Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Was anyone else aware that the main Post Office on Lordship Lane was closed today due to a strike? I have heard that it is under threat of closure ? does anyone know if that is true? And if so, is there a petition anywhere I can sign against it?s closure? (If that is a fallacy, does anyone know why they are on strike?)


What should have been a quick, half hour trip to post some packages just turned into a two hour round trip to the one down near the Plough. It took so long as they only had one counter open, and were obviously dealing with the overflow ? the queue was huge. What a waste of an afternoon.


I am surprised if they are going to close the Lordship Lane branch, as it seems to be busy every time I go in there (at various times of day, and days of the week) and always have to queue. I don?t relish the thought of having to divert to one of the other less conveniently placed ones, particularly if they can?t provide the same level of service. What will it become? Yet another caf??


Edited to change title.

We should all support the local main PO workers in their strike action to save their jobs not only as a matter of course, but because we all benefit from this PO. Strike action and loss of pay is always a last resort. Don't moan about the inconvenience because if it is closed down people will lose their jobs and we'll be inconvenienced for good.

keane Wrote:

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

> That's crazy - it's a really busy post office

> serving the community.


Ditto. It provides essential services. Whenever I've complained about the staff shortages and lines spilling out onto the pavement, the overstretched staff including the branch manager have said "Complain. We need more staff." And what about people without the ability to reach the nearest post offices? According to their spiel, their "priority is to maintain Post Office services to the local community." Bollocks.

buddug Wrote:

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

> What, I wonder, do our exalted councillors and MP

> have to say on this matter, or are they keeping

> quiet in the hope it'll be turned into a

> Waitrose...



Could our Local Councillors be keeping quiet as they are in a coalition with the Tory's who are hell bent on selling off the Post Office and the Royal Mail services to the highest bidder?

LORDSHIP LANE POST OFFICE REPLACEMENT


I am cutting and pasting this from James Barber's blog. Absolutely no comment at all from me as I have no idea at all what the facts are of this issue.


The Post Office has 373 Crown Post Office branches. It?s decided to transfer 70 to retail partners.


One of the 70 is our one on Lordship Lane.


They have stressed to me that this is not about closing our post office on Lordship Lane but rather replacing it. But obviously this will cause great concern and will require a 6 week public consultation.


My experience of such Post Office replacements has been very positive but that is no guarantee it will work well on Lordship Lane.


A Post Office spokesperson stated ?We are confident that our plans will mean that customers continue to benefit from a Post Office in their locality delivering service of the highest quality. Partnering with a complementary, respected retailer will also provide for long term viability and sustainability of the branches in question.?


What do you think to this change?

Some months ago i was asked about a rumour post office staff were telling some customers about their 'crown post office" closing. A resident told me via a PM and it only took a few weeks to ascertain that.

I blogged about this in late March - http://jamesbarber.mycouncillor.org.uk/2013/03/28/lordship-lane-post-office-replacement/

Yes the post office will close IF a new franchise post office can be created on Lordship Lane.

We've been promised in writing that the replacement will offer exactly the same services.


The rationale.

Currently for every ?1 of comission and revenue towards their operating costs they spend ?1.48. Clearly this isn't sustainable.


My personal experiences are such francises can work well. Until last autumn my day job was near borough tube. The crown post office was closed and the replacement franchise I found gave me a better more personal service.


Timescales.

The want to find a business partner and have a franchise in place by Spring 2015.

> The rationale. Currently for every ?1 of comission and revenue towards their operating costs they spend ?1.48. Clearly this isn't sustainable.


> My personal experiences are such francises can work well. Until last autumn my day job was near borough tube. The crown

> post office was closed and the replacement franchise I found gave me a better more personal service.


And is it profitable? What is it about the economics that make a franchise viable when Post Office Counters seem only to be able to run it at a loss?

ianr Wrote:

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

> > The rationale. Currently for every ?1 of

> comission and revenue towards their operating

> costs they spend ?1.48. Clearly this isn't

> sustainable.

>

> > My personal experiences are such francises can

> work well. Until last autumn my day job was near

> borough tube. The crown

> > post office was closed and the replacement

> franchise I found gave me a better more personal

> service.

>

> And is it profitable? What is it about the

> economics that make a franchise viable when Post

> Office Counters seem only to be able to run it at

> a loss?



Its clearly not profitable as costs are greater than revenues.


The private sector has demonstrated many times that an unprofitable service can be made profitable with productivity improvements. The public sector for a very long period of time has not been motivated to improve efficiency, and we all know where that has left many services today. Why indeed is the public sector still losing jobs while the private sector is increasing?


I expect that any franchise owner of such service would be clearly more motivated to make money - and the main way to make money is through improving the efficiency of service to customers.


If what James says is true, I am looking forward to a better service at a new Post Office. I am sick of queueing and wasting valuable time in ED - one of the worst post offices I have experienced!

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

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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