Is this what comes to mind when the rest of UK talks of "trendy East Dulwich"?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -home.html
Think the homes in question are actually on the ED end of Bellenden Road.
ED in Daily Mail: millionare hipster gender-neutral organic battle
The ongoing readers' comments, 1723 a minute ago, are interestingly robust.
In passing I see that the "flaunt" count in the celebrity sidebar on the right today is down to 4. That's seriously low. Two or three years ago it might reach several times that. Hard times indeed.
In passing I see that the "flaunt" count in the celebrity sidebar on the right today is down to 4. That's seriously low. Two or three years ago it might reach several times that. Hard times indeed.
-
Blackcurrant
- Posts: 206
- Joined: 19 Jul 2013, 20:58
The problem is the infill, which extends beyond the party wall and across the boundary but only by a small amount. It's in breach of rules but was a sensible thing to do from the builder's point of view (it would have been daft to leave a huge maintenance gap), but doing it without consent was a mistake. Resolving the weatherproofing issues should be easy. I doubt the cracks are related.
The real problem here is ending up in a legal dispute over something fairly minor with a neighbour, which can have a horrible impact on quality of life, with lawyers and surveyors potentially aggravating things. I hope they sort it out.
The real problem here is ending up in a legal dispute over something fairly minor with a neighbour, which can have a horrible impact on quality of life, with lawyers and surveyors potentially aggravating things. I hope they sort it out.
-
intexasatthe moment
- Posts: 4127
- Joined: 03 Jul 2008, 02:53
"Think the homes in question are actually on the ED end of Bellenden Road"
What makes you think that rollflick ?
What makes you think that rollflick ?
-
eastdulwichhenry
- Posts: 105
- Joined: 13 Dec 2011, 23:33
Some of them are describing it as a "shanty town"! 
I see it's going to a second day. It's in the county court multi-track (rather than small claims or fast track), which aiui signifies a claim potentially over ?25,000. We don't necessarily know, of course, all the details involved, but opinions like Blackcurrant's look very sensible to me. Anyone really interested who has MS Teams installed could presumably seek viewing access: https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... cause-list, case number H10CL139. I've no idea how restrictive they are, through necessity or otherwise. It's increasingly rare to find any substantive local court reporting nowadays; though county court actions don't usually get public or press attention anyway. I wonder what/who led the Mail to this one.
-
goldilocks
- Posts: 1051
- Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 19:35
I suspect that the people taking the legal action sold the story - there is a bizarre amount of detail in it.
Blackcurrant Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The problem is the infill, which extends beyond
> the party wall and across the boundary but only by
> a small amount. It's in breach of rules but was a
> sensible thing to do from the builder's point of
> view (it would have been daft to leave a huge
> maintenance gap), but doing it without consent was
> a mistake. Resolving the weatherproofing issues
> should be easy. I doubt the cracks are related.
>
> The real problem here is ending up in a legal
> dispute over something fairly minor with a
> neighbour, which can have a horrible impact on
> quality of life, with lawyers and surveyors
> potentially aggravating things. I hope they sort
> it out.
The new extension should have been built away from the boundary line leaving sufficient space for construction/maintenance/ventilation. First extension wins and can build up to the party wall line, second extension needs to build sufficiently back ... unless prepared to pay for new party wall and remodelling of existing extension to attach to new party wall ... not gonna happen
Infill was probably bodged and stuffed with glassfibre insulation, very nice for holding moisture and blocking ventilation allowing damp to infiltrate and cause plenty of damage ... as damage will only be noticed when penetrates through to interior!
-------------------------------------------------------
> The problem is the infill, which extends beyond
> the party wall and across the boundary but only by
> a small amount. It's in breach of rules but was a
> sensible thing to do from the builder's point of
> view (it would have been daft to leave a huge
> maintenance gap), but doing it without consent was
> a mistake. Resolving the weatherproofing issues
> should be easy. I doubt the cracks are related.
>
> The real problem here is ending up in a legal
> dispute over something fairly minor with a
> neighbour, which can have a horrible impact on
> quality of life, with lawyers and surveyors
> potentially aggravating things. I hope they sort
> it out.
The new extension should have been built away from the boundary line leaving sufficient space for construction/maintenance/ventilation. First extension wins and can build up to the party wall line, second extension needs to build sufficiently back ... unless prepared to pay for new party wall and remodelling of existing extension to attach to new party wall ... not gonna happen
Infill was probably bodged and stuffed with glassfibre insulation, very nice for holding moisture and blocking ventilation allowing damp to infiltrate and cause plenty of damage ... as damage will only be noticed when penetrates through to interior!
-
Dogkennelhillbilly
- Posts: 1047
- Joined: 30 Jul 2016, 08:04
rahrahrah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What's the relevance of the "hipster entrepreneurs
> who run gender-neutral kids' clothing firm"
> headline exactly?
It generates interaction, which is what counts. Unfortunately, nasty interaction counts just as much as nice interaction, and is easier to provoke.
-------------------------------------------------------
> What's the relevance of the "hipster entrepreneurs
> who run gender-neutral kids' clothing firm"
> headline exactly?
It generates interaction, which is what counts. Unfortunately, nasty interaction counts just as much as nice interaction, and is easier to provoke.
-
diable rouge
- Posts: 2513
- Joined: 14 May 2018, 09:27
Sue Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
And surely if there was a party wall notice it's a party wall on the boundary?
Party Wall Notices can apply to walls/areas of work that aren't directly on the boundary e.g. foundation works that, if close enough, could undermine the neighbouring property...
-------------------------------------------------------
And surely if there was a party wall notice it's a party wall on the boundary?
Party Wall Notices can apply to walls/areas of work that aren't directly on the boundary e.g. foundation works that, if close enough, could undermine the neighbouring property...
-
Blackcurrant
- Posts: 206
- Joined: 19 Jul 2013, 20:58
redpost Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Blackcurrant Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The problem is the infill, which extends beyond
> > the party wall and across the boundary but only
> by
> > a small amount. It's in breach of rules but was
> a
> > sensible thing to do from the builder's point
> of
> > view (it would have been daft to leave a huge
> > maintenance gap), but doing it without consent
> was
> > a mistake. Resolving the weatherproofing issues
> > should be easy. I doubt the cracks are related.
> >
> > The real problem here is ending up in a legal
> > dispute over something fairly minor with a
> > neighbour, which can have a horrible impact on
> > quality of life, with lawyers and surveyors
> > potentially aggravating things. I hope they
> sort
> > it out.
>
> The new extension should have been built away from
> the boundary line leaving sufficient space for
> construction/maintenance/ventilation. First
> extension wins and can build up to the party wall
> line, second extension needs to build sufficiently
> back ... unless prepared to pay for new party wall
> and remodelling of existing extension to attach to
> new party wall ... not gonna happen
>
> Infill was probably bodged and stuffed with
> glassfibre insulation, very nice for holding
> moisture and blocking ventilation allowing damp to
> infiltrate and cause plenty of damage ... as
> damage will only be noticed when penetrates
> through to interior!
It's standard practice to attach dormers, with or without a new raised masonry party wall. In this case consent was given to build on the party wall, but the existing dormer was slightly short of it, leading to the problem gap. Infill doesn't have to be structural. It could be soundproofing or insulation. But the top needs to be properly weatherproofed or rain will trickle in. A good roofer might have fixed this issue before it ended up in the hands of lawyers.
Lots of sleepless nights on both sides I suspect.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Blackcurrant Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The problem is the infill, which extends beyond
> > the party wall and across the boundary but only
> by
> > a small amount. It's in breach of rules but was
> a
> > sensible thing to do from the builder's point
> of
> > view (it would have been daft to leave a huge
> > maintenance gap), but doing it without consent
> was
> > a mistake. Resolving the weatherproofing issues
> > should be easy. I doubt the cracks are related.
> >
> > The real problem here is ending up in a legal
> > dispute over something fairly minor with a
> > neighbour, which can have a horrible impact on
> > quality of life, with lawyers and surveyors
> > potentially aggravating things. I hope they
> sort
> > it out.
>
> The new extension should have been built away from
> the boundary line leaving sufficient space for
> construction/maintenance/ventilation. First
> extension wins and can build up to the party wall
> line, second extension needs to build sufficiently
> back ... unless prepared to pay for new party wall
> and remodelling of existing extension to attach to
> new party wall ... not gonna happen
>
> Infill was probably bodged and stuffed with
> glassfibre insulation, very nice for holding
> moisture and blocking ventilation allowing damp to
> infiltrate and cause plenty of damage ... as
> damage will only be noticed when penetrates
> through to interior!
It's standard practice to attach dormers, with or without a new raised masonry party wall. In this case consent was given to build on the party wall, but the existing dormer was slightly short of it, leading to the problem gap. Infill doesn't have to be structural. It could be soundproofing or insulation. But the top needs to be properly weatherproofed or rain will trickle in. A good roofer might have fixed this issue before it ended up in the hands of lawyers.
Lots of sleepless nights on both sides I suspect.
So much wrong (yet right) about the article... It gave me a giggle anyway. I'm assuming that Adam sits around at home all day looking wistful and plagiarising John Lennon, while poor Liz has to hold down three jobs just to pay for the nanny to look after their gender neutrally-clothed children, Casper, India and Namaste. Debbie probably worked in Marketing at RBS 20 years ago and is referred to as "banker" to make sure the Brexiteers REALLY hate her.
@Angelina - yes, technically Bellenden Road is Peckham as it's SE15 but it does *feel* very East Dulwich at that end of the road, and it's nearer to ED Station than either Peckham station, so we'll let them off. Some estate agents even call it "Bellenden Village"
The comments about the extensions looking like a shanty town and sheds are spot on IMHO. Perhaps an amicable solution would be to knock both extensions down and build a proper terraced house extension with a proper party wall. It would look a hell of a lot better anyway.
It does make me a bit sick how the tabloids trawl social media to find photos of people in their stories, in situations that are completely unrelated to the issue. But then there's probably a lesson to be learned about not posting your holiday snaps for the whole world to see.
I'm questioning the need for a business that makes gender neutral clothing for 3-12 year olds. It's not like you can't find jeans and t-shirts that aren't all pink princesses and blue diggers in Primark (although I support the idea of ethical / sustainable clothing and you certainly can't buy that in Primark). But hey, if it's made Adam and Liz into millionaire hipsters then good on them.
I still have this niggling thought that Adam has sold this story to the press to promote his band though.
@Angelina - yes, technically Bellenden Road is Peckham as it's SE15 but it does *feel* very East Dulwich at that end of the road, and it's nearer to ED Station than either Peckham station, so we'll let them off. Some estate agents even call it "Bellenden Village"
The comments about the extensions looking like a shanty town and sheds are spot on IMHO. Perhaps an amicable solution would be to knock both extensions down and build a proper terraced house extension with a proper party wall. It would look a hell of a lot better anyway.
It does make me a bit sick how the tabloids trawl social media to find photos of people in their stories, in situations that are completely unrelated to the issue. But then there's probably a lesson to be learned about not posting your holiday snaps for the whole world to see.
I'm questioning the need for a business that makes gender neutral clothing for 3-12 year olds. It's not like you can't find jeans and t-shirts that aren't all pink princesses and blue diggers in Primark (although I support the idea of ethical / sustainable clothing and you certainly can't buy that in Primark). But hey, if it's made Adam and Liz into millionaire hipsters then good on them.
I still have this niggling thought that Adam has sold this story to the press to promote his band though.
-
Jenijenjen
- Posts: 170
- Joined: 26 Sep 2021, 13:16
The result is in
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/ ... 06274.html
Plaintiffs have been awarded ?200 for ?very minor? trespass but have to pay both sides legal fees of ?130,000.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/ ... 06274.html
Plaintiffs have been awarded ?200 for ?very minor? trespass but have to pay both sides legal fees of ?130,000.
Huggers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We in le petit Village Bellenden are happy enough
> to be in Peckham, we don't need to pretend it's
> East Dulwich.
Sheesh how you bell end den people have turned
Sorry autocorrect
-------------------------------------------------------
> We in le petit Village Bellenden are happy enough
> to be in Peckham, we don't need to pretend it's
> East Dulwich.
Sheesh how you bell end den people have turned
Sorry autocorrect
Jenijenjen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The result is in
>
> https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/east-dulwic
> h-couple-failed-bid-demolish-loft-extension-b10062
> 74.html
>
> Plaintiffs have been awarded ?200 for ?very minor?
> trespass but have to pay both sides legal fees of
> ?130,000.
But also 
-------------------------------------------------------
> The result is in
>
> https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/east-dulwic
> h-couple-failed-bid-demolish-loft-extension-b10062
> 74.html
>
> Plaintiffs have been awarded ?200 for ?very minor?
> trespass but have to pay both sides legal fees of
> ?130,000.
But also 
rahrahrah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It was more of a rhetorical question to be honest.
> The Mail really is poisonous.
Poisonous? Wow! Not heard a newspaper described as such.
It's the first thing I read every morning (hard copy delivered by my lovely paperboy) and they really tell it like it is.
-------------------------------------------------------
> It was more of a rhetorical question to be honest.
> The Mail really is poisonous.
Poisonous? Wow! Not heard a newspaper described as such.
It's the first thing I read every morning (hard copy delivered by my lovely paperboy) and they really tell it like it is.
-
legalalien
- Posts: 1629
- Joined: 22 May 2009, 17:21
Bit more detail in this version
https://tdpelmedia.com/couple-loses-cou ... r-trespass
The gender neutral clothing is at https://www.ourlittletribe.co.uk/pages/about-us.
While completely on board with the idea of clothes that can be handed down, describing the tshirts etc as designed to ?transcend siblings? made me smile.
The so-called ?banker? apparently works in regulatory reporting for a bank, so is unlikely to be minted, I can only begin to imagine what a nightmare this has been for her, having made what appears to have been a generous offer to settle.
https://tdpelmedia.com/couple-loses-cou ... r-trespass
The gender neutral clothing is at https://www.ourlittletribe.co.uk/pages/about-us.
While completely on board with the idea of clothes that can be handed down, describing the tshirts etc as designed to ?transcend siblings? made me smile.
The so-called ?banker? apparently works in regulatory reporting for a bank, so is unlikely to be minted, I can only begin to imagine what a nightmare this has been for her, having made what appears to have been a generous offer to settle.
-
kissthisguy
- Posts: 99
- Joined: 15 Oct 2021, 11:07
130K is a massive, massive bill. A painful episode all round. One wonders about the quality of their legal advice.
kissthisguy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 130K is a massive, massive bill. A painful episode
> all round. One wonders about the quality of their
> legal advice.
Probably not that massive if you have shedloads of dosh.
Anyway, they should have thought about that before they started all this. I agree re the possible quality of their legal advice, but perhaps they chose to go ahead regardless.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 130K is a massive, massive bill. A painful episode
> all round. One wonders about the quality of their
> legal advice.
Probably not that massive if you have shedloads of dosh.
Anyway, they should have thought about that before they started all this. I agree re the possible quality of their legal advice, but perhaps they chose to go ahead regardless.
The defendents had offered settlement, which was rejected, I believe. The courts look kindly on reasonable settlements being offered and less kindly on their being rejected. The award made was far less than the settlement offered I believe. Courts do not look kindly on litigation they perceive as vexatious. There was an offence, but it was minor and could be said to partly benefit the claimant by offering weather proof protection to their property. We do not know what advice was given to the claimant by their legal team about accepting or rejecting the settlement offer.
-
tarafitness
- Posts: 784
- Joined: 07 Jan 2009, 22:24
"The court heard Mrs Ranford had sought to avoid the ?enormous costs? of a trial and offered her neighbours ?13,000 to settle the case earlier, but it had been refused."
Well, there you go. Sounds like an expensive lesson was learnt.
Having also been taken to court by a neighbour for completely spurious reasons, I can understand a little how Mrs Ranford feels. However, she still needs to pay 20% of her legal fees which could well end up being more than the amount she offered to settle. What a waste of time and money.
Well, there you go. Sounds like an expensive lesson was learnt.
Having also been taken to court by a neighbour for completely spurious reasons, I can understand a little how Mrs Ranford feels. However, she still needs to pay 20% of her legal fees which could well end up being more than the amount she offered to settle. What a waste of time and money.