My Management Company wants to bring in CPM

The_Deep

Be ready to take them to the cleaners and the RPTS:

I did this in 2007 with a Headlease holder, got £400

I attach a second draft which I have tightened up. All comments welcome

I note from the Branagh Court Newsletter that you are recommending to the Directors that well known scammers, CPM be appointed to “manage” our car park. You might like to read about the unfortunate experience Coxeters had with this company here.

https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/15294279.Car_park_scraps_enforcement_after___39_nightmare__39__fines_deter_customers/.

Appointing a private parking company to manage residential car park would be most unwise, and contrary to the best interests of residents, These companies can affect the resale value sales and rental values of properties where they operate.

Indeed, Sit Greg Knight is progressing a Private Members Bill through the House of Commons today to regulate private parking companies. May I suggest that you watch the debate and read Hansard to see what MPs think about these unscrupulous and dishonest companies.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-07-19/debates/2b90805c-bff8-4707-8bdc-b0bfae5a7ad5/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill(FirstSitting.

You mention that parking permits would be issued by the caretaker. Why does a resident need such a permit? Section 1.5 of the Second Schedule of the lease grants the Leaseholder exclusive rights to park in an allocated bay. This constitutes Primacy of Contract..

Once a Private Parking Company, (PPC), has eliminated rogue parking , they invariably target residents for minor infringements of their often unlawful terms and conditions.. Some, especially CPM, is extremely litigious, and has taken hundreds of residents to court. They invariably lose well defended cases..
You should also be aware that a few years ago a previous managing agent, Dale Varney, suggested such a scheme and it was voted down at an AGM. To make such an appointment the landowner would need a variation to the lease. This would be hugely costly, and would need 75% of the leaseholders to agree it, if 10% object, it cannot not take place, (Landlord and Tenant Act 1987).

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week, hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. It has even been suggested that some of these companies have links with organised crime.

As your agent, your company could be joined in any court action which a resident of leaseholder may take. against CPM. Any costs involved in fighting such cases would not be a charge against leaseholders but to the company and the Directors . I for one would not hesitate to bring such a claim. against you and the Directors if CPM tried to interfere with my leasehold rights. .

You state that the law now permits more robust sanctions for offenders who fail to pay parking fines. I assume that you are referring to Beavis v Parking Eye in the Supreme Court.

Firstly, no private parking company can impose fines, only police, local authorities and transport authorities can do so. PPCs can only issue invoices, for alleged damages caused by alleged breaches of alleged contracts and in the case of Branagh Court, no such contracts can be entered into with a PPC because the leases grant occupants such rights already, (Second Schedule clause 1.5).

Mr Beavis lost because he overstayed in a free car park in a shopping Centre where there was no facility to purchase extra time. Parking Eye pay the Landowner, |London Land , £1000 a month to manage. this car park . Their Lordships ruled that the penalty rule was disengaged, and that the charge was commercially justified.

Beavis has no bearing whatsoever of residential parking. To imply that it does is either a mischief or ignorance. A retraction should-be issued immediately

You go on to state hat neither Parkgate nor the \Directors would become involves in parking disputes. In Law you re both responsible for the actions of your agents, under the Tort of Vicarious liability, (Catholic Child Welfare Society v Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools) , (UKSC 56).

To sum up, CPM are fraudsters and their appointment to manage parking would not be in the best interests of the residents. A partnership with them could result in both yourselves and the Directors facing claims for breaches of the DPA, trespass, harassment, and possibly offences under |The Landlord and Tenants Act. Clearly, you have not thought this through.

I enclose three extra copies of this letter, please ensure that they are sent to the Directors.

Yours sincerely

energy1x

You're lucky you even get a say before the introduction.

CPM have literally turned up at my residence in the last week, stuck signs up, sent out (unsolicited) permits and there's been no correspondence prior or now from the management company.

Coupon-mad

And you have complained in writing, sent the permit back and opted out of the scam, pointing the MA to the Landlord & Tenant Act (requirement to get 75% agreement & not more than 10% objections from all leaseholders, to interfere with their leases like this) and the Parliamentary video from Friday where this 'outrageous scam' was laid bare?

Rhetorical question, for your own thread that I know you have!

Guys_Dad

You asked for comments.

I think your letter is poor and jumbled up. You should start, as c-m and I suggest by telling them that they can't do it ( varying your lease ) without getting agreement from 75% of leaseholders. And you then get 10% to object. This is your strongest objection and I bet they haven't even considered it

Next you demand to opt out if they proceed in spite of the law and that you will hold them personally liable for any costs to residents should the MA be taken to court.

You then ask for assurance that no resident will incur charges for parking in authorised spaces even if no permit on show. Bring up white lists.

Then criticise the chosen PPC as per your 2nd draft.

And number the points so they can reply referring to your objections.

Not up to your usual standard, I am afraid. Perhaps you are too close to the issue.

Please accept I am trying to be helpful.

Fruitcake

I think it is too long for a shot across the bows.

You need short, sharp points to start with else the reader is likely to give up before they finish it.

In my opinion you should put the major points in now, then follow it up with a more detailed, "further to my previous correspondence …"

Other opinions are available.

Respectfully yours,

Fruity.

The_Deep

Not up to your usual standard

Thank you GD, I agree that it is not as polished as I would like, but I was furious with the Directors for appointing this company without calling for an AGM. I was also livid with the property manager for the plethora of misinformation in the newsletter.

he reader is likely to give up before they finish it.

She will not do that Fruitcake, she is well aware that I am a trouble maker, we have already had a couple of spats, and she is well aware that I am trying to get the Directors to terminate the appointment. I shall table a motion to that effect at the next AGM.

The_Deep

energy1x wrote: »

You're lucky you even get a say before the introduction.

CPM have literally turned up at my residence in the last week, stuck signs up, sent out (unsolicited) permits and there's been no correspondence prior or now from the management company.

They may well have broken the law here. Have a quiet word with you Local Authority Housing Officer.

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business. Hopefully that will take place in the near future. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers. Read this one which I wrote earlier

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

energy1x

I very promptly contacted my management company and was told the following clause in my lease allows them to introduce the PPC:

The cost of such other services or functions as the Management Company shall think fit for the up keep and enhancement of the Estate or for the benefit of the Dwellings on the Estate.

They insist we won't be paying for the service, and I can opt out if I wish.

Am I able to challenge this further legally or cause trouble in general? I do not want these parasites and this is in a car park where all allocated spaces have been provided with lockable parking posts too!

The_Deep

CPM benefits no-one except CPM Any company which seeks to harass residents for not displaying a permit when lawfully parked in their own space does not have the best interests of the residents at heart.

The appointment of this company could, and probably would depress rental and sales.

Bring Sir Greg's Bill to the attention of the MA and send them the details of some recent cases which CPM have lost in court against residents.

beamerguy

energy1x wrote: »

They insist we won't be paying for the service, and I can opt out if I wish.

What does this mean for you if you opt out