Jump to content

Recommended Posts

For starters I would say that you can hardly be a qualified surveyor from a wonky picture taken out of her window


secondly you have fallen for the "David and Goliath" skew the headline portrays...


This is just a guy who bought a moderately expensive house in Peckham and did a decent chunk of work on it like many people do these days... OK he happens to work for Google, everyone is an MD, VP, Exec etc... especially in tech, he is hardly the CEO who has bought up the entire street and is kicking grannies out of their retirement home to build a mega mansion.


What has happened is somewhere along the line they have fallen out and its now got petty and unpleasant, maybe she got annoyed with the builders parking on her drive, going into her garden OR maybe the wall is slightly over her side of the fence.. now what happens is the classic cliche the only people who win out of this are the lawyers and anyone who buys either properties next and ask for a sizeable discount when the box that says "any disputes over the last X years" is ticked.


End of story :)



alice Wrote:

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

> It is the bully with most power that makes the

> counter attack. I therefore think Ms H. will be

> proved right. Looks like the midline of the brick

> has been placed on the boundary.

Sue Wrote:

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

> Having been involved in a disagreement with a

> "builder" who also refused mediation, I have every

> sympathy.

>

> Why would somebody who thought they were in the

> right refuse mediation?


Because it was never offered in your case and similarly why would a client who thinks they are so right not go to small claims court?


There are indeed two sides to every story and sometimes there is even documentary evidence to support one side.

Posted by PokerTime Today, 09:55AM


Sue Wrote:

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

> Having been involved in a disagreement with a

> "builder" who also refused mediation, I have every

> sympathy.

>

> Why would somebody who thought they were in the

> right refuse mediation?


Because it was never offered in your case and similarly why would a client who thinks they are so right not go to small claims court?


There are indeed two sides to every story and sometimes there is even documentary evidence to support one side.


The person concerned, not a million miles from yourself although probably at the time posting on here under one of your several other forum names, was sent a recorded delivery letter by me, with documentation.


This letter was dated 27 August 2009 and included a repetition of my offer of using the services of an impartial and objective mediator.


This letter was returned to me by Royal Mail a considerable time later because it was never collected from the delivery office.


You did however post on this forum saying that you were not willing to take part in mediation.


I imagine that that post is long deleted, along with other posts in that particular exchange.


Why somebody would not pick up recorded delivery letters addressed to them is a mystery to me.


Edited to include the post by "PokerTime".

flocker spotter Wrote:

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

> let keep our vitriol for the two pugilists in the

> top of the bill bout please



I have had enough vitriol from the person currently calling herself "PokerTime" to last a lifetime.


I was so traumatised by the whole thing I was off work with stress for months and eventually had to leave my job.

Sue Wrote:

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

> Exactly.

>

> Oh and btw, "PokerTime", I did not go to the Small

> Claims Court because you told me there was no

> point in doing so because you had no money.

>

> Edited for typo.

C


I said no such thing. You cancelled a meeting that you did not rearrange. The next thing you are on this forum playing the victim as you always do.The problem is that you don't remember details. I will stop short of saying you deliberately lie. Your behaviour was terrible. Even the production company thought you were out of order.


Who in their right mind would do anything but stay well away from that. You drive people mad.

Just because Sue says something is so does not mean it is true. I have had enough of her lies too. BUT the point is that no-one can know from a forum or a news report what the truth is. That requires concrete evidence. I have no vendetta but I will defend myself from things that are just not true. Sue cancelled a meeting and never rearranged it. End of story.

Angelina Wrote:

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

> Poker Face - have you changed your user name ?



No I haven't. I had a different username when I ran the football but haven't used that one in many years. I have no new username since this one and don't post on the forum these days. Actually that means I changed it once but l have never posted from the two names if that makes sense.

PokerTime Wrote:

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

> Sue Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Exactly.

> >

> > Oh and btw, "PokerTime", I did not go to the

> Small

> > Claims Court because you told me there was no

> > point in doing so because you had no money.

> >

> > Edited for typo.

> C

>

> I said no such thing. You cancelled a meeting

> that you did not rearrange. The next thing you are

> on this forum playing the victim as you always

> do.The problem is that you don't remember details.

> I will stop short of saying you deliberately lie.

> Your behaviour was terrible. Even the production

> company thought you were out of order.

>

> Who in their right mind would do anything but stay

> well away from that. You drive people mad.




1. The production company said that they would back me up in any claim I made against you, or in any claim you made against me, not least because they saw the standard (and extreme slowness) of your work on the final day of the project, which was the reveal.


2. You have had at least four user names on this forum.


3. Looking back at my records, I see that as well as sending you the recorded delivery letter which you did not pick up, I also emailed it to you, which you did not respond to either.


4. I have a full file of correspondence, photos and other evidence relating to the work in question.


5. I also have relevant screenshots relating to posts on this forum.


Many people on this forum know me in real life and know that I am not a liar.


East Dulwich and Nunhead are small places, and over the years I have met - in different contexts - quite a few people who know you or have had dealings with you, including those who you have started work for and not completed.



I suggest you don't dig yourself in any further.


ETA: If you have evidence that I cancelled a meeting and did not rearrange it, or evidence that I have at any time lied to you or about you, then please post it up here.


I have nothing to hide whatsoever.


ETA: And now can we get back to discussing the original post on this thread.

Sue, l am not raking over this with you all over again. You are not truthful. You take no responsibility for your own behaviour ever and there is never any point discussing anything with you. You browbeat and bully. You throw temper tantrums. Why should anyone have to put up with that? There are at least three occasions on this forum where you have written things that can be absolutely refuted by footage shot by the documemtary crew. The final straw was being called unreliable after working 21 days straight because I took two days off after that. That's when you asked for a meeting that you then cancelled and did not rearrange. You are ridiculously unreasonable. I am in no way the only person to have had problems with you. That is my final word on it.

But it is you who appears to be "raking over this with me all over again." !!!


I have been very careful in the past to really try hard to keep my responses to you on this forum (and indeede outside this forum) objective and not to attack you on a personal basis, despite gross provocation and despite your bizarre attacks on me on here under your various forum names, including very recently (but not as "Poker Time").


Perhaps instead of throwing unfounded accusations about, you could respond to the points I have made above and/or provide actual evidence to back up your accusations.


All my efforts to resolve things with you were thwarted because you did not respond to my communications.


In at least two cases locally I am aware of you acted in exactly the same way - leaving the jobs without warning and not responding to all attempts to contact you. One of those people was also left extremely stressed as a result.


I am sorry because I think you are an ill and unhappy person, however unfortunately you also appear to be a very plausible and manipulative liar.


As you keep mentioning the "documentary crew", I will just say that they got wise to you by the end, despite your efforts to explain away delays and unfinished work by blaming me.


Let us hope that your previous post is indeed your "final word", but in any case I am going to ask admin to remove these posts. Deja vu.


ETA: But if they stay here, then so be it. Though I'm quite sure nobody else is interested in something that took place nearly a decade ago and was done to death on here at the time. I was weary of it then, and I'm weary of it now.


ETA: And in the interests of accuracy and truth, yes - I did lose my temper with you. I lost it once, and yes it was when the television crew were there. Not only did I lose my temper, I was practically in tears.


By that point I had had weeks of seeing my money disappear into a black hole with very little to show for it.


In retrospect, I was totally stupid to pay you by the hour and believe all your confident assertions, plausible promises and excuses, despite all the evidence to the contrary. I should also not have ignored my gut feelings at a very early stage of the project that there was something very wrong.


If memory serves I snapped after you had pulled my large sofa across the room over a newly painted white floor before the paint was properly dry, with predictable results.


You sanded the area down again but it was never properly repainted to match the rest of the floor. It had to be covered by a rug for the reveal shoot, and to this day I have to keep it covered by a rug. I have just looked beneath the rug, and it is a disaster area of large bare patches thinly covered by paint, right in the central area of my living room.


My nerves were on a knife-edge by that time, and I am only amazed that I did not lose my temper more often.


Had I known at that point that you were telling the television crew that all the delays and unfinished work were because "Sue keeps changing her mind", you would have been out on your ear, documentary or no documentary.


My only consolation is that once they saw your work and speed, saw that you appeared not to know how to fit cupboard doors which you had promised would be done before the reveal, saw you hang a picture using the wrong large drill which drilled right through the wall and knocked new plaster off the other side of the wall, had to get one of their assistants with a rudimentary knowledge of DIY to fit some of the window blinds because you were so slow, and had to spend the best part of a day with you, they realised.

Returning to the topic, I'm sure I met the woman whose land has been unfairly encroached on a few years back, via this forum in fact. She was lovely: kind, cheerful, warm, fun to be with, and has lived in the area quite a long time. Perhaps the 'Google chief', as the ES calls him, is trying to use the media to shut her up and get away with it.

PokerTime Wrote:

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

> Angelina Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Poker Face - have you changed your user name ?

>

>

> No I haven't. I had a different username when I

> ran the football but haven't used that one in many

> years. I have no new username since this one and

> don't post on the forum these days. Actually that

> means I changed it once but l have never posted

> from the two names if that makes sense.



So which was your other username, Poker Time?

Administrator Wrote:

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

> Sue, stop it. It's boring for others to listen to

> you two bicker on and on. Take this off the forum

> and please keep it off.



I completely agree.


But it would take a saint not to respond, and I am not a saint, sadly.


And not all the posts which started this off have been removed.

  • 4 weeks later...

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...