Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I fought it was because the numbers didn't add up. There was still more cars than spaces, as the effect of the station did not seem to be a large causal factor. The CPZ would also have lessened the total number of spaces and then charged everyone ?90+ a year without fixing the problem. I suspect only St Francis Place and maybe Melbourne Grove would have benefited (being the only ones with a commuter parking issue), but the knock on effects would have effected load of streets as it pushed parking around.

Agree with Loz. I fought the CPZ because I'd done the sums on the number of cars in my street, and the proposed layout of parking bays, and knowing who would or would not cough up, we were all* going to be ?90 down and no better off.


*Not me though as I have off street parking - (but the CPZ would have put a double yellow line across the frontage so no visitors could park across my driveway!)

But you can ask Southwark to reserve space by suspending parking. For genuine reasons, such as moving, large deliveries, funerals etc, you can apply here.....


http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/473/guide_to_parking/2818/suspension_of_parking_bays/1


There really is no reason for people to put out bins for these things, and if you do put out a bin, drivers are under no obligation to respect that.

In response to everyone who's replied. I was well within my rights to cordon off this particular spot because as I said before, on my street there genuinely is this unwritten rule about parking. I know all my neighbours fairly well and we have quite a narrow road here so it's not used as a cut through or place to park for outsiders (very very rarely). In response to SJ, I moved my car quite a distance (three streets away) about an hour before the plumber told us he would be coming. I did this because rather than just move my car when he arrives, I knew it would take a while for me to find a space, and park up and walk back again etc. very long winded so I took to the exceptional measure of reserving my usual 'spot' with a wheelie bin. Stupidly I forgot to put a note on the bin (just wasn't thinking). And as it was all last minute I didn't think to call the council or anything else for that matter just presumed it wouldn't be an issue, how wrong was I? I agree with everyone who's mentioned the CPZ. Great idea. I'd be more than happy to contribute towards one. The plumber turned up 20 minutes later than planned and was forced to park a fair bit away, I had to apologise for the parking situation and the ignorant RED FORD FIESTA driver.


Louisa.

I think reserving a spot with a bin is ignorant. With a note on it, it would be different. It's your own fault you just weren't thinking.


You don't actually know why the RED FORD FIESTA driver actually took the spot. They could have been on a mercy mission or something of equal importance to your need at the time.

AM it's not ignorant if it's for a justifiable reason! what's ignorant is being the person who would physically remove a bin that's clearly been put in place to reserve a space for any number of reasons. This person would have known this, and what's all the more infuriating is this person isn't even a resident! Bloody cheek I say. And even if they did have an emergency, I reserved the space first! therefore it was my space. I don't understand why no one can appreciate this point.


Louisa.

I SO don't want to revive the views on CPZ as I know it has been done to death previously, and it will be resurrected when the issue is raised again. BUT, as someone who has LIVED THE CPZ! [i moved from St Albans where it is well and truly established], I just want to say one thing... It is the spawn of the devil!!

It will occupy your thinking each and every day, when you are in your car all the way home from work...its not 'at last, I will be able to park outside my house', it will be...everyone is arriving home about now, will there be any spaces left? You will feel entitled as you have paid good money but that means nothing. You will be issued with a 'limited' number of visitors permits [at a cost] and, depending on how close you are to the centre of the CPZ, will be restricted to the number of hours they can stay for. [between 1 and 4]. Someone drops by for 5 minutes and you spend most of it looking out of the window, checking for wardens . If you can see the road, that is. When you have used up your allocation of visitor permits you will have to write to the council to plead why you should have more. [What business is it of theirs?] Every day your streets will be patrolled by Gestapo-looking wardens [ours were ready at the corner of the street at 7.55am every Sat morning] and they were a permanent presence, thus adding a negative vibe to the street. Every day but Sunday.

It might cost you for the permit but when the cleaning lady comes, the man to fix the boiler, babysitter, etc etc, you have to be on top of the visitor permits. I was caught a number of times...returning home in the middle of the night after visiting ill parents, parked with the intention of moving before the wardens came, slept in,..?68. Friends staying over and parking on double yellow til morning, forgot and another ?68, cleaning lady stays longer, another ?68. Believe me, you will spend more time thinking about CPZ than you realise. renewing your permit...you must have proof of ownership of car, utility bill from the last 3 mths, [no photocopy],I.D, previous permit, etc. The biggest negative is the permanent presence of dour looking wardens [no matter how pleasant I might be to them, they get a lot of stick] and it made the happy neighbourhood I lived in feel like a warden-controlled state. And, once established, they changed NOTHING, despite our many objections, including the timing [we were .5 mile from city centre but had an 8am to 8pm restriction].

SO...sorry for the knee-jerk response but, after 14mths back in ED, the scars remain.

And I think its fair to say that the point of the CPZ was not to provide a better system for people to park outside their house but to prevent commuters, and such, from parking there for long periods of time.

Sorry Louisa, I feel like I have burst your bubble.

Ha ha ha...you actually believe in your own grandiose scheme, and i'm intrigued by the whole possession of space thing


And now someone's popped your little bubble, you're exasperated but too belligerent to put your hands up and say "OMG, what was i thinking with the bin", which is even funnier


Still, now you're clear about the boundaries and CPZ, you can mentally roll back your land grab and join the masses


It's way classier and free or FREE if that helps

Seabag what are you rambling on about? Who was that point aimed at?


If it was me then ermm no-one has popped anyone's bubble. What a bizarre comment. Aren't you the one who plays childish games with your neighbour? How old are you? That sure is noble of you. And to be honest, makes you look like a first prize lemon, which you can't even see, which to use your phrase "is even funnier". Yawn. There will be no land grab roll back, this was a one off thing I did for an emergency boiler repair, and not some pathetic ongoing dispute with a neighbour just because you have half a dozen motor vehicles.


Louisa.

Louisa Wrote:

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

what's ignorant is being the person who

> would physically remove a bin that's clearly been

> put in place to reserve a space for any number of

> reasons.

As has been pointed out thus far. You cannot legally 'reserve' any space on the public highway by putting your bin there


> This person would have known this, and

> what's all the more infuriating is this person

> isn't even a resident!

Of the UK ?


> Bloody cheek I say. And

> even if they did have an emergency, I reserved the

> space first! therefore it was my space.

Wrong again, see above. Plus your boiler breaking down was an inconvenience, not an emergency, unless it was a life and death situation. High drama at its best I'd say


> I don't

> understand why no one can appreciate this point.


Maybe all the above will clear up your last point

>

> Louisa.

PokerTime Wrote:

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

> But you can ask Southwark to reserve space by

> suspending parking. For genuine reasons, such as

> moving, large deliveries, funerals etc, you can

> apply here.....

>

> http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/473/guide_to_park

> ing/2818/suspension_of_parking_bays/1

>

> There really is no reason for people to put out

> bins for these things, and if you do put out a

> bin, drivers are under no obligation to respect

> that.



So, PokerTime,drivers are under no obligation to respect a funeral. What a sad indictment of the society we now find ourselves living in.

What I wrote was that parking can be reserved for things like funerals by applying to the council. And that legally no space can be reserved by placing a bin on it (whatever the reason). Those are the facts. What any driver might do or not do morally is up to them, but there is no requirement under the law for a driver to respond to a bin. Anyway, we are not talking about a funeral here. We are talking about someone throwing a hissy fit because a plumber couldn't park directly outside their home. Like I said above, did said plumber not attend the job as a result? No...he used his legs like many people do every day.

PokerTime, that is the point, regardless of what the law says, there is a moral duty by people to respect the fact another road user/resident has for whatever reason had to take the urgent step to reserve a space outside their property. The fact someone has the audacity to come along, MOVE a bin to one side and path their car in its place shows the ultimate in complete disregard for someone else. Yes the plumber made it round, but he was inconvenienced as was I, both of us had other plans which were out back due to the poor plumber being forced to park a while away. Btw I'm not throwing a hissy fit, I'm simply exposing yet another ignorant non-resident of my street who believes they can flout the 'law of respectability' by stealing a reserved space.


Louisa.

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...