Just need to check ....

The_Deep

Mr B, if, as I suspect, this is a HA property, then, unless the OP owns her property 100%, I doubt if she is in a position to tell the MA what it can and cannot do.

Also, quite often, HA's are connected to the MA's they employ, and she might, in effect,t be going head to head with her landlord. A less confrontational stance might be in her better interests.

I-LOV-MONEY

bazster wrote: »

your final word on the subject is that you refuse to participate in the scheme, you refuse to display a permit, and any interference with your car or those belonging to your visitors (such as attaching a fake parking ticket) will be considered trespass to property. Point out that [Management Company] is vicariously liable for the actions of its agent therefore you will hold [Management Company] liable for any trespass, harassment or interference with your right to quiet enjoyment.

I did suggest this and his response was the last paragraph of his reply above!

I-LOV-MONEY

Umkomaas wrote: »

Why not ask them to instruct the PPC to develop a 'white list' of car VRMs which have an entitlement to be there. That gets rid of the 'display permit' problem, especially where it slips from the dashboard or a resident forgets to display it.
.

It is obviously easier for them to go down the road and check which cars have permits and which haven't than checking a list.

bazster

The_Deep wrote: »

Mr B, if, as I suspect, this is a HA property, then, unless the OP owns her property 100%, I doubt if she is in a position to tell the MA what it can and cannot do.

My suggested response didn't contain any instructions to the management company, it merely states that whatever they do about this the OP refuses to have anything to do with it.

The_Deep wrote: »

Also, quite often, HA's are connected to the MA's they employ, and she might, in effect,t be going head to head with her landlord. A less confrontational stance might be in her better interests.

If the landlord and/or management company are not prepared to confront a tenant over him operating a used-car business from the car park it doesn't seem likely that the OP has anything to worry about. That, however, is for the OP to decide.

I-LOV-MONEY

The_Deep wrote: »

Mr B, if, as I suspect, this is a HA property, then, unless the OP owns her property 100%, I doubt if she is in a position to tell the MA what it can and cannot do.

Also, quite often, HA's are connected to the MA's they employ, and she might, in effect,t be going head to head with her landlord. A less confrontational stance might be in her better interests.

We are leaseholders, but I own it 100% (some residents have joint ownership and others are literally just tenants).

The Housing Association and Management Company are a different branch of the same organisation.

BTW She is a he - I have just checked :rotfl:

bazster

I-LOV-MONEY wrote: »

It is obviously easier for them to go down the road and check which cars have permits and which haven't than checking a list.

Possibly, but the real reason is that you can't screw money out of people who are on a list, but you can screw money out of people who forget to display a permit.

Have you asked this muppet whether the management company gets a kickback from the fake fines?

Coupon-mad

I-LOV-MONEY wrote: »

It is obviously easier for them to go down the road and check which cars have permits and which haven't than checking a list.

No it isn't, it's almost as easy - I've seen them doing it. It should be put forward as a suggestion (you will look more reasonable by suggesting a workable scheme, if you are going to have to put up with one). It's the fairest way to protect the interests of the residents rather than imposing a permit scheme on them which allows the scammers to pick on people whose permit slipped. In Supermarket car parks there is always a white list of staff cars (e.g. the Managers who can park there) and the operative just checks the car they are looking at against the list. I have seen them doing this in a local West Sussex Waitrose AND I found a copy of a 'white list' on the ground once, picked it up to look at - and the operative came back and snatched it from my grasp (but I knew what it was!).

Herzlos

If it's the same attendant they'll recognise the white-list cars pretty quickly anyway so there should be minimal work in a whitelist. There's minimal work with permits too if it's the same set of cars, but zero scope to generate spurious invoices for expired/slipped permits.

I wonder if it would make any sense to display some sort of anti-permit in your car pre-empting any 'tickets' from the PPC - Essentially a warning that you don't accept their authority and will defend any claims to at POPLA since there is no loss on their part. Or would that just make matters worse?

I-LOV-MONEY

Coupon-mad wrote: »

No it isn't, it's almost as easy - I've seen them doing it. It should be put forward as a suggestion (you will look more reasonable by suggesting a workable scheme, if you are going to have to put up with one). It's the fairest way to protect the interests of the residents rather than imposing a permit scheme on them which allows the scammers to pick on people whose permit slipped. In Supermarket car parks there is always a white list of staff cars (e.g. the Managers who can park there) and the operative just checks the car they are looking at against the list. I have seen them doing this in a local West Sussex Waitrose AND I found a copy of a 'white list' on the ground once, picked it up to look at - and the operative came back and snatched it from my grasp (but I knew what it was!).

Okay, I will put that forward as a suggestion. However, there is still the visitors permits to deal with.

BTW I was involved in a charity collection at Tesco once. In the store by the Customer Service desk they have a little terminal and you put in your registration number and up pops a photo of your car, and it means you are permitted to stay beyond the normal 3 hours. (How can anybody be shopping for more than 3 hours I don't know !)

ampersand

ILM-have had putah probs, still not sorted but laterally online, sortakinda.
Can't see ems.
Did you try to send a new pm today?
#
Nothing proposed allows for surprise visitors, surprise visitors who stay longer than a week, or who return within 7 days.
If MA are serious about this, they are retrospectively altering terms of Lease, esp. with the dear old inalienable 'right to quiet enjoyment'.