Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Please be vigilant if you park your car on either of the roads above, as I got home to find a victim care card posted through my door informing me that my car has been damaged. Apparently a teenage boy was going around scratching cars!? my car and ten others on CP Road was damaged. North Cross Rd was also targeted.


Btw this incident happened yesterday 12th November.

EDherb Wrote:

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

> Yes the police caught him (aged 15) - someone

> spotted him at it and called them.

>

> What a waste of time and money - we were badly

> scratched and facing a chunky insurance claim and

> unwelcome excess...!


xxxxxxx


Very sorry to hear that.


What on earth is wrong with some people?

EDherb Wrote:

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

> Yes the police caught him (aged 15) - someone

> spotted him at it and called them.

>

> What a waste of time and money - we were badly

> scratched and facing a chunky insurance claim and

> unwelcome excess...!


Surely if the Police caught him, you have a case for his parents to pay up for the damage? At 15 he is still a minor and their responsibility.


Wishful thinking perhaps, but better than seeing your insurance premium go up next renewal!

ED - NAGAIUTB Wrote:

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

> EDherb Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Yes the police caught him (aged 15) - someone

> > spotted him at it and called them.

> >

> > What a waste of time and money - we were badly

> > scratched and facing a chunky insurance claim

> and

> > unwelcome excess...!

>

> Surely if the Police caught him, you have a case

> for his parents to pay up for the damage? At 15 he

> is still a minor and their responsibility.

>

> Wishful thinking perhaps, but better than seeing

> your insurance premium go up next renewal!


Problem is that such incidents reflects likely behaviour in the area.

Insurance companies base their rates on an area to area basis.


This is Not an isolated incident.

A while back one night several cars had their wing mirrors kicked off on Whateley Road.


There have been several incidents of cars being broken into here on EDF.

I would imagine only a fraction of incidents are reported here.


Late night opening of bars would seem to be responsible for more late night revelry.


Although in this instance at 15 I suppose he will get a slap on the wrist.. (No. Cannot do that any more)


Unlikely to go any further and we all get to pay higher premiums on our insurance.


Hopefully it will stay on his record so that when he is old enough to have his own car he will not

be able to find anyone to insure him.


DulwichFox

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> ED - NAGAIUTB Wrote:

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

> -----

> > EDherb Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > Yes the police caught him (aged 15) - someone

> > > spotted him at it and called them.

> > >

> > > What a waste of time and money - we were

> badly

> > > scratched and facing a chunky insurance claim

> > and

> > > unwelcome excess...!

> >

> > Surely if the Police caught him, you have a

> case

> > for his parents to pay up for the damage? At 15

> he

> > is still a minor and their responsibility.

> >

> > Wishful thinking perhaps, but better than

> seeing

> > your insurance premium go up next renewal!

>

> Problem is that such incidents reflects likely

> behaviour in the area.

> Insurance companies base their rates on an area to

> area basis.

>

> This is Not an isolated incident.

> A while back one night several cars had their wing

> mirrors kicked off on Whateley Road.

>

> There have been several incidents of cars being

> broken into here on EDF.

> I would imagine only a fraction of incidents are

> reported here.

>

> Late night opening of bars would seem to be

> responsible for more late night revelry.

>

> Although in this instance at 15 I suppose he will

> get a slap on the wrist.. (No. Cannot do that any

> more)

>

> Unlikely to go any further and we all get to pay

> higher premiums on our insurance.

>

> Hopefully it will stay on his record so that when

> he is old enough to have his own car he will not

> be able to find anyone to insure him.

>

> DulwichFox


Insurance Companies don't ask what's on your criminal record. In any case, if it precludes him from getting a job, that's only going to further marginalise him. What he needs is a good length of community service and some life coaching, or the death sentence, depending on your point of view.

Lowlander Wrote:

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


In any case, if it precludes him

> from getting a job, that's only going to further

> marginalise him. What he needs is a good length

> of community service and some life coaching


xxxxxxx


I completely agree. Well said.

uncleglen Wrote:

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

> At 15 although he is a minor he should know right

> from wrong.


xxxxxxx


Yes he should, but we have no idea of his background and clearly he either didn't, or chose not to use that knowledge.


Harsh or inappropriate "punishment" or whatever is just going to make things worse - isn't it?


Maybe he should meet with the people whose cars he scratched, and explain to them why he did it - if he can.

Kids like this get away with scratching cars up because our society is too paralysed to do anything about it. It's fucked-up that there will be no charges, no punishment, no learning, no deterrent, no relief for the people whose property has been damaged. No excuse for the action yet we'll run around in circles concentrating on the person who does fuck all, yet destroys what others have worked for. Seriously, you couldn't invent this shit.

KidKruger Wrote:

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

> Kids like this ......


> we'll run around in circles concentrating on the

> person who does @#$%& all, yet destroys what

> others have worked for ......


xxxxxxx


KK, to be fair, we (and I'm making assumptions here) know absolutely nothing at all about this kid, or his background.


I don't think it's right to leap to conclusions.


Yes he might just be a nasty little shit, but he might also be abused, mentally ill, whatever.


And even if he is just a nasty little shit, there are surely ways of trying to make sure he doesn't continue scratching cars, or carying on to worse things, which don't have the reverse effect (ie piss him off so much that he does go on to worse things).


If you see what I mean.

pommie Wrote:

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

> Police should get him (or his parents) to pay for

> all the damage on the cars


So the easy scenario is his parents are wrong 'uns who teach him to break the law, saying it's OK, so fine them.


What if they are 'normal' 'decent' people who are at their wits end trying to control a teenager who has gone off at a tangent? What if they are trying everything they know how? Are they responsible? I defy most of us to physically stop a 15 year old from going out if he really wants to.

But isn't that the problem, ruffers? Who is responsible?


The kid? Seems not.


His parents? Nope.


The poor sods who had their cars vandalised? Well, it seems they are responsible for paying for the damage (if even via their insurance companies). So, yep - they're the ones.

^^^ this.


Ruffers, at some point, the little Herbert that did this needs to see that there is a consequence. Even if he is the tear away child of 'normal decent' people. Especially so if this is the case.


If they have to fork out ?1500 on repairing the damage he caused, then there will be a visible consequence in most households. SKY turned off? Well son, the ?1500 I paid out to repair those cars? That means we can't afford SKY anymore. Ipad sold on ebay? Every penny counts.


One of the great ills of our time is the lack of consequence, unless you can afford to pay out. Look at the way motorists get treated as cash cows. It's now infinitely cheaper to run the risk of no insurance, no tax, no licence than it is to be law abiding. You get caught? Soft slap on the wrist and then drive home from court.


If it were my car that was damaged in this way and they caught the kid that did it, I'd expect their parents to pony up for the repairs regardless of the background story. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Was always the way until the rot set in, in or about 1997........

If kids want to damage other peoples property the solution is simple.


Confiscate their Mobiles, X-boxes, Consoles etc.. and crush them..


..Shred their designer trainers..


Just see how they like it. Would soon get the message across.


DulwichFox

If it were me (as the child back in the day) my parents would have asked the police to be hard on me, they would stump up for repairs (very much to my detriment), drag me by the scruff of the neck to offer an apology to everyone affected, grounded me, taken my playstation, stereo, football season ticket and all manner of other actions.


The problem starts when we allow the state to assume total responsibility (or view this as their role), in doing this we lose accountability. Its about making conscious decisions.

The US sociologist Charles Murray said about 40 years ago that the UK was breeding an underclass because of our benefits system encouraging the feckless; and that the underclass would have 3x as many children as the educated classes- it's difficult to tell living in Dulwich.

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> If kids want to damage other peoples property the

> solution is simple.

>

> Confiscate their Mobiles, X-boxes, Consoles etc..

> and crush them..

>

> ..Shred their designer trainers..

>

> Just see how they like it. Would soon get the

> message across.

>

> DulwichFox


Well said DulwichFox . After all, we already have the confiscation of assests accrued through criminal means in the worst of cases. I agree, this would be a somewhat similar scheme. HOWEVER, @Sue on Nov 15th makes a very very good and valid point, to paraphrase, "have the reverese effect - piss him off he does worse things". There is considerable evidence that this is precisely what happens in a lot of cases, the perpetrator feels so aggrieved that they continue to "hit out at society" in whatever way they can as a form of, in their perverse way of thinking, getting even with the rulers that have so wronged them ie: punishment after being caught.

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

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • 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.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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