Red Van Plague

[Huguenot]

I don't think that you could isolate Tezza, he does no more than the Estate Agents.

There is a law to combat this, involved with using the public highway for commercial storage, but you'd need a few quid to pursue it.

[Mikecg]

Yea it's called road tax.

[Huguenot]

I understand Terry's all paid up and legit.

He's behaving irresponsibly, but within his rights!

[*Bob*]

I think Saatchi should sign him up.

If he can generate this amount of local and national publicity with a tin of white paint and a shaky hand, who knows what he could accomplish with a real budget.

[HonaloochieB]

annaj Wrote:

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

> Sue, I'm glad it's not just me, I thought it was

> just one van that moved about for ages. I believe

> it was the good Mr MacGabhann who finally

> convinced me that it wasn't.

>

> Are people really that bothered by these vans?

> I don't really see anything to get upset about.

Not just you AnnaJ, I was convinced there was just the one van, does he have a template for the amateurish singing, or what?

But as I mentioned on the flyposting thread yesterday I spotting one in a a block of flats in Brixton, so the penny finally dropped.

I've still yet to actually see one in motion.

[lenk]

johnhinton Wrote:

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

> Guess I've got a sense of humour failure, but

> these vans are eyesores (and not as amateur/just

> trying to make a living as they appear). I

> wouldn't like a billboard opposite my house or a

> van parked with a huge sign (as these are). If the

> vans were parked in the normal course of business,

> that would be fine - but not parked for weeks.

> There is little enough road space for parking

> anyway. Not illegal, but bad manners and a bad

> example. I wouldn't want my house or walls or

> fences covered in the kind of graffiti that the

> vans appear to emulate. (I don't much care for the

> crackhouse aesthetic anyway, which proves how

> middle-aged I am).

There are far, far worse things I can think of that could be painted on a van and parked outside your house.

[Michael Palaeologus]

Damn good advertising for him, the photos show the price and phone number very clearly. I expect he will get a surge of bookings.

[eater81]

Honestly, let the poor guy have his business. How anybody can find these vans offensive I do not know. As for the original poster complaining that they are an eyesore! There are a thousand eyesores in East Dulwich alone. This is South London, eyesore city.

[lenk]

eater81 Wrote:

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

> Honestly, let the poor guy have his business. How

> anybody can find these vans offensive I do not

> know. As for the original poster complaining that

> they are an eyesore! There are a thousand

> eyesores in East Dulwich alone. This is South

> London, eyesore city.

There's a certain Blake mural that isn't to my tastes, maybe we could have that building torn down?

And have you seen all the graffiti on the roof on Somerfield?

[dv1]

> > Honestly, let the poor guy have his business.

> How

> > anybody can find these vans offensive I do not

> > know. As for the original poster complaining

> that

> > they are an eyesore! There are a thousand

> > eyesores in East Dulwich alone. This is South

> > London, eyesore city.

>

You would no doubt have a different view if they were parked outside your house for months on end.

Since they never seem to be used, I don't see how the owner can be making any money - they are all taxed and MOT'd. Does anyone use them or know anyone who has used them?

[????]

They're legal, they're paying road tax, what's the problem? They even tend to be parked in relatively 'empty' places - eg not right outside your gaff. I much prefer these to the Foxton mini's et al.

[jaybee82]

Sorry, I did care until I saw the article above. Then was completely distracted by "Sarah Harding jumps into tiny denim playsuit to take her dog for walkies". Sigh.

[dbboy]

Maybe the vans are his way of marketing the business, he certainly has got everyone discussing his business, so its working and this thread is helping to perpetuate his business further. Personally if he's providing a service good to him, if his customers are not happy he'll know soon enough from not having sufficient work to maintain it.

Businesses have to start somewhere, he's taken an alternative approach and it seems to be working by the increasing number of vans that appear. Perhaps one day he'll be able to up grade to newer vehicles and then people won't be so concerned about the issue.

[eater81]

Dv1, no, to be honest I couldn't give a sh1t if one were parked outside my house. Have those that have complained about these "terrible eyesores" thought about asking the van man if he would mind moving them to another street? Iam sure he would be happy to if he realised the that he is causing whole streets to go to the dogs and mortally offending honest hard working citizens of east dulwich.

[charliecharlie]

  Quote

That's a good point... I have never seen one being driven, only ever parked

Has anyone ever seen one on the move???????

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3335/3475846814_53ed725650.jpg?v=0

[Acid Casual]

Actually, Quids' comment has been for me the most accurate post on the thread. The sole difference between these vans and the fleet of Foxtons minis that have swamped London is the aesthetic, and I notice that the original poster has not mentioned these.

In fact, I have a mate who has married a wannabe footballer's wife who actually welcomes Foxtons' cars clogging up her street because "it shows the area is riding out the housing slump" naturally my response is "you are a stuck up twat" but she's just the sort of outraged nimby who'd start a thread like this.

Live and let live. The bloke's not exactly Peter Rachman or Nicholas Van Hoogstraten is he? A few vans parked legally on a public highway. Big deal! Eff off and do something useful with your free time.

[RosieH]

And let us not forget the Ludlow Thompson abominations (although have they gone by the by now?)

I definitely think these vans are preferable - after all, they do fit the independent I heart East Dulwich handmade organic non-plastic bag ethic. I like 'em, and if ever I need a man with a van, I know who I'll be calling.

[Bellenden Belle]

RosieH Wrote:

"if ever I need a man with

> a van, I know who I'll be calling."

I think I must be the only person in East Dulwich to have used this service.

And I hate to disappoint but it wasn't a great experience.... "man with a van"? Nope, read that graffiti scrawl again: Driver with a van. They refuse to get out of the driver's seat without additional payment. And that information is delivered in such a charmless manner, that one's memory of the quirky cheerful red van soon seems strangely discordant.

[RosieH]

Oh no, this is terrible news.

*weeps salty tears of disillusionment*

[Sue]

:-S

[Green Goose]

eater81 Wrote:

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

> Honestly, let the poor guy have his business. How

> anybody can find these vans offensive I do not

> know. As for the original poster complaining that

> they are an eyesore! There are a thousand

> eyesores in East Dulwich alone. This is South

> London, eyesore city.

Sucker.

He's not a poor guy at all. Mr Kilty is a very astute entrepreneur and property developer. Check out Lambeth planning applications and you will see one from him for a 5 storey development on Denmark Hill. To his credit he has identified a very cost-effective method of advertising.

One can buy these old vans for around ?50. The road tax and MOT might well come out at around ?200. There is no wear and tear whilst parked, so the following year?s MOT is a virtual formality. So for under ?300 per year he has permanent advertising in prominent locations around South London. All perfectly legal. Nice one.

The unprofessional sign writing further strengths the perception that the van is operated by a poor hard-working chap who is struggling to get by. The truth is somewhat different.

It is commendable that most people are tolerant and ever willing to let the next guy get affair crack of the whip but sometimes the other guy is not always what some of us might assume.

As for the estimated 1000 eyesores in East Dulwich that you mentioned, that may well be right but wouldn?t it be better if we had fewer? As a matter of principle, if we always accept and tolerate every new eyesore that is imposed upon our community then we are all poorer for it.

I?ll now put my tin hat back on and await the deluge ;-)

[lenk]

You can?t get rid of something just because you don?t like it though.

If he?s not breaking the law, then he?s not breaking the law.

I couldn?t give a flying monkey?s about ?eyesores?.

Have you ever looked around London? The entire place is an eyesore. It?s why it?s good.

If you want bucolic tranquillity with an uncluttered landscape, I can suggest a few places you could consider living.

[LegalEagle-ish]

I used his service as an emergency back up when i moved to ED, two and a half years ago and it's true, they won't get out of the van without extra payment and you can only book a minimum of 2 hrs.

The driver i had was a surly git and threatened to dump all my stuff half a mile from my house because i didn't have the money to pay for extra time. In the end we managed to force him to drive to my house and with 4 of us unloading he was only 10 minutes over the 2 hrs.

I've never used his service since and i think that may be a clue as to why he has to advertise everywhere, word of mouth won't get him much work!

[Green Goose]

lenk Wrote:

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

> If he?s not breaking the law, then he?s not

> breaking the law.

>

> I couldn?t give a flying monkey?s about

> ?eyesores?.

>

> Have you ever looked around London? The entire

> place is an eyesore. It?s why it?s good.

>

> If you want bucolic tranquillity with an

> uncluttered landscape, I can suggest a few places

> you could consider living.

He is not breaking the law as it stands today. But moves are underway to get the law changed.

As for London, it is not all eyesores but for those who appreciate them, there is plenty of choice. Enjoy.

[lenk]

Green Goose Wrote:

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

> He is not breaking the law as it stands today.

> But moves are underway to get the law changed.

>

Really?

The Parked Van Act of 2009 eh?

I imagine it'll be a Three Line Whip when that one gets to Parliament...