Car clamped in my own parking space

Hadeon

Fire_Fox wrote: »

I wish people would stop recommending this course of action. There are strict criteria whereby you can withhold service charges (Commonhold & Leasehold Reform Act 2002), if a leaseholder takes action outside that they end up in breach of the lease. You could be encouraging someone into a CCJ and the outstanding amount of service charges added to their mortgage! :mad: Please can someone post on Pepipoo to this effect?

Would those be the same 'strict criteria' the management company have apparently flagrantly flouted & applied towards the OP & other residents in this truly appalling & exceptional case?

I am also left wondering why you have thanked me in my post at #86 as you obviously disagree with it, & why you are asking others to post your views on pepipoo - can you not do this yourself?

BTW - CCJ's would only 'kick-in' if/after a plaintiff won any action in the County Court & the defendant failed to comply with a judgement to pay - but I think you already know that.

Pippaki

Hi All,
I have finally also had a letter back from Parking Control Management saying that my appeal has been rejected (even though I sent a notice before action).
Please find below the letter from them:

RE: Vehicle Immobilisation
In reply to your letter (received 24th February 2010) regarding the immobilised after being found in an area with restricted parking. The vehicle was checked and found not to be displaying a valid parking permit that would authorise parking.

[The management company], on behalf of the residents association, have instructed us to implement parking restrictions in this area. All residents were written to some time prior to the restrictions being enforced; Residents were informed of the restrictions, the start date of enforcement and issued with permits. As is standard with most official correspondence (courts, police, etc) the letter was posted via 1st class mail. Parking Control Management (PCM) considers that they took all reasonable steps to ensure that authorised residents vehicles would not be immobilised - copy attached.

We consider there to be adequate signage throughout the area advising drivers that the area is private property and that parking is for authorised vehicles only. The signs clearly state that a permit must be displayed at all times and by parking there you agree to your vehicle being immobilised and only released upon payment of a parking and release fee.

If there are warning notices on display, which make the restrictions clear and advise that by parking, there is a risk you will be immobilised; the law will infer that the driver "consented" to the car being immobilised and to payment of the stated release fee. If such signs are present, regardless of whether the driver noted them prior to immobilisation, then the immobilisation was legal.

Through our experience in parking management, we have found that vehicle immobilisation is the most effective way of solving parking problems and the permit system a preferable way of ensuring that only those with entitlement to park do so. Permits ensure that our operations are as unobtrusive as possible and are the simplest way to ascertain the vehicles entitlement to park; however this system does require that all permit holders are aware of the importance that they clearly display a valid permit at all times.

It is necessary that the permit be clearly and prominently displayed in a position that the entire permit is easily visible to patrols - preferably in the windscreen of the vehicle - at all times when parked. It is the permit holder's responsibility to ensure that the permit is visible every time they park.

If no permit is available, for whatever reason, then either alternative unrestricted parking should be found or Parking Control Management should be contacted for further advise (contact details on all signage).

For the above reasons we consider that, the vehicle was parked in breach of the restrictions. After giving the circumstances our consideration, and in view of the above facts, I am writing to inform you that your appeal has been unsuccessful and, on this occasion, we are unable to offer any reimbursement of the fee incurred.

Finally; PCM is a reputable and professional parking management company with a strict code of conduct and we operate with strict guidelines and procedures. Our team has years of experience in parking enforcement and I assure you that we are fully aware of all our legal responsibilities. We maintain that we comply fully with all current guidance from our governing bodies as well as relevant legislation.

I also believe that we are the only organisation (that operates solely in vehicle immobilisation) who has achieved Security Industry Authority (SIA) Approved Contractor Status. The SIA website describes Approved Contractors as "Organisations have distinguished themselves as being amongst the best providers of private security services in England, Scotland and Wales."

Considering the above it is of course your prerogative to pursue your claim through the courts but I would advise you that our dedicated legal department defend every case rigorously.

Yours faithfully

Appeals Department


May point out the following though:
1. [The management company], on behalf of the residents association, have instructed us to implement parking restrictions in this area
This is not true, I am chairman of the residents association and we had our first official meeting on February 21st. We have not asked the management company to instruct this or any other company.

2. As is standard with most official correspondence (courts, police, etc) the letter was posted via 1st class mail.
The letter (see in previous post) was dated 4th February. However, the letters were all kept by the caretaker of the building as he had to collect signatures from people when they were given the letter. We received ours on Friday, 12th February and clamping started on Monday, 15th February.

So I am well and ready to go to the courts. I have absolutely no experience in this so I hope that I will be able to get as much help from you guys.

Bay parking was the previous clamping company employed (they were there even before I bought the flat). From Bay we never received a parking permit.

We have checked our Lease and the only thing relevant to the car parking is the following:
Lessor's Covenants no 7a "The Lessor expressly reserves the right of making from time to time nay alterations in the mode of laying out the Development in the umber and area of the plots to release vary or abandon in favour of the lessee or lessees from time to time of the flats on the Development (including the Property) any covenants restrictions stipulations and conditions entered into or to be entered into in such a matter as the Lessor shall think fit"

Lessee's Covenants no 29 "Not to use the parking space other than for the parking of one private motor vehicle not exceeding 3 tonnes in weight."


Thanks Pippaki

Coupon-mad

Typical of the clamper to treat your NBA as an appeal, I have seen this a lot on pepipoo.

Interesting that you are Chairman of the Residents' Association - they have shot themselves in the foot with that lie.

I am at work so can't give a long reply, but do get them and the Managing Agents to Court over this, pippaki. Good luck.

The best advice will come from pepipoo as they have experience of doing this.

Hadeon

Same goes from me Pippaki - hope some of the replies here have provided you with several useful bullets to fire at them.

Best of Luck.

Coblcris

Their letter fails to mention (all) the residents actually agreeing to this scheme and signing an agreement.
Much else besides.

Their legal team has their work cut out I believe. I canot see any fancy footwork saving them especially as they have removed several toes with that letter.

I would proceed to action against the Private Parking Company and the management company .

Enfieldian

That is an insult, treating your LBA as an appeal....

Go get em.....

greenface

Go easy on the vaseline as you stick it back up them.
Keep the other people who were clamped the same as you in the loop as you may need to use them .
Were the new clampers/scammers mentioned on you first residents meeting What was said ??
good luck and keep the fight

Pippaki

Hi guys. And thanks again.
Greenface - the first residents association meeting was held on Sunday 21 February. The Clampers started their "job" on the 15th February.

Pippaki

On Tuesday, 16th February 2010 at approx. 6:30am, Parking Control Management (UK) Limited entered the private and gated car park at xxxxxxx, xxxxxxxxx, xxxxxxx, xxxxxx and started clamping cars parked.

Our car with registration xxxxxx, parked in our parking bay no 25 was clamped by Parking Control Management (UK) Limited and a release fee of £130 was paid under protest and duress.

I am contesting the action of the Parking Control Management (UK) Limited and [Management company] because of the following reasons:

1. The car was parked in our private car parking space (bay 25).
The car was clamped in our own car parking space which we bought with our flat in July 2006. Please see attached copy of leasehold. They have interfered with our right to peaceful enjoyment and also with our property to which they had no right to.

2. No consent was given
Parking Control Management (UK) Limited advised that they were instructed by [Management company] on behalf of the xxxxxxx Residents Association.

There have been two meetings held by the xxxxxx Residents Association, both of which I attended. There has been no mention of instructing a new clamping company to service xxxxxx car park. The xxxxxxx Residents Association has not contacted [Management company] or Parking Control Management (UK) Limited for their services. If [Management company] has entered into a contract with Parking Control Management (UK) Limited they have done so without informing the tenants or residents association.

3. Inadequate notice period
There has been insufficient notice given. We have received no communication from our management company Bensons Ltd about the change in clamping companies. We received a letter from Parking Control Management (UK) Limited on Friday 12th February 2010 which we had to sign for. (Please see photocopy attached). Do to the short time frame (2 working days) we were unable to contact the management company.


Please tell me if I have left anything important out. I want to get this N1 form filed in court as soon as possible. Thanks for all your comments and support.

Pippaki

greenface

Pippaki wrote: »

Hi guys. And thanks again.
Greenface - the first residents association meeting was held on Sunday 21 February. The Clampers started their "job" on the 15th February.

so you said
Im wondering as these scammers started working less than a week before you first residents meeting it may have been mentioned by you or the other people who have been robbed of their money. If not why not ?