crew decided the bin was "too heavy" to empty. The bizarre thing is they moved the bin from the front of our house, put in on the pavement for the lorry to pick it up and only then decided it was too heavy.


The lovely lady at the council I spoke to laughed and said that it was a new excuse by the bin team not to collect a bin - and that she had heard many.


Has anyone else had this?


Meanwhile the bin sits forlornly on the pavement awaiting a collection it's contents slowly rotting and attracting various scavengers, of the vermin type, and depositors, of the fly-tipping type. And we struggle to find somewhere to put our household waste...

Very frustrating !


But please could you move it off the pavement and back on to your property ? Might cut down on depositors of fly tipping kind ? Green bins contanimated with non household/green type bin stuff are a bit of a no go I think for collection .


Why is it attracting vermin ? Is there food in there ?

Hi rockets,

That is annoying.


How has this happened? They have one person who gets the wheelie bins lined up on the pavement and two different people to load the trucks lifter to empty it and put the bin back on the front path.

Clearly the first thought it was fine and one of the second lot thought it wasn't.


Is it actually heavier than usual?

If it isn't email and I'll escalate.

Don't worry - we are aware of what goes in a green bin/brown bin/blue bin and do our bit! The large majority of our food waste goes down the sink - the rest in the brown bin.


Rotting and generally starting to stink a bit in the bin - cat litter. Vermin can also be attracted to things that smell of food that are not able to be recycled. And I can't vouch for the contents of the bags others left next to the bin!


Council told us to leave it on the pavement until it is collected - which they claimed they would be doing over the course of the last 10 days.

Sorry but I think Southwarks advice to leave it on the pavement is misguided .What's the rationale behind it I wonder ?


It's attracting more rubbish and escalating the problem for no reason .They must have your location from your complaint so it's clearly not to aid identification .

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

    • Had council stock not been sold off then it wouldn't have needed replacing. Whilst I agree that the prohibition on spending revenue from sales on new council housing was a contributory factor, where, in places where building land is scarce and expensive such as London, would these replacement homes have been built. Don't mention infill land! The whole right to buy issue made me so angry when it was introduced and I'm still fuming 40 odd years later. If I could see it was just creating problems for the future, how come Thatcher didn't. I suspect though she did, was more interested in buying votes, and just didn't care about a scarcity of housing impacting the next generations.
    • Actually I don't think so. What caused the problem was the ban on councils using the revenues from sales to build more houses. Had councils been able to reinvest in more housing then we would have had a boom in building. And councils would have been relieved, through the sales, of the cost of maintaining old housing stock. Thatcher believed that council tenants didn't vote Conservative, and home owners did. Which may have been, at the time a correct assumption. But it was the ban on councils building more from the sales revenues which was the real killer here. Not the sales themselves. 
    • I agree with Jenjenjen. Guarantees are provided for works and services actually carried out; they are not an insurance policy for leaks anywhere else on the roof. Assuming that the rendering at the chimney stopped the leak that you asked the roofer to repair, then the guarantee will cover that rendering work. Indeed, if at some time in the future it leaked again at that exact same spot but by another cause, that would not be covered. Failure of rendering around a chimney is pretty common so, if re-rendering did resolve that leak, there is no particular reason to link it to the holes in the felt elsewhere across the roof. 
    • Hey, I am on the first floor and I am directly impacted if roof leaks. We got a roofing company to do repair work which was supposed to be guaranteed. However, when it started leaking again, we were informed that the guarantee is just for a new roof and not repair work. Each time the company that did the repair work came out again over the next few years, we had to pay additional amounts. The roof continues to leak, so I have just organised another company to fix the roof instead, as the guarantee doesn't mean anything. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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