Southwark to repay 10,000 bus lane fines

[march46]

You seem to be set on the idea that the council is losing £500k, despite the statement clearly stating otherwise.

[Rockets]

Well they are, until they reclaim it off the contractors - which, as anyone with a modicum of business sense will know, is a lot easier to say than do (especially if someone from the council did sign-off or had oversight of the letters). If it was easy I am sure the council would not be having to issue the refunds themselves would they - so until such time as they get the money back the council are down £500,000 - are they not?

[march46]

You don’t know, you’re speculating. I also don’t know, but based on the statement from Cllr McAsh - which clearly states the council will be reimbursed by contractors - I am assured that the council won’t be out of pocket. 
 

“The council will recover the full cost of the refunds from the contractors."

[Penguin68]

No it really won't, It's already had to pay to argue a defense, which it lost, in Court. It is most unlikely, unless the contractor error was very egregious that the council will receive full costs of all their actions - the contractor will have been acting as their agents, which means that they (the Council) are the principal - I suspect that unless the contractor could be shown to have acted criminally then it's most unlikely that full costs, including those of the earlier action, would be awarded them when they sue the contractor, who is most likely to put forward a defence.

Remember the contractor (I believe) was never in final receipt of those fines, which were levied by and paid to the Council - with the contractor possibly, and again, acting as the Council's agent.

I am sure the Council would want to get the full cost of the refunds from the Contractor, but I'm by no means as sure as some of the council cheerleaders on this thread that they will. Or even perhaps partial recompense. And certainly not immediately.

Remember it was the Council, as principal, that was found at fault in this.

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, march46 said:

- I am assured that the council won’t be out of pocket. 
 

I have always suspected there were some council insiders/party members on this thread. Who assured you? Are you now the official spokesperson for the council on this thread?

1 hour ago, Penguin68 said:

Remember the contractor (I believe) was never in final receipt of those fines, which were levied by and paid to the Council - with the contractor possibly, and again, acting as the Council's agent.

Also McAsh refers to contractors (plural). Is there more than one? If so, how did more than one contactor make the same mistake? 

[march46]

No one has personally assured me. As I said above, based on the quote in the article I feel assured that the council is not going to be out of pocket. 

Your constant accusations and attempts to spin a conspiracy are tiresome @Rockets.

[Rockets]

27 minutes ago, march46 said:

No one has personally assured me. As I said above, based on the quote in the article I feel assured that the council is not going to be out of pocket. 

I am glad you have clarified that because what you said did suggest you had heard it from someone on the inside, perhaps be clearer next time?

But, to be honest, if you are assured by an statement from a politician that poses more questions than answers then you must have more faith in politicians than many of us!

Time will tell who is right because clearly the council is funding the refunds within the next month.

[DulvilleRes]

14 hours ago, Rockets said:

I have always suspected there were some council insiders/party members on this thread. Who assured you? Are you now the official spokesperson for the council on this thread?

Also McAsh refers to contractors (plural). Is there more than one? If so, how did more than one contactor make the same mistake? 

I've never been convinced by your 'power to the people - I'm just a citizen journalist' stance. You have a deep knowledge of local politics and an unremitting anti-council agenda that looks to me like political intent disguised as something else. Are you sure you don't know who funds and runs the local anti-LTN campaign, as you claim?

[Rockets]

@DulvilleRes well sorry to disappoint you but I have affiliation to any local political party nor OneDulwich. You keep making these veiled suggestions that I somehow are but you're going on nothing more than a hunch.

My conscience is clear: that I post here with no vested interest, no links to any group that is involved in the debate. I very much suspect there are more than a few who post on here in whose interests it is to try and deposition anyone who dares challenge the nonsense decisions made by the council and the blinkered and undemocratic way they have behaved over the last 5 years. 

Clearly, there are some who only bleat on about accountability and transparency when it suits their agenda. Look what happened when I mentioned the name of the controversial Dulwich Society Transport sub-committe lead and their award winning work as an active travel lobbyist. All of which was publicly available on the DS website and in media published articles yet someone asked for the name to be removed. 

Knowledge is power and for too often the council,  and their apologists, have been happy to try and hide ensure people are not aware of what actually has been going on.

You should be thanking people like me and the likes of OneDulwich for ensuring our elected leaders are held to account.

One suspects some of the hypocritical ones on here would be happy if this wasn't the Labour party that was in the spotlight.

[malumbu]

One Dulwich appears to be against all LTNs.  If that is not political, what is?

[Rockets]

@malumbu only if you fall into the trap of foolishly thinking that if you oppose LTNs then your motivation is purley political. Which is another utter nonsense narrative perpetrated by those who hate to hear any opposition to something they support and a desperate attempt to dampen dissenting voices. Which clearly hasn't worked.

[Penguin68]

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

One Dulwich appears to be against all LTNs.  If that is not political, what is?

To be honest, that sort of blanket condemnation (if that's what it is) is more typical of a religious than a political bent. I have actually seen no evidence of this in OneDulwich, which appears more concerned about the specific actions, failure to consult properly and fully, and acting to an agenda which is not (just) about issues of health as regards LTN and CPZ activity in the three Labour satrap councils around us, our own (Southwark for those not living in this borough) Lambeth and Lewisham. Most of us opposed to the general actions of these three councils are happy to consider that some traffic and parking management activities of some councils match the stated needs and desires of local people and actually deliver against those needs. Some, but not many, perhaps. And we are aware that monetisation of the road infrastructure is a key driver for those councils, which does not meet the stated and statutory aims of introducing these particular measures.

Edited August 24 by Penguin68

[Rockets]

Spot on @Penguin68 and we all know that the next phase of the council/LTN apologist playbook is to then accuse those who voice their opposition as somehow being a far-right Reform supporter. It's all so predictable and pathetic.

[malumbu]

Difficulty is that you, some others on this forum, and First Dulwich are against measures to reduce road traffic.  You look for faults in schemes, talk about some democratic ways forward that don't exist, and have no solutions.  It's a fact that one Dulwich oppose LTNs beyond this area.  I haven't a clue what this playbook is you are talking about, and where on earth have I said 'far right'??

[Rockets]

22 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Difficulty is that you, some others on this forum, and First Dulwich are against measures to reduce road traffic.

What is First Dulwich? I think you are, again, falling into the narrative trap by trying to suggest people are against measures to reduce road traffic. This is wrong and part of the attack on anyone who dares oppose them. I think you will find the dissenting voices are against the methods being used to reduce road traffic (especially those that merely dispace rather than reduce road traffic).

22 minutes ago, malumbu said:

I haven't a clue what this playbook is you are talking about, and where on earth have I said 'far right'??

Well go take a look at your last post on the DV closure thread....you, and your cohort, are always desperately trying to create a link between opposition for LTNs and far-right/Reform support. I think you have mentioned Reform more than anyone else on this forum.

Edited August 24 by Rockets

[DulvilleRes]

On 24/08/2025 at 08:58, Rockets said:

@DulvilleRes well sorry to disappoint you but I have affiliation to any local political party nor OneDulwich. You keep making these veiled suggestions that I somehow are but you're going on nothing more than a hunch.

My conscience is clear: that I post here with no vested interest, no links to any group that is involved in the debate

Given that you are all about accountability, why have you no in interest in who funds and runs the shadowy and opaque One Dulwich? Until recently you were regularly posting One Dulwich press releases on this local discussion forum, and at times your research has preempted them. Your views and concerns are so aligned you should consider renaming yourself Dulwich Uno in tribute. 

But with you and your extensive knowledge of he minutiae of local politics, it is all about attacking the council. The best that could be said is that you have a very unbalanced view of local concerns, and anyone reading your utterances could be forgiven for suspecting that there is an agenda you are not sharing.

[first mate]

Oh, is One Dulwich in some way responsible for 10,000 bus fines made erroneously in Southwark and now having to be repaid?

If not, it looks like a desperate attempt to deflect. Nil points, as they say.

[DulvilleRes]

If it is about trying to determine the truth of what lies behind an unrelenting anti-council agenda, it is everything to do with the thread. To try and suggest otherwise looks like a desperate attempt to deflect. Nil points, as they say. 

[first mate]

" An unrelenting anti-council agenda", as you choose to call it, would have to be very much wider in scope than what is written on the threads in this section. 
To accuse those who question council decisions and process about a few select areas of policy of having some secret political motive and agenda just sounds paranoid.

A number of local road management schemes are unpopular with many local residents and have been driven through without mandate and in the face of significant local opposition. Given that opposition, it can be of little surprise that criticism of those measures keeps appearing in a local forum.

What is perhaps surprising is that there is a group of persistent voices in favour of these local road schemes and changes that populate these threads, some of whom do not even live in the area, but who consistently push what seems to be a minority view in favour of the changes, while trying to close down voices are against.

[Spartacus]

I love the attempts to paint a protest group, in this case one Dulwich, as a "shadowy and opaque" secret society. They ain't the masons or the illuminati but a group who,as first mate says, object to what appears to be council steam rollering of local objections. 

Maybe if you want transparency of who they are, stop hiding behind a moniker, say who you are and maybe, just maybe they will be more willing to engage with you. Can't guarentee they will but as we are all using pseudonyms are we all therefore "shadowy and opaque"? 

[DulvilleRes]

Difference here is I don't claim to represent the community, which One Dulwich repeatedly does. So in terms of local democracy, that goes in my book with different obligations and responsibilities.

It is so simple, why can't any of the One Dulwich cheerleaders on these threads answer the simple question - who runs One Dulwich and who funds them? This is a question they either refuse or can't be bothered to ask, which doesn't inspire a great deal of confidence in their various forays into 'citizen journalism'. 

For all the brave talk from the anti LTN posters on these threads of holding our local official representatives to account as they are attempting to do on this particular discussion, when it comes to causes close to their heart, different standards apply. All of which makes me feel that what lies behind so much of this unrelenting criticism of the council and the individuals involved in them isn't so much neighbourly debate, but more a disingenuous campaign. 

[Penguin68]

36 minutes ago, DulvilleRes said:

Difference here is I don't claim to represent the community,

... Oh, just the council then? 

[Spartacus]

@DulvilleRes i'll hold your pitchfork whilst you dunk the witches in the Dulwich Village Pond.

After all you seem to be wanting to conduct a witch hunt over who one Dulwich are. Possibly why they want to remain anonymous, I personally would if I was them. 

Edited August 26 by Spartacus

[Rockets]

6 hours ago, DulvilleRes said:

It is so simple, why can't any of the One Dulwich cheerleaders on these threads answer the simple question - who runs One Dulwich and who funds them? This is a question they either refuse or can't be bothered to ask, which doesn't inspire a great deal of confidence in their various forays into 'citizen journalism'.

Because perhaps we aren't utterly obsessed by it because we believe it is a community-action group? You spend so much time trying to deposition them and refer to them as "shadowy and opaque". 

What I think you really mean to say is you hate the fact there is a community-led action group opposing something you love and you are trying your hardest to bad mouth them. One suspects you haven't got any arguments against what they say so you have resorted to name-calling.

It's utterly pathetic and shows what a great job they are doing because they're upsetting people who are happy to stand by and turn a blind eye to council manipulation of process. Bravo to them! Let's be honest, if there weren't similar local action groups like them then Lambeth would have got away with what they tried to do in West Dulwich.

Meanwhile your beloved Dulwich Society is mired in controversy because active travel campaigners were accused of infiltrating the society and trying to speak on behalf of it in relation to the DV LTN. Yet, we are the ones who you allege back a shadowy and opaque organisation - the moment I mention the award-winning active travel campaigner (from Dulwich Society public documents and media articles) who was part of the controversy and someone asks for their name to be redacted from the posts on this forum......hmmmm.

You then try to suggest, repeatedly, I have some link to OneDulwich or a political party and insinuate that is my agenda. Well it's not. As I have said 1000 times before when you have tried to make those accusations I have no links to OneDulwich or any political party.

Can you say the same?

 

[DulvilleRes]

9 hours ago, Rockets said:

You then try to suggest, repeatedly, I have some link to OneDulwich or a political party and insinuate that is my agenda. Well it's not. As I have said 1000 times before when you have tried to make those accusations I have no links to OneDulwich or any political party

You are a huge loss to One Dulwich, as the longstanding pattern of your posting would suggest near-perfect alignment.  

As for One Dulwich being 'community led' - where is the evidence of that? We only have their word for it. Perhaps you could employ your citizen journalist skills in finding out for us. I think your persistent silence on this question, and also where their extensive funding comes from, speaks volumes. You are happy to continually post their press releases, but have zero interest in what their provenance is. It doesn't stack up. 

What I do know as fact is local right-leaning politicians used to head up the various local anti LTN groups that seemingly evaporated before the appearance of One Dulwich, and then those politicians mysteriously disappeared, only to surface now and then, asking the Council formal questions which largely mirrored whatever One Dulwich's latest concerns were. Could it be these Undead are driving the anti LTN campaign? 

People have a right to campaign on what they want within the law, but what I find disturbing is there have been a number of clues that local democracy isn't being conducted transparently.