Jump to content

Recommended Posts

This East Dulwich Forum was in existence long before the ED Facebook page.

The Facebook group nicked the name, and if memory serves there was nothing that admin could do about it.

It has no connection with this forum.

Never heard of the one with Herne Hill in it though.

Edited by Sue
  • Agree 2

I know but the confusion is this newer version of the EDF was probably why he could keep the name since he set the group up whilst the older version of the EDF was running. 
I’m assuming he had to add on Herne Hill to get around the EDF name and reinstate his group. 

As per this: 

IMG_2094.jpeg

  • Administrator

In summary:

  • East Dulwich Forum was founded in 2006 before Facebook existed.
  • A few years ago, someone maliciously started using the East Dulwich Forum identity and created a Facebook Group of the same East Dulwich Forum name and used many of the slogans, phrases from this website.
  • This person has been using their Facebook Group to promote a Cleaning and Building business they are connected with. They are using it for their own financial gain. They apparently suppress links / comments from rival trades businesses to make sure theirs is the one seen to be recommended.
  • People often get confused between this website and the Facebook Group. I regularly receive sent via the 'Contact Us' page on this website asking questions about something 'on the Facebook Group' despite it being completely unconnected. Furthermore there have been times where the Facebook Group owner has made comments or decisions to damage the reputation of the East Dulwich Forum 'brand' (an example here).

I'm not a legal expert but in my opinion, the clearly amounts to maliciously 'Passing Off' as another business. Note - this is different to copyright or trademark infringement which would be difficult to claim against (more info about the differences here - its quite complex!).

Recently I submitted a complaint to Facebook to notify them of this page passing off as eastdulwichforum.co.uk. Surprisingly, it appears that this complaint was considered and as a result, they have (slightly) modified the name of their group. A small win.

 

To be honest, I wouldn't usually care about this type of thing but it was damaging the reputation of this forum. And for the record, there are many of other legitimate local Facebook Groups which I encourage people to use - ones which don't try to make a financial gain by passing off as a long running business.

 

  • Like 9
  • Agree 5

I wonder if someone can prove that East Dulwich Mums is also a proxy for the group pretending to be East Dulwich Forum. Is someone able to name the cleaning company involved as this is pretty underhand stuff and I am not sure I would want to engage them in cleaning services.....

  • Like 1
4 hours ago, Rockets said:

I wonder if someone can prove that East Dulwich Mums is also a proxy for the group pretending to be East Dulwich Forum. Is someone able to name the cleaning company involved as this is pretty underhand stuff and I am not sure I would want to engage them in cleaning services.....

The link is showing the real link to the East Dulwich Forum that Joe on here set up. 
https://www.facebook.com/share/g/1DanoiLd48/?mibextid=wwXIfr

East Dulwich Mums is my group and is not a spin off from this group. I have no connection to the other EDF Facebook group and nor do I promote any cleaning services. My group is very well run thank you and your information is incorrect. 

IMG_2337.png

IMG_2338.png

6 hours ago, march46 said:

@Administrator seems they are still claiming to be linked to this forum. 
 

https://www.facebook.com/share/g/1AkCyCGAxg/?mibextid=wwXIfr

IMG_2948.jpeg

No, that is the new Facebook group that the admin on here has set up. 
Joe does need to turn the settings on that group to pre approval for all posts as there is a lot of posts on there that isn’t relevant. 

10 hours ago, Dulwich Born And Bred said:

The link is showing the real link to the East Dulwich Forum that Joe on here set up. 
https://www.facebook.com/share/g/1DanoiLd48/?mibextid=wwXIfr

East Dulwich Mums is my group and is not a spin off from this group. I have no connection to the other EDF Facebook group and nor do I promote any cleaning services. My group is very well run thank you and your information is incorrect. 

IMG_2337.png

IMG_2338.png

No, that is the new Facebook group that the admin on here has set up. 
Joe does need to turn the settings on that group to pre approval for all posts as there is a lot of posts on there that isn’t relevant. 

Some Facebook groups I am in are, or  have become,  private groups, because there are  so many trolls on FB.

Including a group set up to discuss birds 🙄

There are probably downsides to that as the admin has to approve all prospective members, who have to agree to certain rules I think, and I'm not sure it's failsafe. It's certainly time consuming for the admin.

But probably less time consuming than having to pre approve all posts?

Also, I wonder whether it should be made clear on the "new" EDF Facebook page that the "old" one had no connection with the real EDF?

PS  Thank you Joe for all your time in doing all this, on here and on the FB one. It's much appreciated.

Edited by Sue
  • Administrator
16 hours ago, march46 said:

@Administrator seems they are still claiming to be linked to this forum. 
 

 

This is a new group is owned by myself. Its not the 'fake' cleaning company owned East Dulwich Forum group which has recently renamed itself.

I created this with the intention to claim our IP on Facebook and reserve the eastdulwichforum group name, rather than leave it open for someone with bad intentions to claim like before.

I am using it to promote this website and share content / interesting threads from here. Obviously it will in no way replace the website.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Why does the renamed group still mention the "old" group underneath (" Group by East Dulwich Forum") except that Dulwich has a small d, par for the course in their case.

The link just goes round in a circle.

Also East Dulwich is in much larger font than Herne Hill.

Screenshot_20250603-094741.png

Edited by Sue
24 minutes ago, Administrator said:

This is a new group is owned by myself. Its not the 'fake' cleaning company owned East Dulwich Forum group which has recently renamed itself.

I created this with the intention to claim our IP on Facebook and reserve the eastdulwichforum group name, rather than leave it open for someone with bad intentions to claim like before.

I am using it to promote this website and share content / interesting threads from here. Obviously it will in no way replace the website.

 

Thank you, Joe, for all that you do. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
11 hours ago, Dulwich Born And Bred said:

East Dulwich Mums is my group and is not a spin off from this group. I have no connection to the other EDF Facebook group and nor do I promote any cleaning services. My group is very well run thank you and your information is incorrect. 

Apologies @Dulwich Born And Bred this is all so confusing - I had no idea EDF now has a Facebook page.

  • Thanks 1
42 minutes ago, alice said:

Just looked at the Facebook site. How do I tell the difference between the two? Is it just me  that’s confused?

The "new"  Facebook EDF  doesn't have Herne Hill in its name.

The one with Herne Hill in its name used to be the imposter Facebook EDF.

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Agree 1
36 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Apologies @Dulwich Born And Bred this is all so confusing - I had no idea EDF now has a Facebook page.

The fake East Dulwich group has thousands of members and has now added Herne Hill to their title. If you look up members, the admin team will come up and it’s run by I think Brazilian  admins such as Samual Oliveira, and they own East Dulwich Cleaners and East Dulwich Builders. 

The real EDF recently set up by Joe on FB is new and members are lower and the bio states it’s connected to this group. 

 

Likewise if you check out the admin on my East Dulwich Mums, you’ll see we are not the same people that run the other groups. 
All the information is on the groups when you read the bio and check the admin list. 

2 hours ago, Sue said:

Some Facebook groups I am in are, or  have become,  private groups, because there are  so many trolls on FB.

Including a group set up to discuss birds 🙄

There are probably downsides to that as the admin has to approve all prospective members, who have to agree to certain rules I think, and I'm not sure it's failsafe. It's certainly time consuming for the admin.

But probably less time consuming than having to pre approve all posts?

Also, I wonder whether it should be made clear on the "new" EDF Facebook page that the "old" one had no connection with the real EDF?

PS  Thank you Joe for all your time in doing all this, on here and on the FB one. It's much appreciated.

My East Dulwich Mums group is private and we have three admins so we all just pop on and off the group throughout the day to approve posts and it has been working successfully since we first started the group.
We do give a lot of members pre approval who have proven to be trustworthy and genuine.

We also vet members on sign up to try and weed out the spammers. Obviously now and again one will slip through the net but for the most part having the group private and with posts all requiring approval has meant it’s pretty much well run with minimal drama.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Administrator
1 hour ago, Sue said:

Why does the renamed group still mention the "old" group underneath (" Group by East Dulwich Forum") except that Dulwich has a small d, par for the course in their case.

Unfortunately the cleaning company still has a Facebook page called 'East dulwich forum' which is what you are seeing here. 

Facebook Group = a place where other people can participate.

Facebook Page = a profile page for a business where only the business can post.

 

I will be disputing the name of the cleaning company's Facebook Page as well as its obviously designed to mislead people that its related to this website, but the main aim was to prevent them using 'East Dulwich Forum' as their group name, which has been somewhat achieved (even if they've just just appended '& Herne Hill' 😆)

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Agree 2

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

    • 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.
    • You can get a card at the till, though, to get the discount. You don't have to carry it with you (or load it onto your phone), you can just get a different card each time. Not sure what happens if they notice 🤣
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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