Would like to sue PCM, L&Q & Residents Association for PCM unreasonable behave

markudman

this is one of my treads about Resident parking
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5771941

Half_way

Another private parking company with good reputation & adequate appeal service to be nominated and the parking contract to be sent to all residents for review & approval. The new private parking company have to be a member of BPA association not IPC association as BPA proved to the public they have actually independent appeal system and they have very good reputation.

Whilst the antics of the IPC/IAS may show the BPA Ltd's POPLA scheme to be fair, do not kid yourself that this is correct.
POPLA is far from independent, the BPA ltd is a private members trade association who fund POPLA ( subcontracted out to ombudsman services )
There was at one time a so called scrutiny board to over see POPLA, however the BPA ltd abolished this .

Any company that appears on either the BPA ltds list, and/or the IPC should be avoided at all costs.
I can also see issues with the management company asking the residents to approve any contract - this could be a trap tying people into something where they could be giving up their rights to peaceful enjoyment of their property.

As mentioned previously there are better ways to manage a car park, and PPCs should be avoided at all costs

Coupon-mad

BPA proved to the public they have actually independent appeal system and they have very good reputation.

I agree with Half_way and sadly can't endorse the BPA as being 'very good' in any PPC-related department these days. When I used to contact them a few years back, they listened sometimes, and changed things for the better too.

Sadly the BPA have to my mind, without a shadow of a doubt got worse in the last couple of years:

- they allowed WRIGHT HASSALL to spend months pretending they 'were POPLA' and that firm actually contacted PPCs asking for missing evidence to help the PPC win POPLA appeals that they were doomed to lose. WH made more bizarre decisions than the IAS and led a trail of distressed and angry motorists, treated unfairly but with no recourse. It would have hardly taken a single Googling finger to realise the potential for conflict of interest there, but oh no...let's not think about that, fingers in ears, lalala...

- they are practically always (from accounts here, and on pepipoo at least) in fob-off mode when people complain, and invariably decide 'there has been no breach' or if there has been, if the PPC cancel the PCN, that's all OK then...no, BPA, it's still a serious breach and that fact doesn't disappear.

- they actually thought ParkingEye v Beavis was a good outcome/correct decision. Come on...

- a few years ago they lobbied the Dept for Transport, and succeeded in removing (sweeping right under that carpet) a clearly stated policy intention to allow Motorway Service areas to allow drivers to pay charges for parking afterwards, within 24 hours, rather than just charge extortionate penalties. CP Plus and PE must have been so proud of that change. What is the matter with these people? It's a rest break service area for God's sake, and the DFT wanted to stop all the complaints by cutting tired motorists some slack, and someone at the BPA actually thought that was fair game to remove?

- they were economical with the truth with Government when clamping was to be banned in the POFA Bill, allegedly lied about the number of PPC court claims, and horrendously misled the Government up the garden path about the effect of 'registered keeper liability' which they chuckled would remove the burden on the courts (errrrmmmm...).

- policy decisions are sometimes quietly shelved & forgotten, e.g. two years ago, the grace period to leave a site after paid-for time was supposed to change to eleven minutes (decided in 2015 at a meeting) and yet that just slipped under the highly-lifted carpet.

- they posted a public article recently, mentioning that a poor financially-attacked motorist rang them crying about the utter rip off they were facing from some nasty firm, and instead of actually giving two hoots about the aggressive excuses they prop up, they remarked smugly: 'parking is emotive' (no, it isn't - your members are money-grabbing ex-clampers and their ilk, who extract money from people with menaces and ZERO service).

- they support the interests of firms who stalk & 'fine' people in their own car parks. Protection racket, should be illegal.

- UKPC. Photogate. Nuff said.

- Indigo. Nurses in Cardiff, beleaguered for doing their (proper) job. Nuff said.

- ParkingEye, suing the pants off people and ruining Hospital car parks. Nuff said.

- CEL, suing Co-op employees, revenge claims all over the place. Nuff said.

- When the last time the BPA actually kicked a firm out?

Thursday musing: I wonder what happens when a BPA or IPC employee gets a PCN from a scumbag? WELL?

Umkomaas

Are you missing Trouserfire CM? Wonder if he was at the President’s Club the other night?

Any news on him?

Coupon-mad

LOL, how could I forget about him? Bet the BPA tried to!

Sassii

markudman wrote: »

I am very interested in your problem, I am too in a very similar situation, and what something done about these parasites, have you checked the signs to see if there are legal?
have you checked your contract with L&Q,?
have you read
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/residential-parking.html?
When is the Meeting
Where are you? What part of the country?

I was reading your thread yesterday as your estate has 3 entries like mine.

regardless if the sign is legal or not my contract doesn't mention any thing about private car park scheme and also using visitor parking bays & using common parts are guaranteed free without any permit. in the contract there is two different definition for residents right

Guaranteed right: which Landlord & MA (L&Q) can't amend it without the buyer / leaseholder consent.

Reserved right: Landlord or MA can interfere with it like how to manage but they have to consult the buyers, leaseholders & residents.

In my estate L&Q are the management company only not the landlord.

Don't worry you are going to beat them.

Sassii

Below is the letter we sent to MP & Councillor if I can call it as reference to MSE forum users

Dear Mr

Attached a petition signed by 150 residents of xxxx while more signatures collection in progress. We would like to complain about the alleged private car parking scheme running in the development by Parking Control Management (PCM) Ltd. We are complaining to you as we have exhausted all other ways of complaining to the management company L&Q.

We would like to complain as well against L&Q and alleged unincorporated xxxx Residents Association as they are making decisions in regards to residents, without our consent dissipating our guaranteed contractual rights & breaching our contracts with the landowner as will be explained in details below.

We would like to refer you to the debate in House of Common dated 21 March 2017 (volume 623) for the bad practice of private car parking nationwide.

When PCM started the private parking scheme on late xxxx in the state there was no need for the scheme as all the roads around the state were & still free parking except a small portion of xxxx road which allocated to residents parking only in xxxx . Therefore, there was no need for trespass to park in our state. From that time PCM has been making profit by targeting residents, resident’s visitors and deliveries and no one knows where this money goes.

L&Q and alleged xxxx Residents Association, or whoever contracted PCM, are misleading the residents about their contractual rights & sold the residents to PCM to make profit from them, not from the trespassers. They are overriding the resident’s contracts even though PCM & alleged Residents Association are not part of the contracts. Also, PCM charge the residents and force them to pay for visitor car park which is contractually guaranteed to park free.

PCM's employee invariably skulk in corners targeting & issue PCNs in few seconds, been filmed doing that, to residents, resident’s visitors and delivery while dropping off their kids, passengers and when loading or unloading. This is a predatory operation which is unconscionable and without any legitimate interest.

This is a business practice which is unfair, unlawful, contrary to the doctrine of good faith, contrary to our contracts / rights and against the Consumer Rights Act 2015 as well as their own Code of Practice, and case law (the Jopson v Home Guard Appeal case is persuasive on this very issue).

PCM Ltd. practice bullying and extortion against the residents as they never allowed any appeal and had the residents tried to exercise their rights, PCM Ltd. use time wasting techniques and take residents to court using the small claim track because PCM knew the small claim track doesn’t allow residents to be compensated for their time being wasted and legal costs when residents win their case.

The illegal and unlawful parking scheme caused harassment, stress and financial damages to the residents and forced some lovely residents to leave the development. Some offered their property for rent / sale and others stuck with bad financial loss as they got default CCJs in their credit score because of the bullying the residents faced from PCM Ltd.

Resident’s visitors and family are afraid to visit us because of the bad behaviour of PCM. Also, delivery companies refuse to deliver anything to us because of PCM’s bad practice. Many residents have complained that it feels as if we are living in jail as we are unable to exercise our quite enjoyment and recreation in our estate which we are contractually allowed to do.

Unfortunately, we recently knew that there is an alleged unincorporated association called themselves xxxx Residents Association” who advertise & support that bad practice of PCM. Therefore, we would like to let you know that this alleged association is run by a few people & they are unknown to the majority of the residents. This alleged association is making decisions on behalf of the residents without the resident’s consent, dissipating resident’s rights and misleading anyone who wants to deal with the residents including the council, police, MP & etc….

Up to now the residents don’t know who contracted PCM Ltd. and what are the terms & conditions of that contract as the alleged resident’s association is misleading us while L&Q refuses to expose any contract with PCM.

Below is the list of unreasonable behaviour, practice and actions done by PCM Ltd.:

- Trespass to resident’s cars & lands.

- Breach of the contract between the residents, L&Q & landowner. That could be lead to a criminal offence.

- Issue PCNs in residents allocated parking spaces.

- Harassment to Residents.

- Mislead the residents by adding words to the Notice to Keeper and saying it’s from / by the law.

- Issue a claim form to wrong or old residents address preventing the residents to defend the case to get a court default judgement against them so destroying the resident’s credit score. Justice Minister Sir Oliver Heald specially accused private car park companies for that (Attached).

- Not complying with the POFA 2012.

- Not complying with the BPA or IAS Code Of Practice.

- Breach of Data Protection Act.

- Misleading the court.

As we recently knew, there are three bodies responsible for that illegal scheme:

PCM Ltd: up to now we don’t know who contracted them to run that scheme and what are the terms & conditions of the alleged contract although we asked and complained to the management company L&Q but they have yet to respond. Also, we don’t know where the huge sums of money gained by PCM goes, as we are unable to see if it is used to benefit the estate or residents as we can’t see any improvement in the development of the roads.

Management company L&Q: by agreeing that private car park scheme L&Q breached the residents/ buyer contracts as contractually residents have the right to park, to authorise others to park in the development and the right of quiet enjoyment & recreation.



xxxx Residents Association:
- This alleged unincorporated association is not part of the contract between the residents, landlord & management company L&Q.
- This alleged association members is unknown to most of the residents and illegally represent the residents and taking decision on resident’s behalf without our consent which that misleading all the parties wish to communicate with the residents.
- That alleged association is the only body advertise and support that scheme by putting procedures for that which PCM doesn’t follow that procedure as well.

Lastly, as most of the residents are now suffering badly and spending their life in court defending the threats issued by PCM, we politely ask your help to:

- Investigate that bullying and extortion the residents of xxxx Development face.

- All the CCJs got by default judgment & recorded in resident’s credit score to be removed as Residents will submit set aside application to court and PCM should accept that application and discontinue the cases.

- All ongoing court cases from PCM against residents to be discontinued.

- All current PCNs against residents to be dismissed.

- All the money taken from residents to be refunded by PCM, L&Q & alleged Residents Association.

- The PCM contract to be exposed to all residents.

- PCM contract to be terminated.

- Another private parking company with good reputation & adequate appeal service to be nominated and the parking contract to be sent to all residents for review & approval. The new private parking company have to be a member of BPA association not IPC association as BPA proved to the public they have actually independent appeal system and they have very good reputation.

- We politely ask any statuary authorisation including MP, council, Police, utility companies, etc… to deal directly with the residents, as they already deal with all other residents in xxxx and in all UK, and do not deal with xxxx l Residents Association for the reasons explained above as any discussions, decisions, or agreement with that alleged association are not abide the residents and residents will reject & take legal action against that.

- Alleged xxxx Residents Association to be dissolve.


Your faithfully,
All the 150 residents signed the attached

Contact person 1:

Contact person 2:


Contact person 3:

markudman

Great argument, looks like you got it all together.
I'm in south London, are you near by?
Please feel free to PM me if you do not want to say in the open forum.

markudman

Do your sign look like this?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/js866e67u2m2ion/PCM%20Sign.png?dl=0

Payment line is using a prohibited premium rate number.

Credit card charges are no longer permitted.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/card-surcharge-ban-means-no-more-nasty-surprises-for-shoppers

I think the automated 'phone payment charge may also be prohibited.

Trading Standards should be contacted.
Thanks to Fruitcake for this info

Sassii

markudman wrote: »

G
Please feel free to PM me if you do not want to say in the open forum.

Already sent PM to you, did you received it?.

Regards