Jump to content

Recommended Posts

StraferJack I personally believe it is common decency that a person shouldn't park outside someone's house - regardless of how desperate they are for the space. I drive almost everywhere, with the exception of around here because it is primarily residential and I walk so as not to inconvenience people. I've been at the wrong end of a selfish space stealer outside my own place many a time and I wouldn't want to do the same to someone else. A space is outside your house for good reason, it is technically your space (regardless of it being on a public road), and it should be public convention that this space is only occupied by the people (persons) who occupy the property in front of it.


Louisa.

it is NOt technically anything otherthan public highway


as for "house" you do know that a lot pf houses are many multiple occupied right? So which one of the occupiers has dibs?


And you go driving off to some friend around London or elsewhere in the country where do you park then?

I totally and fundamentally disagree. Just because it is on a public highway does not entitle everyone and their dog to hunt out spaces in residential areas. If there was common sense and decency involved we wouldn't need to go down the cash cow CPZ route for the councils, and people would abide by this convention as a matter of default. If the property is multi-occupancy or similar then the space(s) are indeed a free for all for people within that property and NO ONE ELSE. When I travel to see friends I usually park in a public car park or I park on a friends drive (if they have one).


Louisa.

you have no ground (legal or otherwise) to claim anything you just wrote (@ Louisa)


But let's go back to our multi occupancy example - if you get to your space and it's taken "BY SOMEONE ELSE IN THE SAME PROPERTY" what do you do (remember there are several others in same boat on same street probably at same time)


Where do they park?


Nearest available space?


They have to go to a public car park?

SJ I would suggest that a person struggling for a space because the one taken space outside their home is occupied by another person residing in the same property, then this individual should either park as close to this space as is possible, or outside a building which is not for residential use. I give a good example, on my road there is a row of commercial properties just along from me and also a church, these spaces would fall into this zone of free for all.


Jeremy I am being deadly serious, it is throughly disrespful to a person who's just popped to Sainsburys to get the weekly shop (as an example) to come home and be forced to park streets away and unable to off-load their shopping because a non-resident has stolen their space to pick the kids up from school, or to visit a friend, or because they need to pop to the shop around the corner. It's unacceptable.


Louisa.

Grace that is absolutely not what Louisa was talking about. If you read her last post she is objecting to anyone parking even for a very short time (she says to pop to a shop or pick their kids up from school!)outside her house in 'her' special part of the public highway.


You couldn't make it up! But then again it is entirely in keeping with Louisa's trolling persona.


In reality she's probably a bored teenager posting from her bedroom though, so doesn't have a car or her own bit of street, so we should all stop worrying too much.


There are some nutters out there though that actually try to 'save' 'their' parking space with a bin when they go out in their car! Talk about ignorant.

I agree - but there's a world of difference between needing to use space for placing a skip for building/clearance works and putting a bin out to save 'your' space for parking a car! The former is occasionally (reasonably) necessary. The latter is just plain ignorant and selfish. It could also get you a fine/penalty notice depending on where you are and who sees it.
As someone who works in ED and lives in woodvale, I try to be mindful of where I park, when coming to work. I do walk to work, however in the winter months, I will drive, and I do work until 9pm on a couple of evenings a week so I will drive to work. The world would be a perfect place, if we could park outside our own homes, however that is no longer an option, unless you have off street parking. We as ED need to realise while we believe we do live in this great place, and those who want too live in this great place, there are compromises, which is parking. Parking outside your own home is now a luxury. Restricted parking will not make any difference, in my opinion. I believe they are trying to introduce restricted parking, because very shortly ED picture house will be opening, which will impact parking, moreso at the weekends.
Friends in LL area cannot use their car for fear of not being able to find a parking space on return. I think one hour limit would benefit local business, if people park all day there is no space for visitors to the shops. A CPZ would benefit local residents, only snag is if your friends visit in the car from outside the area. Could there be a priority of one permit per household?
Just realised they are proposing to turn the four spaces outside the Thomas more church from unlimited to one hour. We live beside the church and this is the only place we and our neighbours can park. Shops opposite are not ones you drive to. All local trade or from bus stop. Maddening. Especially annoying as we have had nothing through the door about this. If this goes through it will be even more of a nightmare than it is already . Pointless
James Barber was adamant that this development would not affect parking. I'd be interested to hear from councillors from all parties why we are being bombarded with all these new parking restrictions. The same for the yellow lines down much of North Cross Rd, allegedly there for the market stall holders, yet the market operates for only two days a week.

I wanted to ask again, why, when only quite recently we were assured that The Picturehouse, the new proposed M&S and tbe new Harris School Development, would have no impact on parking because, and the following rationale appears in every planning application, the public will cycle , walk or use public transport. Why then is it that "coincidentally" there are a welter of new parking restrictions suddenly touted for the surrounding area?


Could councillors please make the effort and explain?


Proposals to introduce restricted parking on and around Lordship Lane where there has been none?

Proposals to put large swathes of yellow lines either side of dropped kerbs?

The introduction of yellow lines on Northcross Road when the market only runs for two days?

Proposals,at great expense, to prettify the junction of NX Rd and make it a "safer" junction by building the path out thus reducing traffic flow.


Thus piecemeal approach is CPZ by stealth and councillors are not being honest with the public. The same applies to emerging issues to do with 20 mph speed limits and the Townley Rd junction fiasco. We need proper consultation, transparency and accountability.

I suspect, first mate, that you are seeing conspiracy where there is only cock-up - the apparatchiks responsible for the cyclists at all costs policies which drove the no right turn fiasco - the yellow lines around dropped kerbs, the 20mpg limit, probably the re-design of North Cross Road may be all in a highways department, but probably different bits of it. Certainly there is a general anti-car bias amongst many of the political parties, certainly many would like to be able to squeeze revenue where they can, but I suspect that the way the council is actually run is not nearly as joined-up as you suggest here. At best we have a common disregard of the needs or wishes of the electorate (so no changes there)- but we are probably at the 'banality of evil' end of the spectrum rather than a thought-through conspiracy to achieve a particular end.

My point is not one of grand conspiracy, but I do feel it suits various agendas to somehow fail to grasp the bigger picture. I would be interested to hear what councillors have to say about the likely sum impact of the various schemes?


James Barber has been on the forum this morning but is not commenting. For instance, He certainly gave the impression that the Picturehouse would not impact parking.

I would remind posters that Mr Barber is one councillor amongst many, and is not in the ruling party in Southwark. His answers may be personally interesting but will hardly be definitive. His interest in such council minutiae one would expect to evaporate should he be successful in a wider constituency. Whatever he says won't be game changing in a context outside the ward he represents - some of the issues raised (i.e. speed limits) are much wider than the ED ward anyway. He is aware that, when questioned, his constituents have voted against CPZs. I am sure that if he is aware of manipulation to change the game he will wish to resist it, going, as it does, against the wishes of a significant majority of electors polled at the time (only 18 months - 2 years or so ago, so hardly ancient history!).

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...