Just need to check ....

I-LOV-MONEY

Out of interest how are they liable for distress or harassment?

Coupon-mad

The PPC are their agent. They are a service provider and remain liable for the actions of their agents.

I-LOV-MONEY

I realise that, but the PPC will surely say they are operating in terms of their contract, ie parking enforcement. Presumably it will say wef 'If a car is parked without a permit, put a ticket on it' .

Coupon-mad

That's why you need to put it in writing before enforcement starts that you have opted out and will then hold them liable...

I-LOV-MONEY

I am drafting a letter to them now. If I may, I will post it here, and perhaps you will be good enough to check it through.

I-LOV-MONEY

This is what I have drafted, please advise me if I have missed something out or I need to rephrase something. Thanks.

[SIZE=-1][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Mr [/FONT][/SIZE]A****

I have written to you twice previously on this subject, but to date have not received any reply.

You have tried to clarify your previous letter. However, you have not explained whether it was supposed to be a consultation or providing us with information of what is about to happen. I believe it was the latter. You mention that you had an "overwhelming response" to the previous letter. Would you please let me know of the 107 properties that you manage, how many responded and what percentage were in favour and how many were against.

I still do not understand what you expect to achieve by introducing the scheme. If a car has been abandoned or is displaying an out-of-date tax disc then there is already relevant processes in force regarding this. As I have previously said this road is far enough away from any public transport links or shopping areas to attract casual parkers or commuters.

I believe that the only people that are parking in the road (besides abandoned vehicles, which could be abandoned on any road), are residents, their visitors including delivery and maintenance people. I also think it is unfair that people should have to apply for a permit before inviting friends around, or paying £2 if they turn up unexpectedly. If it is necessary to issue these people with a permit, then residents should be issued with permanent visitors permits. If necessary, I will tell visitors to park in F**** Drive, where you are not enforcing any parking regulation, and just walk through the connecting alleyway. If enough people do this, the residents there will complain and you will need to introduce parking management there, and so the 'problem' just moves on.

I note that you have chosen (or they made a successful bid for the contract), Park Direct. I presume you are aware that they are a firm of former clampers - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1213482/Gone-30-seconds-How-cowboy-clampers-pounced-half-minute-claim-150-fine.html and http://www.ealingtimes.co.uk/news/2010234.drivers_advised_not_to_pay_parking_tickets/ As you mention that clamping is now illegal However, a check through Google shows there are many cases where people have been unfairly treated by Park Direct https://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=park+direct+uxbridge+site%3Aforums.moneysavingexpert.com&gws_rd=ssl It would seem their business practise is questionable. Would you please let me know on what basis they were appointed and was any research done into their methods of operation.

You refer to charges that can be claimed from the keeper of the vehicle and the driver (presumably you / the parking company would be able to trace the driver if the keeper refuses to give this information). The only charge they can make, despite what they may put on their signage is for their actual loss. As there is no charge for residents to park in the road, the loss for not displaying a permit is nil. The authorities will not remove a vehicle because it is not displaying a permit, but is otherwise roadworthy and not causing any obstruction.

As I mentioned previously, I see no reference on my lease that shows I have to participate in the Scheme. I therefore believe if you wish me to take part, I have to opt into this scheme. If I choose not to I will hold **** (management company) liable for any distress or harassment that your agents cause me.

Once again, I await your comments.

Coupon-mad

practise (= the verb) so it should be 'practice' in the case of the noun 'business practice'.


And the end should be clearer (and angrier) IMHO:


I see no reference on my lease that shows I have to participate in this ridiculous moneymaking scheme for an ex-clamping firm. I therefore choose not to take part and I hereby opt out.

This is notice of my absolute refusal to recognise Park Direct as having any business in this car park and if they ticket my cars (registration numbers below) this will be a matter of trespass. I will hold **** (management company) liable for any distress or harassment that Park Direct or any other 'private parking company' cause me because you remain liable for the actions of your agents at all times. You must inform Park Direct of my opt out choice and they must not touch my vehicles. In addition I refuse to recognise ticketing of my visitors so after any ticket is served upon them I will email you personally and expect it to be cancelled since I am unconnected to the permit scheme. I refuse to take part in this farce and the idea that residents must give notice of visitors or pay £2 to download a 'visitor's permit' is laughable when you consider that Park Direct are notorious for issuing tickets within minutes, with no grace period allowed. No doubt the idea about the 'visitors permits' comes from them. I suggest you re-think, to avoid complaints when this nasty firm ticket all and sundry in the time it takes to get a permit from a flat. I am out.






car registrations opted out of this permit scheme: xxxxxx and xxxxxxx

I-LOV-MONEY

Thanks again. I will amend it and send it off tomorrow, so it is waiting on his desk Monday morning!

ampersand

Hello LM,
I'm very glad c-m is on your case.
May I tinker too, for added wotnot:-)
I just don't like leaving the slightest wriggle room for lowlife.
#

Despite my having written to you twice on this subject[give dates, attach further copies], you have so far failed to do me the courtesy of either acknowledgment or reply.

You have tried to 'clarify' your previous letter, without success.

You have not explained whether it was supposed to be a consultation, or a fait accompli imposed by you. Because you provide only incomplete, flawed information of what is about to happen, I believe it is the latter.

You state you had an "overwhelming response" to the previous letter.

Kindly supply proof showing how many of the pertinent 107 properties that you manage responded, showing the number in favour, the number against, and any invalid responses.

I still do not understand what you expect to achieve by introducing the scheme. If a car has been abandoned or is displaying an out-of-date tax disc then there is already relevant legal enfoircement regarding this.

As I[who live here and know the area] have previously written, this road is too far from any public transport links or shopping areas to attract casual parkers or commuters.

The only people who park in the road are residents and their visitors, delivery and maintenance people. Abandoned vehicles can be abandoned on any road.[op - if you have never seen any, and your area is not known for this, say so, strongly] It is clearly ludicrous, unfair and unworkable to be required to buy a permit for such people.

If your business- or profit-plan means you find it necessary to impose this scheme, then residents should be issued with permanent visitor permits. If necessary, I will tell visitors to park in F**** Drive[could you say 'nearby'?], where you are not imposing any parking regulation[I wouldn't put them wise to another possible scam opportunity/location]. If enough people do this, the affected residents there will complain. You would presumably wish to introduce 'parking management' there and so any alleged 'problem' would just move on.

I note that you have chosen (or they have made a successful bid for the contract), an outfit trading as Park Direct. Is this company related to the company discredited here:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=72538
http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/9870954.Clamping_company_fined_for_regulations_breach/

I presume you are aware that Park Direct Ltd are a firm of former clampers - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1213482/Gone-30-seconds-How-cowboy-clampers-pounced-half-minute-claim-150-fine.html and http://www.ealingtimes.co.uk/news/2010234.drivers_advised_not_to_pay_parking_tickets/

As you know, clamping is now illegal. However, a check through Google shows there are many cases where people have been unfairly treated by Park Direct https://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=park+direct+uxbridge+site%3Aforums.moneysavingexpert.com&gws_rd=ssl

Their business practice as reported is illegal. Kindly advise by return of post:
[a] on what basis they were appointed
what research was done into their methods of operation.

You refer to charges that can be claimed from the keeper of the vehicle and the driver. Please state whether you and/or the parking company, or its agents, intend tracing the driver if the keeper refuses to give this information.

The only charge a private parking company can make, despite what they may imply or suggest to the contrary and/or put on their signage, is for their actual loss.

As there is no charge for residents to park in the road, there is no loss.

I repeat, the charge for not displaying a permit is nil. Nor will any legal authorities remove a vehicle not displaying a permit, provided it is otherwise roadworthy and not causing any obstruction.

As I mentioned previously, I see no reference in my lease to participating in this, or any, ridiculous moneymaking scheme for an ex-clamping firm. If you wish me to take part, I have to opt into it.

This is notice of my absolute refusal to recognise Park Direct, or Park Direct U.K. Ltd, or their agents, as having any business in this car park and if they ticket my cars, REGISTERED NO.'S xxxxxx, this will be a matter of trespass.

I will hold **** (management company) liable for any distress or harassment that Park Direct or any other 'private parking company' cause me because you remain liable for the actions of your agents at all times and they must not touch my vehicles.

In addition I refuse to recognise ticketing of my visitors and if any ticket is served upon them I will email you personally and expect it to be cancelled since I am unconnected to the permit scheme.

I refuse to take part in this farce and the idea that residents must give notice of visitors or pay £2 to download a 'visitor's permit' is laughable when you consider that Park Direct are notorious for issuing tickets within minutes, with no grace period allowed. No doubt the idea for cash-cow 'visitors permits' comes from them. I suggest you re-think, to avoid complaints when this nasty firm ticket all and sundry in the time it takes to get a permit from a flat.

As I choose not to be included, take note that I hold **** (management company) liable for any distress or harassment that your agents cause me.

I expect full written agreement with the above within 5 working days. Any failure on your part to meet this requirement likewise implies your full acceptance.

Y'f.
ILM
#
ILM - which company is it?
http://companycheck.co.uk/search/results?SearchCompaniesForm%5Bname%5D=park+direct&yt5=

Park Direct Ltd - [the one in the news reports]
http://companycheck.co.uk/company/05183949/PARK-DIRECT-LIMITED/directors-secretaries [late accounts, on amber light]

If the other:
http://companycheck.co.uk/company/07437795/PARK-DIRECT-UK-LIMITED

-but not quite as here on pepipoo;

'Both Park Direct Ltd (company number 05183949 formed 19/07/2004) and Park Direct UK Ltd (company number 07437795 formed 12/11/2010) have their registered office at:-
UNIT 7 TOMO INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
PACKET BOAT LANE
UXBRIDGE
MIDDLESEX UB8 2JP

Only Park Direct 'lives' there.
They have only amber light, as accounts are filed late. Lots of director musical beds.
Note that Co Dir A. Saliba who left the Board[19/07/04-25/07/07] runs the other Co. name variant[twice struck off in London Gaz.].

Date Description
09/01/2014 New Board Member Ms E. Power appointed
09/01/2014 Ms S. Benaim has left the board
04/11/2013 New Board Member Ms S. Benaim appointed
04/11/2013 Mr E. Power has left the board
21/08/2012 Annual Returns
26/04/2012 New Accounts Filed
03/11/2011 New Board Member Ms E. Power appointed
02/11/2011 Mr A. Phillips has left the board
27/08/2011 Annual Returns
04/07/2011 Mr A. Saliba has left the board
#
op - how about getting back to all of those local news peeps again, with what is proposed?
You could do it anonymously if you preferred, I dare say.
Ditto Daily Mail, since their head of steam on matters parking is boiling up nicely?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2711460/Give-sites-good-banging-The-wardens-3k-bonuses-urged-bosses-issue-scores-parking-tickets-day.html

and these are the reporters:
By PAUL BENTLEY, JIM NORTON AND MARIO LEDWITH
#
c-m ,incorporating and referring to reg,no's in body of text does not allow for apparent 'missings' later.
Good luck ILM

I-LOV-MONEY

Thank you both for your help. It is not in my nature to get too aggressive or make threats, however I will 'beef up' my letter as suggested.

The company is Park Direct UK Ltd, Furzeground Way (second one in the list). I see it is run by one Directory and Secretary ! Is there anything more I should know about the company?

(I typed this several hours ago, and just realised I didn't post it !).