|Posted on Wednesday, 07 February, 2007 - 03:59 pm: |
Whilst walking home from our splendid new local The Honour Oak on Saturday evening we noticed there are plans in the window of the old Indian restaurant on the corner of Stanstead Rd and Brockley Rise for a new wine bar.
We're turning into a veritable Las Vegas down my way!
Does anyone know anything more about this potential development?
|Posted on Wednesday, 07 February, 2007 - 05:42 pm: |
there was a note to that effect on The Honor Oak thread. No information that I know of.
Also, there is talk of Aceri opening as a wine bar too (as per rumours on the New Coffee and Juice Bar thread).
Let's see what actually happens, but choice is a good thing. The more alternatives there are, the more people are likely to try the area, so it is good for all businesses.
|Posted on Friday, 09 February, 2007 - 09:09 pm: |
I noticed this too and had a look at the planning application on Lewisham Council's website:
http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/LEWIS-XSLPagesDC/ac olnetcgi.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeDocs&Th eSystemkey=49255
It says "we propose changing the business into a neighbourhood lounge bar" called One Two Three "to create a comfortable, welcoming and inexpensive environment for the local community to meet and socialise".
It will be interesting to see what sort of bar it will be and whether it gets planning approval or not.
|Posted on Monday, 12 February, 2007 - 03:18 pm: |
Just drove past the old 'Benegal' restaurant.
I don't know if their planning permission etc has gone through, but the public notice was ripped down and replaced with large colourful lettering that a new bar is opening soon!
The plot thickens....
|Posted on Monday, 12 February, 2007 - 03:45 pm: |
I'll believe it when I see it! I remember some months ago, afder the restaurant had closed, there was a sign on the shutters saying they hoped to re-open soon and that the closure had been forced by (and I'm paraphrasing now) the inexplicable decision by Lewisham Planning dept!
Seems like they were previously operating in breach of/without planning permission so remains to be seen whether the new place will comply if it's the same owners...
|Posted on Monday, 12 February, 2007 - 05:00 pm: |
The paperwork submitted to Lewisham planning dept says the premises can’t be used as a restaurant due to the “kitchen vent court order”. The new people plan to completely remove the kitchen range and instead provide food and snacks “that will only require microwave heating, sandwich toaster or similar”. Yum!
|Posted on Monday, 12 February, 2007 - 05:13 pm: |
sounds delicious!! But if they're going for the winebar approach then presumably it'll be bowls of olives and nuts etc so no real need for a kitchen.
Let's just hope they've done their research and we don't get yet another fly by night operation.
|Posted on Friday, 23 February, 2007 - 12:50 pm: |
It has now been renamed eagle bar, using the same lettering from Bengal Baburche..
|Posted on Friday, 23 February, 2007 - 02:28 pm: |
Ingenious indeed! Although I would have preferred "Banal Beech Grub" or "Barge Lunch Babe", to avoid wasting letters.
|Posted on Friday, 23 February, 2007 - 02:51 pm: |
They would have had to order a capital G or L especially though for your suggestions. 10 out of 10 to the owners for ingenuity and for making me laugh. Has anyone checked if the owner is a Mr D Trotter?
|Posted on Friday, 23 February, 2007 - 02:53 pm: |
Didn't they originally propose to name it "One Two Three"? Seems like they had all the wrong letters. It's like how I usually feel when playing Scrabble.
|Posted on Friday, 23 February, 2007 - 02:54 pm: |
I believe they ruled out some other options despite the letters being available:
Beach Bar Bungle
Acne Hag Blubber
Urbane Belch Bag
Babe Hanger Club
Hen Cabbage Blur
|Posted on Friday, 23 February, 2007 - 07:22 pm: |
So far I think it's Hen Cabbage Blur that represents the real missed opportunity here.
Now thats a wine bar I would visit.
|Posted on Friday, 23 February, 2007 - 08:06 pm: |
Oh, I don't know. I would think that "Babe Hanger Club" would attract the most clients (all male hoping to meet the babes who in turn would stay a million miles away)
I'm thinking of changing my screenID name to "Urbane Belch Bag" though
|Posted on Friday, 23 February, 2007 - 08:34 pm: |
How about a Hubble Bang Race ?
|Posted on Friday, 23 February, 2007 - 08:59 pm: |
Perhaps you're right Urbane Belch Bag, I have changed my mind!
Babe Hanger Club has a real ring to it.
I hope this thread develops in the same way the Honor Oaks did, following the redevelopment as the bar is renamed on a weekly basis.
Looking forward to the opening night party now at the BHC!
|Posted on Wednesday, 28 February, 2007 - 05:50 pm: |
Have noticed new signage 'eagle bar' suspiciously similar to 'equal bar' and guess what? they even have the same typeface as the 'equal bar' logo . Does anyone know any good copyright lawyers? - Owner of equal bar!!
|Posted on Thursday, 01 March, 2007 - 01:11 pm: |
actually I do know a copyright lawyer, will check it out next time we pass by!
|Posted on Thursday, 01 March, 2007 - 01:36 pm: |
I doubt this is worth it. They have re-used their old lettering, nothing else.
I hope a little more thought/investment goes into the "wine" part of this wine bar.
|Posted on Friday, 02 March, 2007 - 12:34 pm: |
It's not a copyright issue, would be either Trademark or "passing off" (Intellectual Property), and yes it is simply old lettering re-arranged - we passed by last night. Not a good omen I agree.
|Posted on Monday, 05 March, 2007 - 11:32 am: |
I do actually have equal trademarked and have appealed to the owner to think again as it will be a rather costly exercise should I press ahead. A rearrangement of letters or not it still dilutes the good name of equal.
|Posted on Monday, 05 March, 2007 - 12:05 pm: |
Ana, I had previously thought you were joking. You surely can't be serious.
|Posted on Monday, 05 March, 2007 - 02:03 pm: |
Presumably this is the registration?
|Posted on Monday, 05 March, 2007 - 02:17 pm: |
Impressed Dave you are correct, where Equal's reputation is concerned I do not mess around, I take my business very seriously, the typeface is trademarked and the fact that eagle sounds like equal can be argued. But i think there is nothing quite like public awareness on sites like this that will ultimately persuade the owner to rethink.
|Posted on Monday, 05 March, 2007 - 03:37 pm: |
You're probably lucky they didn't have a q in their spare letters, Ana.
Like Dotcom, I can't believe you're being serious. Is the reputation of Equal that precarious?
|Posted on Monday, 05 March, 2007 - 04:01 pm: |
Obviously not otherwise people would not want to cash in on our success, isn't that the point of all this?? I just don't want people unfamiliar with Equal's service to somehow associate with somewhere else, no matter how tenuous the link may seem to you, it's called BRANDING.
|Posted on Monday, 05 March, 2007 - 04:02 pm: |
Are the famous Equal loo and "no draught beer" policy patented too?
Perhaps it will have to be Babe hanger cluB after all then...
|Posted on Monday, 05 March, 2007 - 04:13 pm: |
Actually, we have always had draught beers since Aug 2001 when we opened. Suggest politely that go and see the eagle bar sign yourself, and then equal's logo and then tell me that it does not look like the equal name and signage. I have invested a lot in the local area and community , can you say the same?
|Posted on Monday, 05 March, 2007 - 04:22 pm: |
Ana, I think you need to lie down.
(Metaphorically and literally).
|Posted on Monday, 05 March, 2007 - 04:38 pm: |
Not my style! Tee hee!
|Posted on Monday, 05 March, 2007 - 05:18 pm: |
Too many late nights?
For goodness' sake, they're not trying to cash in on the success of Bar Equal, enviable as it is, they are trying to start a business and minimise their financial risk at the same time. Do you really think you're going to win friends for your bar by hounding start-ups into extra expense at a time when they can least afford it, then posting the gory details on a forum for local people?
|Posted on Monday, 05 March, 2007 - 06:29 pm: |
Equal has the right to protect it's name and brand. This is a debate about trademarking, hardly the stuff of Hammer house gore and Dadid vs Goliath!! , the new owner will benefit in the long run by a change of name, and judging from some of the harsh comments people have made on the site prior to the trademark debate i think a change of name would benefit all concerned.
|Posted on Monday, 05 March, 2007 - 06:39 pm: |
I'm with Ana. While I welcome all new businesses in the area I think they tried to use Babur's reputation with their previous name and I don't know what they are trying to do now. I doubt there will be much confusion between the two bars, but if they are trying to do the same as they did with Babur somebody does need to stand up to them. One Two Three is a much better name and I hope they use this instead.
|Posted on Monday, 05 March, 2007 - 06:46 pm: |
I must say that the old name Barbuche used to confuse me before we moved to HOP. Friends who lived in HOP used to tell us about Babur and I always though they meant that restaurant until we moved here and discovered Babur was actually further up the road so maybe Ana does have a point.
|Posted on Monday, 05 March, 2007 - 07:50 pm: |
Better to challenge it now than regret it later.
|Posted on Monday, 05 March, 2007 - 08:02 pm: |
I still think it's a bit nuts, but there you go.
|Posted on Tuesday, 06 March, 2007 - 01:01 pm: |
Come on folks, give them a chance - they haven't even opened up yet! I didn't make any connection between the two names until reading it on this site.
|Posted on Tuesday, 06 March, 2007 - 02:52 pm: |
I'd have to agree... it does sound rather petty...
|Posted on Tuesday, 06 March, 2007 - 04:12 pm: |
I'm not an IP lawyer but from vague recollection of IP at law school for a passing off claim to succeed you have to show a genuine risk of confusion between the two brands.
I honestly don't believe that many people would think that Equal bar and eagle bar are of the same family so Ana would probably be wasting good money going after them with no real benefit.
I also agree with other posters that it does seem rather petty and as such it could hurt goodwill to her own business if she's seen to be attacking other local start-ups.
|Posted on Tuesday, 06 March, 2007 - 04:44 pm: |
Just spoken to the owners who have seen your comments, they have agreed to change the name, they had no idea the name was so similar, it will be down by next week. It was a genuine oversight. We should all wish them luck and I thank you all for contributing to a genuine issue of local interest - it has certainly saved a fortune in legal fees, not that I ever intended to make my lawyer any richer! I think I owe you all a drink if you are willing to own up to your id's!!.
|Posted on Tuesday, 06 March, 2007 - 06:13 pm: |
The angle bar - is the new name, it is on an angle. Acutely clever wouldn't you say?
|Posted on Tuesday, 06 March, 2007 - 06:15 pm: |
I like that better actually!
They've definitely earned themselves some goodwill here, anyway. I love the idea of a local wine bar and will be visiting soon.
|Posted on Tuesday, 06 March, 2007 - 06:20 pm: |
fingers crossed here too.
and if the owners are reading this, may I casually suggest they replicate the clever idea that Jason at Tapastry had which was to invite a few locals, loyal readers and posters to se23.com, to review their wine choices and give some feedback before they commit to their wine list?
Any volunteers? Please form an orderly queue behind me!
|Posted on Tuesday, 06 March, 2007 - 06:37 pm: |
The Angle Bar has a better ring to it. Clever.
|Posted on Wednesday, 07 March, 2007 - 10:41 am: |
Ana, no thanks.
|Posted on Wednesday, 07 March, 2007 - 10:45 am: |
Dotcom, judging by your attitude you are probably under age anyway.
|Posted on Wednesday, 07 March, 2007 - 12:16 pm: |
If the owners of Angle Bar are reading this - please join us so we can have some input in your refurb! I live right round the corner from you and would love somewhere to drink wine nearby!
|Posted on Saturday, 10 March, 2007 - 09:14 pm: |
Ana - I have no intentions of starting a slagging match here, but your posts on this and other threads is really going to lose you customers/potential customers. I have not tried your bar but had good intentions of doing so. I simply no longer want to. Your attitude could be hurtful to your business.
|Posted on Sunday, 11 March, 2007 - 06:09 pm: |
Glad that the matter has been resolved and support Ana's moves to protect her business name, but I have to a agree with Ab3.
Also the comment that refers to "those unfamiliar with Equal's service" did make me smile. The only service I have experienced in Equal is slow, with badly mixed cocktails in a smoky, poorly laid out environment that doesn't know what it is. Healthy competition can only ever be a good thing.
|Posted on Monday, 12 March, 2007 - 09:48 am: |
I think Ab3 is right about building up local support. The developers of the Puzzle, Dartmouth Arms, and now Honour Oak all seemed very open to feedback and were always highly responsive. Amazingly, all 3 ventures are succeeding in their chosen markets.
Aceri never made the effort, and look what happened.
Maybe there's a pattern here?
|Posted on Monday, 12 March, 2007 - 10:20 am: |
What are where is Puzzle?
Its not linked to the pub chain is it?
|Posted on Monday, 12 March, 2007 - 10:23 am: |
I interpreted it as either an oblique reference or humorous slip relating to Question Bar
|Posted on Tuesday, 13 March, 2007 - 10:28 am: |
Whoops. Confusing my pubs. The Puzzle was one I used to go to in Lavender Hill. Puzzle... Question... yadyyadah....
|Posted on Tuesday, 13 March, 2007 - 02:18 pm: |
I would just like to say thank you very much to everyone in respect of this thread. Its discovery has really brightened my day.
My understanding is that it is very unlikely that 'passing off' would apply where the two establishments have different names, whether they sound similar not. The argument that they sound similar is tenuous at best.
Also, your typeface is not trademarked, Ana - use of the 'Equal' name in said typeface may well be, but both things in conjunction are required to be registered as a trade mark. Hence the similarity of the typeface is irrelevant from this perspective unless they start using the font to write the word 'equal'.
That said, if you had commissioned the typeface yourself and owned the copyright on it there would be a different case to answer. But alas the typeface you're both using seems to be about the second-most-bland sans-serif face in existence, so I very much doubt this is the case.
Finally, much as it is amusing to see you patronise people, I would suggest that if you were really that hot on "BRANDING", it would take more than a local takeaway rearranging the letters of their God-knows-how-old sign to jeopardise your corporate identity.
|Posted on Tuesday, 13 March, 2007 - 02:39 pm: |
Sorry I should clarify that that last post was me and the cookies on Jamie's computer unfortunately took over - apologies.
|Posted on Tuesday, 13 March, 2007 - 04:08 pm: |
I would hope that Jamie would want to distance himself and the Honor Oak from your post Jamesh, especially since he is a fellow bar manager. I think success often offends people and it is interesting to see how low people can get especially after the fact. I think the name has been successfully changed with an admission that an oversight was made and this speaks volumes. As one of the few female bar owners in London, I am used to condecension and am accused of many things that would not otherwise be levelled if I were your typical South London Guv'ner but coming from another bar owner/manager or whoever you are in relation to the Honor Oak - that is particularly hurtful. This forum should not be used in such a way and in no way have I detracted prior to this other then in discussions on the issue of trademark it has however been used as an excuse to make personal pops at me and my business over an issue that ia actually quite relevent to a local forum.
|Posted on Tuesday, 13 March, 2007 - 04:46 pm: |
I did not intend to take any pop whatsoever at your business, or you personally other than to say that I thought you had been rather patronising earlier in the thread.
You are quite correct in that it would be inappropriate for me to pass any judgment about the running of Bar Equal in this forum (not that I would personally have anything negative to say at present anyway), as irrespective of any ethical concern in doing so, you have clearly run a successful business for quite some now, and derserve respect for having done so. This, for my part, you have.
None of my comments were made with any reference to your gender and I am sorry that you are concerned that they were. However, I did take exception to the manner in which you had addressed some of the earlier contributiors, and I wanted to take issue with you from that perspective.
Arguably, on reflection, it was not my place to do so, and if I have hurt you then I apologise without reservation.
My intention was only to respond to your personal comments, not to criticise the running of your business, and if anyone has read my previous post and interpreted it otherwise then I retract it in its entirety.
|Posted on Tuesday, 13 March, 2007 - 05:04 pm: |
You will see that I replied to all the contributors as a reaction to some quite unfair comments eg. suggestions that my business's reputation might be 'precarious', that I should patent my misleading 'no draught' policy, the suggestion I was 'hounding some poor new bar owner'. Dotcoms sacrcastic remark refusing a genuine offer of a drink!! Maybe I should be a good little girl and take it all lying down as Dotcom suggested, it takes guts to be in the bar industry as you know, and standing my ground should not be seen as patronising. You should know better. Equal is not to everyones tastes I know that,and you will see I did not rise to Jojo's comments about our service as this was completely irrelevent to the topic in hand.
In the meantime, I unreservedly accept your best wishes and that you did not mean to hurt me and I await your invitation for a drink!
|Posted on Wednesday, 14 March, 2007 - 09:33 am: |
On a brighter note, I think I can speak for all when I thank the both of you for making the effort to set up and run businesses that definitely contribute to the area. I hope your efforts are suitably rewarded!
|Posted on Wednesday, 14 March, 2007 - 11:07 am: |
|Posted on Wednesday, 14 March, 2007 - 11:15 am: |
I don't think so. And I think you should stop trying to wind up local business people.
|Posted on Wednesday, 14 March, 2007 - 11:22 am: |
I'm not trying to wind up local business people. I thought that to pursue a copyright issue against a new business in the area was unhelpful to the community.
|Posted on Wednesday, 14 March, 2007 - 12:18 pm: |
I love this thread! Next thing we know there'll be a threatened defamation action! No grounds for it but it'll be threatened anyway...
|Posted on Wednesday, 14 March, 2007 - 01:10 pm: |
I think it is a passing off issue. Such an action is often difficult to prove. Mohammad Al Fayed took the owner of the Harrodian School to court, but lost because the judge said it was unlikely that anyone would believe the school was connected with his shop.
|Posted on Wednesday, 14 March, 2007 - 03:00 pm: |
There are 603 pubs in England called the Red Lion. I think most people realise that they are not all the same business.
|Posted on Wednesday, 14 March, 2007 - 03:22 pm: |
Just to stir things up a bit more, an infringing trade mark doesn’t have to be identical to a registered trade mark, it can be similar. Trade Marks Act 1994, section 10 (2) states:
“A person infringes a registered trade mark if he uses in the course of trade a sign where because –
(a) the sign is identical with the trade mark and is used in relation to goods or services similar to those for which the trade mark is registered, or
(b) the sign is similar to the trade mark and is used in relation to goods or services identical with or similar to those for which the trade mark is registered,
there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public, which includes the likelihood of association with the trade mark.”
Ana has a registered trade mark for ‘equal’, both the word and its representation in a lower case type face, in Class 41 (entertainment) and Class 43 (services providing food and drink). Under s. 10 (2) (b) she could argue that use of the word ‘eagle’ in lower case for the name of a bar is similar to her trade mark and is being used in providing the same services as her trade mark, and, given the proximity of the two businesses, the public is likely to confuse the two bars.
Arguing infringement of a registered trade mark is easier than arguing passing off and this may be why Ana was able to persuade the other business not to use ‘eagle’ so easily. And she did it without getting solicitors involved, so all in all a good result which shows the benefit of registering a trade mark.
The moral of this story should be: get legal advice from a specialist lawyer because no one else knows what the hell they’re talking about (me included ;-) ).
|Posted on Wednesday, 14 March, 2007 - 03:41 pm: |
She could argue under s.10(2)(b) but she'd have quite a job of being able to claim it successfully. Eagle is not similar enough to result in confusion. Confusion is the key. Very wise not to have instructed her solicitor as all she would have done would have been to throw good money after bad - and I say this as a solicitor (albeit not an IP specialist)!
|Posted on Wednesday, 14 March, 2007 - 04:07 pm: |
But it doesn't matter whether or not she'd be successful in a court ruling - she explained to the other business that she had a registered trade mark and they changed the name of their bar. Result!
|Posted on Wednesday, 14 March, 2007 - 04:20 pm: |
True, but it sounds very like bullying tactics to me, that's all. The eagle is a new start up who were just using existing lettering from the old sign (probably in an effort to save costs).
Ana will of course realise that there will be a further cost involved for eagle bar to change the name again in terms of getting someone to come and do the signage. If they didn't have the money to have completely new signage in the first place they can probably ill afford to get someone out to change the existing one again.
|Posted on Wednesday, 14 March, 2007 - 04:36 pm: |
This thread is going around in circles... lets just hope that the Angle Bar gets itself off the ground successfully and adds to a growing, and very welcome, choice of drinking holes in the area.
|Posted on Wednesday, 14 March, 2007 - 04:38 pm: |
|Posted on Thursday, 15 March, 2007 - 03:03 pm: |
This was my first ever thread.
It's all downhill from here!!
|Posted on Thursday, 15 March, 2007 - 06:16 pm: |
All of this activity is on the wrong side of the tracks. Would someone like to turn the now defunct hair dressers on Wood Vale into a wine bar. Or are we too posh to have communal entertainment in the Horniman Heights (UDB) area. As this location is also called Moor Park I'm sure no one would take any offence at using this name. Ahh, its all down hill here as well, downhill into Lordship Lane and the Village.
|Posted on Thursday, 15 March, 2007 - 08:45 pm: |
Are we all still incandescent with rage or have we got over this issue?
I think there are two main points really; 1. It is great that new businesses are opening up in the area. I was a student in Honor Oak pre-Equal/Old Bank and life was a bit dull;
2. While new business is welcome - it is a difficult job, look at the red room and casa tequila. Barely made it a year. I think I'd be annoyed if it seemed like someone was using my hard work to their advantage.
Would be pretty cool if they all do well.
|Posted on Monday, 26 March, 2007 - 10:12 am: |
After much anticipation, The Angle Bar opened its doors last night, and so I went and had a cheeky peek. Oh Dear.
I was really willing for this to be another success for SE23. Unfortunatley, like a lot of us secretley feared, the recycled signage was a pre-curser.
The previous 'takeaway' stickers on the windows are still there, as well as the very dodgy wall pictures (the less said about them the better).
The place has not had a lick of paint at all from what I could gather and infact looks exactly like a takeaway aside from some mismatched sofas.
The place looked so uninviting that I could not bare to go in (for a self confessed alchy this is not good).
So how did I see all this detail/or lack of?
Well the bar is lit by what I can only imagine are a set of Flood lights! The place was so bright, Im sure the borough's druggies will think its the gates to Heaven.
I hate to put down any new business that start up here, and I'm aware of start up costs etc, but how they can expect to get away with spending nothing and make a success is comical to say the least, and I'm afraid probably doomed.
|Posted on Monday, 26 March, 2007 - 10:35 am: |
Hmmm. I'm going to go in tonight, then. I did see that the lights were on and the shutters were up, but it looked as though work was still going on! Will report back tomorrow.
|Posted on Monday, 26 March, 2007 - 10:52 am: |
any reports on the wine in the "wine" bar?
|Posted on Monday, 26 March, 2007 - 11:05 am: |
Must say, I could'nt see a selection presented as a dominant display like most wine bars.
There was only the small bar from before with some spirits from what I could see, albeit looking through the window.
|Posted on Monday, 26 March, 2007 - 11:13 am: |
Personally, I'm looking forward to the review from Toffeejim!
|Posted on Monday, 26 March, 2007 - 11:36 am: |
I wouldnt put too much faith in it, passing it on a daily basis, I'm not even sure they are taking it seriously.
|Posted on Monday, 26 March, 2007 - 12:12 pm: |
I walked past Saturday night and yesterday, the door was open but they had people in hoovering etc. so I assumed it was being done up ready for a grand opening night! Had no idea it is open, doh!
|Posted on Monday, 26 March, 2007 - 03:49 pm: |
I went past on Sunday night and must say it is quite struggling for an identity. Most bizarre.
|Posted on Monday, 26 March, 2007 - 05:41 pm: |
I had a pint of Cobra in there last night.
|Posted on Tuesday, 27 March, 2007 - 12:08 pm: |
And what was it like? The bar and the beer?
|Posted on Wednesday, 28 March, 2007 - 03:45 am: |
i got to know the owner quite well, it's the same guy as when it was the indian restaurant.
basically this upstairs neighbour went off on one and filed ten different complaints to different council departments abount noise and licensing and smells and so on (must have more time on his hands than me!) and eventually won a court case about technical trespass on the outside wall of his flat when a ventilation duct was taken down to reduce noise.
so sarower (sp?) wasn't allowed to trade as a restaurant and was looking for a way to get his investment back, and a lot of locals had talked about wanting a lounge bar in the neighbourhood.
so he went with that. i think he just wants a viable business to sell up and get out, to be honest. he doesn't know anything much about running bar, he just wants to spend time with his children and put food on their plates.
i'm obviously biased because i like him. :p
|Posted on Wednesday, 28 March, 2007 - 09:15 am: |
A person who lives on the corner of Stanstead Road and Brockley Rise has a problem with noise?
|Posted on Wednesday, 28 March, 2007 - 11:56 am: |
To be fair - I also live on Brockley Rise, and the front of the building is noisy, but the back is really really quiet. Which is why I was really annoyed when the fast food restaurant I live above erected a noisy ventilation chimney right by my bedroom window.. at least the flat smells less of fried chicken and stale fat nowadays though!
It's pretty horrible when you live above someone who significantly reduces your quality of life, which is presumably why flats above commercial premises are cheaper than normal houses.
|Posted on Wednesday, 28 March, 2007 - 12:06 pm: |
I watched the ITV local news when I was in Oxford a few weeks ago. There was one report (which I found quite amusing) about a lady who had a central heating boiler attached to a party wall. Her neighbour had complained to environmental health about the noise. They had issued a noise abatement order and the householder could not use it during the night!
Curiously, the boiler made very little noise!
In private nuisance you cannot normally complain about a nuisance that existed before you moved in. Generally, people will expect more nuisance from commercial premises. However, they often are quieter at off-peak times.
|Posted on Wednesday, 28 March, 2007 - 12:29 pm: |
Sherwood, I know this. The chimney was erected six months after I moved in, but I'm only a tenant so I could sling my hook if it was really bad - but I've got used to it.
Unfortunately peak for a late-night fried chicken outlet tends to be after I've got back home, but fortunately things quieten down after 12.30 am so I can get to sleep properly after then. I did talk to the owners about it; whilst being sympathetic to their need to run a profitable business, I also thought it was fair to let them know the effect on me.
|Posted on Sunday, 01 April, 2007 - 07:44 pm: |
I sympathise and also admire your positive attitude.
There may be a way to keep all parties happy here...
The noise getting into your flat is due to vibration being transmitted through the brickwork via the duct's wall brackets and fixings. I believe a simple alteration could be made, which uses mounting grommets and screw-plugs made of rubber-like polyurethane.
It might be an idea to let your Landlord know about the problem and the solution. Perhaps then he/she might put pressure on to the shopkeeper to sort it out. Failing that, the Environmental Health department may be able to get things moving for you.
|Posted on Friday, 06 April, 2007 - 11:00 pm: |
the angle bar seems to be picking up a bit, they have a wall-projector now and posters up for an Elvis night on friday the 13th.
|Posted on Friday, 06 April, 2007 - 11:04 pm: |
that's looking up?
|Posted on Saturday, 07 April, 2007 - 07:27 am: |
Depends if its real Elvis or not...
|Posted on Monday, 16 April, 2007 - 01:56 pm: |
Can't be, he works in the chip shop:)
|Posted on Tuesday, 17 April, 2007 - 12:32 pm: |
I doubt it was the real Elvis, I saw him working in Las Vegas last autumn - I doubt he'd need to take work in Forest Hill if he can still get gigs in Vegas. Has anyone actually been in this bar yet? It's looking a bit cheerier on the outside...
|Posted on Tuesday, 17 April, 2007 - 08:16 pm: |