Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Long story short...

My car was parked on Honor Oak Park for a few hours, returned to car to find a mashed drivers side and the front bumper torn off, (and placed carefully on the pavement next to the car!?)

No note left and no witnesses (typical) and the car is now a write off.


Certainly didn't fill me with the joys of spring...


My suspicions lie with the large dumper trucks that have been tearing up and down the road that seem to originate from the now demolished school, (soon to be a new 'boys academy'?) on Peckham Rye.

It's only an educated guess with absolutely no evidence to back it up, (yet) but judging from the type of damage to my car, and the fact that had anything smaller been involved, it would have sustained quite a bit of damage itself, i would think that a large truck of that size would barely have felt the impact.


There's nothing i can do about it apart from mourn the passing of my trusty vehicle, (stings all the more after spending 400 quid on keeping it going,) so this is basically a moan, and a warning to all about parking anywhere near where those lorries operate. I'm quite sure some of the drivers are careful and considerate, but some are quite clearing bloody dangerous, irresponsible and deserve being nicked for the way they drive around.


Has anyone else noticed the way these lorries tear about, or is my view slightly skewed due to my recent experience?


Moan and warning over...

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/6114-honor-oak-park-parking-warning/
Share on other sites

Hmmm, not sure i understand your point Kel.


I'd parked in a marked parking bay, 1/2 on the pavement as indicated.

People park their cars in these bays all the time and i've been unaware of any major collision problems.


(Though thats part of my reason for posting this, to see if others have suffered the same experiences.)


And the fact i've noticed the way the lorries are being driven has been made all the more acute after my car was wrecked, and a sense of curiosity about what could have done such damage and driven away.


I'm sure anyone owning a car in london is, like me, used to the normal bumps and scrapes that appear over time, but to find the such damage was, i think, a bit out of the ordinary.


I could be completely wrong about the lorries, a smart car could have done it...

What a ridiculous thing to say KKel. What are any of us supposed to do about the careless driving of certain scumbags? You can't exactly take preventative action to avoid them. My car was dented whilst parked outside my house. Presumably I should have anticipated this as well?

I know how you feel PB it is so annoying and spineless of them. Someone did something very similar to my car when trying to parallel park recently. They hit my car so hard to knocked the radiator off but they drove off anyway. It is an old car and in reality a right off. I have had to bodge the radiator back on with a few tie wraps but the most annoying problem is now the bonnet won?t stay locked and I always worried some prick will steal the battery or generally vandalise the engine. The worrying thing is that there are people out there driving who can cause this much damage when only trying to park?I wouldn?t like to meet them on a road at 60mph.


Anyway?. what goes around comes around

James just back off I was only asking a question!

I don't know that area well enough to comment on traffic trends - for example, on my side of the lane there are areas you just know not to park whether its due to large vehicles, reckless drivers or vandals out and about. Instead of jumping on the aggressive side all the time James use ya brain for once.

In the interests of mediation;


KKel - Yes you're quite right, there are places you shouldn't park so as to reduce the risk of damage by inconsiderate tw*ts. This however wasn't one of those occasions, (as i said, i parked in a bay, have done many times before, as have countless other people.) And, hindsight being the wonderful thing it is, i won't park there again. I think your post, despite you saying you weren't trying to sound unsympathetic or have a go, unfortunately came across as doing just that.


James - You're quite right too, though your anger is beating mine, and i've had my car trashed!! Have you suffered a similar thing?

KKel, apology accepted, thankyou.

I've had conversations with other locals who have noticed these lorries and the way they are driven, but not heard of any other accidents, yet. (Thats why i posted this.)

I'd say they are an accident waiting to happen, but its happened already!

panda boy Wrote:

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

> I'd say they are an accident waiting to happen,

> but its happened already!


Well, there's no actual proof of this.


And suggesting that the contractor working on that site is guilty of writing off someone's car is obviously libellous with no proof.


But you'll know all of this, I'm sure.

Yes Lenk, I was merely making an educated suggestion (based on the damage,) and not actually accusing anyone or anything specifically.

Wouldn't do that.

I meant that non-specific big vehicles being driven at sometimes high speeds around residential roads is an accident waiting to happen.

Unless i'm the only person who's noticed the recent addition, and driving habits, of these big tipper trucks to our local roads?

There was a discussion about the increasing number of large and commercial vehicles using Ryedale, at the last Police Ward Panel Meeting. Some suggested they obviously had to do with the water works at Colyton Road, but I also suggested that it is not always the drivers faults for using those roads, but their satnavs are telling them to! ("Nuffink's my fault, gov, just doin' what I am told so I don't have to think whilst on me mobile.")

Well PR, i don't know what the answer is, or if there is even an answer to be found.

Public highways are public highways...

And while i'm fairly pragmatic about parking scars in london, i don't really expect to find a written off car when parked in a marked bay.

Grrr etc...

panda boy your attitude is great and I applaud it.

Public highways are indeed public highways.

I think only today I found another road which did not have road humps on it and they certainly don't help when traffic swerves to avoid the humps and gets a car or other road user instead, even a stationary one!

PR, I personally fail to see the logic of the mini humps that are all over the place.

I can see the idea that on a bus route it means the buses can straddle the bumps, but with the amount of wide axle 4x4's that can do the same kind of negates the point.

They also seem to encourage people to drive down the middle of the road to try and straddle them, making a road that could fit 2 cars driving in opposite directions quite happily, into a slalom with folks that nip out into the middle of the road to straddle the bump. (Not a problem when there's nothing coming in the opposite direction, but a bit dangerous when there is...)

Anyway, don't mean to turn this into a speed hump rant...

A question for the OP - exactly where were you parked when the damage was inflicted? Was it down near the station?


Agree on the speed cushions. Lewisham seem determined to put them in, but don't limit the parking around them, creating the slalom situation. Still, at least it slows *most* people down...

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...