trizza

You're more likely to see a Waitrose on Lordship Lane than have Southwark Council remove speed humps. They are obsessed with them: are there actually any side streets in ED (or anywhere else in Southwark for that matter) without them?

James, what have you been driving over the humps in - a land rover? They are awful and damage my golf when going less than 20mph. You can't be serious in suggesting average speed cameras be adopted in all residential areas?

Silka is good. If you want to wander down to Shad Thames the Bengal Clipper is excellent.

The riots have nothing to do with cuts IMO, although I have no doubt that there will be those seeking to blame the government's austerity drive (such as it is). I'm not sure the "youth of today" are any worse than previous generations. However, I think new technology (social networking, BB instant messenger) together with a heard mentality has had a huge impact - allowing young people to organise and interact with each other to arrange disorder in ways that they could not have done 15 years ago. I know the Police do a hard job, but it was depressing to see press footage of looting in the nation's capital with the police just looking on. I hope measures are taken today to put a stop to this and I for one would have no issue with the army (regular or territorial) being deployed to make sure this happens.

This is outrageous - there is no protesting going on and no excuse - it's just wanton criminality. Send in the army.

Trains no longer stopping at Peckham Rye. Just cycled through - felt v dodgy. Lots of people just hanging around and discarded bricks/bollards around Aldi. Police formed up blocking off rye lane just past the station. I'd stay away.

I don't think anyone is claiming that the situation is ideal. I'd agree with Penguin's points - it would be easier to navigate if the junction was widened and the speed humps removed. But you'll never get the council to do anything about these issues - the stock response to these issues seems just to be to take measures to slow or otherwise restrict traffic. Add in a general restriction in funds and a lack of any hard evidence (the council won't do anything without a report) that this is a problem junction and I think you'll find that there is very little appetite to change things.

Am a regular user of this junction and have never had an issue turning left or right. It's not ideal , but it's a junction that crosses a busy main road, so perhaps not for the "faint hearted" (who may be happy with traffic lights at every junction!). Not all junctions in ED can be completely benign and free of any risk and there are many junctions in London that are a lot worse.. The crash stats do not seem to indicate it is really problematic, so people are clearly dealing with it. I just don't think there is really a big problem to solve and would suggest the scarce money for traffic improvements is spent elsewhere where it is needed.

As townleygreen said, the result of your MOT makes NO difference to your road tax band.

I agree these road humps are awful - they scrape my car when I go over them at 15mph! They are the worst I have encountered in Southwark, having lived in the borough for 8 years. i think that stretch of Dunstans falls under Peckham Rye Ward, so it would be an idea to raise the matter with Renata Hamvas - one of the ward councillors. She posts on here too, so may read this thread.

It is a quick road (particulary downhill...) outside of peak hours, but traffic slows substantially as you approach the parade of shops. Southwark simply love speed humps (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23808783-southwark-council-pays-pound-1000-for-speed-hump-in-cul-de-sac.do) so will probably want to riddle FH road with them - TFL may have something to say about that given the number of buses that use the road. Can't see the need for more traffic lights... maybe a couple of 30mph speed cameras?

Applespider "he turned around and said, "what?". Of course the gang got all defensive and revealed a couple of bottles from there jackets..." You're absolutely right that not all groups of kids are potential dangers, but i'm not sure the brandishing of bottles after the jogger asked "what" suggests these kids were just "having a bit of fun". For other posters to suggest that standing up to them (withour anything more) could have have had legal consequences for the jogger if anything had happened is nonsense. There is nothing to prevent someone responding to a challenge - if he had hit them that would have been different. We need more people to stand up to antisocial behaviour - not just walk on and ignore it. The police can't be everywhere.

Just a thought and, without wanting to be a killjoy, you could probably have let the kids from Goodrich loose on the sub station and bollards with some paint (with supervision of course). The result would probably have been a lot more endearing (not sure about the present "jungle theme"...) and would not have cost nearly as much...

Whilst the loss of life was regrettable, the sinking of the Belgrano ensured that the Argentinian navy played no significant role in the conflict (their Aircraft Carrier never left port). IMO the sinking may have actually saved lives in the end. As an aside, I think we forget how risky the whole enterprise was. Certainly no pushover and was actually a very close run thing. Only britain would ship its armed forces across the globe in a white cruise ship... If anyone is interested, i'd thoroughly recommend "Razor's Edge: The Unofficial History of the Falklands War" by Hugh Bicheno. You'd be suprised (or maybe not) just how willing certain people in government were to get rid of the falklands alltogether or provide information to help the Argentinian cause.

I think there was a post on here about the property being the subject of a bit of a family feud. It is a bit of a state.

Don't mind it but it is slightly random. The sub station is a bit much first thing in the morning...!

@ Peterstorm1985 And whether households have more than one car. I'd dare say a few do. What would be interesting is whether the council could get details of how many cars are registered in the catchment area for the CPZ. Presumably, they could get a good idea by asking the DVLA. They would simply provide a list of the addresses in the proposed catchment area to the DVLA and ask (I would hope this would not be too much of an undertaking for the DVLA but you never know...). Granted, the results may not be entirely accurate as some cars owned by residents would be registered to another address and other old residents may not have changed their addresses. However, it would probably be reasonably accurate. Then simply compare this figure with the amount of "potential spaces". I presume the Council would have modelled this based on the length of the roads in the catchment area divided by a "standard car park space". If the result is that there are just too many cars then that may be a factor that would weigh against a CPZ. But if the results are that say there is significant excess capacity then one conclusion to draw from this is that is all used by commuters and that could assist those in favour of a CPZ. Am sure the council will say the above is too difficult, but honestly how long would it take the DVLA/Council to do. At least it would introduce some cold hard facts into the debate!

Check the wiring in the plug is still secure. If it still doesn't work then (after unplugging) remove the bulb. Look into the bulb socket. You will see a metal connector which makes contact with the bottom of the bulb. Use a small screwdriver and gently prise this up a bit so that it is sure to make contact with the bottom of the bulb. I have used this fix on a couple of lamps before which have mysteriously stopped working and it worked.

The scope of the area around the station where the consultation takes place is going to be very interesting. Even if it's just 10 mins walk from the station then you are talking about quite a wide area - at least 1/2 a mile around the station?

garnwba The point being made is that is that these schemes do not always necessarily make life easier and can be inequitable. Do you get x2 permits per house. What about flats in houses? What if you have x2 permits and then need a skip for 2 months while your full dormer loft extension is done? Guaranteed that some marked places will be taken up with disabled and car club bays too (the council love an excuse to put these in). Also if I lived near to Melbourne Groves and was not part of the parking zone i'd get pretty annoyed if people in the zone (or who used to park in the zone) parked on my road - infact i'd want my own zone to keep them out. Slippery slope. Many moons ago I lived in Fulham where controlled parking zones are par for the course. As everywhere had them they were zoned. I lived in a particularly popular zone but was frequently unable to park in other (less busy) zones - a complete nightmare! In the end it clearly had less to do with providing parking for residents and more to do with generating an additional tax on all those with cars. Would not be suprised if the Council pushed this - it could turn out to be a very nice earner for them at ?150 a permit and the best thing is that they will be able to say the residents of ED "asked for it". If there is to be a consultation then the views of residents of neighbouring roads (not in the proposed zone) should be taken account of.

I don't live particulary near a station, but I do live near a family pub and a large park. Often (particulary on sunny weekends) I have to park away from my house because others have parked outside or near to my house. I wonder whether I should petition for a residents only parking scheme on and around "my" road...8am to 6pm on weekends should suffice to force users of said pub and park to use public transport or walk.... On a serious note, residents of Melbourne Grove should be careful what they wish for. They will pay for the scheme, additional permits for skips, contractors, nannys etc. Those with more than one car may also be suprised when they don't get x2 permits. Then there is also the issue of "permit creep" to other roads and expansion of the scheme generally. Even with the scheme, I think residents are barking if they think it will automatically mean they will always be able to park outside their house. Whilst I appreciate not being able to park directly outside your house is annoying, you must have realised that living/buying near a station could make parking a tad tricky (but the location has other advantages). It's a bit like buying a house on a busy road, deciding you don't like the busy road and then demanding traffic calming to make the road less busy.

This is awful - very sorry to hear you are having these problems. I would be carefully looking at getting an injunction against the owner and the other residents of the house preventing them from causing harrassment / a nuisance. It may be worth spending some money on obtaining legal advice to assist you. I would also be pressing Environmental Health to act. The key to all this is evidence. So you need to: a) keep a diary of exactly what is going on; and b) video / pictures (if possible). I would also be writing to the owner of the property where the problems are emanating from putting them on notice. You can get the details of who owns the property from the Land Registry. You may find it is owned by the Council or a Housing Association, in which case you can progress your issues with them direct. If it was me then I would also be painting the roof of my shed with anti climb paint (with the appropriate warning sign ;) ) so, if anything else, the kids' clothes would be ruined if they climbed up there again. Presumably the noise is also impacting on other houses? You could always write or contact them to see if they have any issues. This may bolster your position with environmental health or the Court (should the matter get that far). Good luck.

When I lived in a block of flats in SE1 Thames Water told us they routinely turned the mains pressure down in order to reduce leaks etc. They said they only have an obligation to pump at 1bar pressure (at the point it enters your property) which is pretty low... I suppose one option would be to reconfigure your plumbing to have a megaflow cylinder or similar (to pump hot water at high pressure), but it's not cheap and you need the space.

Same issue on St Aidan's...although we tend to be up before 6.30am so it does not cause us many problems. Just demand I suppose.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > womanofdulwich Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > but why would you? > > Because insurance contracts are governed by the > doctrine of utmost good faith - meaning that you > are obliged to make a full declaration of all > material facts. Should you have an accident and > insurers find you have not declared something then > they may decline to pay out on that basis. > > Warning: I am not a lawyer. Or an actuary, for > that matter. Sorry to be legal, but we need to distinguish between a pre contractual and post contractual duty of good faith. Pre contractual would cover off your duty to disclose all material facts to your insurers, post contractual duties would include, for example, the duty not to make a dishonest claim. As to pre contractual duties, these do not arise for MM at this stage as his policy is mid term. An issue may arise when he renews. Although MM would have a duty to disclose all material facts, the reality is that with consumer insurance this duty is generally limited to giving accurate and honest answers to questions posed to him by his insurer. These questions would usually include "have you ever made a claim" - if MM does not make a claim on his policy in respect of his damaged car then he would be right to answer this "no". The position would be different if the question is "have you ever had a car broken into but not made a claim" - but car insurers never ask that question. Why? They are probably not that interested in events that do not cause a financial loss for them and other insurers. In addition, if policyholders had to declare every potentially insured event which they do not claim for (scratches, dings etc) then the insurers would be inundated! As for post contractual duties, I think it is unlikely that this is the sort of thing MM owes a duty to tell them about unless, for example, the car is left in a dangerous state or is now more easy to steal (thereby giving rise to an increase in the risk). Even then, I doubt very much insurers would take a point. If I were you MM I would disable the vehicle, then get it scrapped, cancel the insurance and reclaim your road tax. If they ask you why are cancelling you can always tell them at that stage (bearing in mind your post contractual duty of good faith - obviously...). I very much doubt they will care (even if they do ask and you tell them).