NEW ADDRESS HAS JUST INTRODUCED PARKING MANAGEMENT

D_P_Dance

 If you believe it is a place where people come to pathologically assert their superiority over others with their knowledge of technical issues

Very few here have acquired their "Pathogical Superioity",  (whatever that means), from anywhere other than the internet and/or government websites.  It is all available there if you care to look. Some posters have even asked us the name of their MPs.  

NeilCr

Coupon-mad said:

Wow, this is your chance to put something powerful in writing, politely telling the landlord and MA what is likely to now happen to all their tenants, and that you (and no doubt, other tenants when they realise) will view this as a private nuisance and harassment. 

Parking firms infesting residential sites undoubtedly bring down the value of properties, intimidate and distress the residents and put prospective new tenants off when viewing such properties (many people boycott places with parking firms now).  This is the exact opposite of what the landlord no doubt intended.

Show them the link to the other PCM thread about how PCM were removed before they started, and say this is what needs to be done to protect the peaceful enjoyment of the residents and to avoid an adverse effect on the property being blighted by an ex-clamper firm who have no place handling the personal data of the residents.  PCM simply exist to fine the residents and their visitors; they will not cancel charges for the MA or landlord or for genuine visitors, and offer no independent appeal worth trying - the 'IAS' was exposed a a sham in Parliament. and the Trade Bodies are self-serving.

Also give a link to the Hansard record of the Private Parking Bill being debated on 2.2.18 and quote a few words from MPs about this industry and why Parliament is stepping in.

I think I'd be inclined to tread carefully, here. Sure - point out all the downsides of having a PPC as C-M lists. I am not so certain about saying that you'd regard it as harassment at this stage. And, definitely, definitely be polite. 

There are good landlords and bad landlords - just as there are good tenants and bad tenants. In a case like this the AST  may well support you re parking. However, the landlord may come to regard you as a pain in the neck and decide not to renew your tenancy at the end of the period (is it six months?) - for them the easiest way to deal with the issue

Not saying this is, necessarily, right and that may not be a problem for you. You might be happy to move on and/or you might have a longer tenancy term. Just raising it as a point.

I'd start with the bad things about PPCs - after all you have been invited to write in. Who knows the landlord might agree and remove the PPC. Banging on about harassment might put you on the wrong side of the landlord

Have you considered suggesting alternative methods to a PPC . For example, parking posts. Providing an alternative solution is a constructive way of moving forward

Good luck!

tom_cahill

D_P_Dance said:

 If you believe it is a place where people come to pathologically assert their superiority over others with their knowledge of technical issues

Very few here have acquired their "Pathogical Superioity",  (whatever that means), from anywhere other than the internet and/or government websites.  It is all available there if you care to look. Some posters have even asked us the name of their MPs.  

I never used the term "pathological superiority", I said pathologically assert their superiority. If you don't understand what I mean then you might want to follow your own advice by making use of the internet: it is all available there if you care to look... I have 'cared to look' at multiple different sources of information but some of us have other more pressing responsibilities, like children, in our lives which is why, occasionally, we conveniently ask for advice on forums specifically created for this purpose. God forbid.

 And if you've nothing useful to contribute to this thread then I'd ask you to take the easy options of not replying at all and enjoying your day.

tom_cahill

NeilCr said:

Coupon-mad said:

Wow, this is your chance to put something powerful in writing, politely telling the landlord and MA what is likely to now happen to all their tenants, and that you (and no doubt, other tenants when they realise) will view this as a private nuisance and harassment. 

Parking firms infesting residential sites undoubtedly bring down the value of properties, intimidate and distress the residents and put prospective new tenants off when viewing such properties (many people boycott places with parking firms now).  This is the exact opposite of what the landlord no doubt intended.

Show them the link to the other PCM thread about how PCM were removed before they started, and say this is what needs to be done to protect the peaceful enjoyment of the residents and to avoid an adverse effect on the property being blighted by an ex-clamper firm who have no place handling the personal data of the residents.  PCM simply exist to fine the residents and their visitors; they will not cancel charges for the MA or landlord or for genuine visitors, and offer no independent appeal worth trying - the 'IAS' was exposed a a sham in Parliament. and the Trade Bodies are self-serving.

Also give a link to the Hansard record of the Private Parking Bill being debated on 2.2.18 and quote a few words from MPs about this industry and why Parliament is stepping in.

I think I'd be inclined to tread carefully, here. Sure - point out all the downsides of having a PPC as C-M lists. I am not so certain about saying that you'd regard it as harassment at this stage. And, definitely, definitely be polite. 

There are good landlords and bad landlords - just as there are good tenants and bad tenants. In a case like this the AST  may well support you re parking. However, the landlord may come to regard you as a pain in the neck and decide not to renew your tenancy at the end of the period (is it six months?) - for them the easiest way to deal with the issue

Not saying this is, necessarily, right and that may not be a problem for you. You might be happy to move on and/or you might have a longer tenancy term. Just raising it as a point.

I'd start with the bad things about PPCs - after all you have been invited to write in. Who knows the landlord might agree and remove the PPC. Banging on about harassment might put you on the wrong side of the landlord

Have you considered suggesting alternative methods to a PPC . For example, parking posts. Providing an alternative solution is a constructive way of moving forward

Good luck!

Absolutely. I will be careful to be polite and constructive with my tone and won't mention any issues of legality at this stage. I'll see how this plays out anyway. Thanks for your advice and mature response to my posts, in all sincerity.

NeilCr

tom_cahill said:

NeilCr said:

Coupon-mad said:

Wow, this is your chance to put something powerful in writing, politely telling the landlord and MA what is likely to now happen to all their tenants, and that you (and no doubt, other tenants when they realise) will view this as a private nuisance and harassment. 

Parking firms infesting residential sites undoubtedly bring down the value of properties, intimidate and distress the residents and put prospective new tenants off when viewing such properties (many people boycott places with parking firms now).  This is the exact opposite of what the landlord no doubt intended.

Show them the link to the other PCM thread about how PCM were removed before they started, and say this is what needs to be done to protect the peaceful enjoyment of the residents and to avoid an adverse effect on the property being blighted by an ex-clamper firm who have no place handling the personal data of the residents.  PCM simply exist to fine the residents and their visitors; they will not cancel charges for the MA or landlord or for genuine visitors, and offer no independent appeal worth trying - the 'IAS' was exposed a a sham in Parliament. and the Trade Bodies are self-serving.

Also give a link to the Hansard record of the Private Parking Bill being debated on 2.2.18 and quote a few words from MPs about this industry and why Parliament is stepping in.

I think I'd be inclined to tread carefully, here. Sure - point out all the downsides of having a PPC as C-M lists. I am not so certain about saying that you'd regard it as harassment at this stage. And, definitely, definitely be polite. 

There are good landlords and bad landlords - just as there are good tenants and bad tenants. In a case like this the AST  may well support you re parking. However, the landlord may come to regard you as a pain in the neck and decide not to renew your tenancy at the end of the period (is it six months?) - for them the easiest way to deal with the issue

Not saying this is, necessarily, right and that may not be a problem for you. You might be happy to move on and/or you might have a longer tenancy term. Just raising it as a point.

I'd start with the bad things about PPCs - after all you have been invited to write in. Who knows the landlord might agree and remove the PPC. Banging on about harassment might put you on the wrong side of the landlord

Have you considered suggesting alternative methods to a PPC . For example, parking posts. Providing an alternative solution is a constructive way of moving forward

Good luck!

Absolutely. I will be careful to be polite and constructive with my tone and won't mention any issues of legality at this stage. I'll see how this plays out anyway. Thanks for your advice and mature response to my posts, in all sincerity.

That's kind of you. Thank you

While no fan of PPCs I don't feel as strongly about them as some on here. However, there are far more knowledgable posters on the subject than me so I tend to only post, on occasions

I do know a bit about landlords and tenants, though. And, sometimes, you have to play things carefully - depending quite a lot on whether you want to stay there!

Scrapit

tom_cahill said:

D_P_Dance said:

...  there's no need to add condescending phrases like 'of course' when someone asks a question #

What, not even when the answer is so patently obvious that it should never have been asked?

Well it depends on what you deem to be the primary function of this forum. If you believe it is a place where people come to pathologically assert their superiority over others with their knowledge of technical issues then crack on. If, like me, you believe it's to help people fight back against scammers and charlatan parking companies then I suggest there is no need.

Great Post.

bargepole

tom_cahill said:

Well it depends on what you deem to be the primary function of this forum. If you believe it is a place where people come to pathologically assert their superiority over others with their knowledge of technical issues then crack on. If, like me, you believe it's to help people fight back against scammers and charlatan parking companies then I suggest there is no need.

The primary function of this forum is to help people fight back against PPCs. The secondary function is for those of us with superior technical knowledge to lord it over newbies.

I like to do both. 

D_P_Dance

I never used the term "pathological superiority",
That is true, you did not,,  but if one asserts one's superiority pathologically is it not reasonable to link the the two? 

Le_Kirk

D_P_Dance said:

I never used the term "pathological superiority",
That is true, you did not,,  but if one asserts one's superiority pathologically is it not reasonable to link the the two? 
adjtctive with the nounb call tat sufar ro 

...... and in English please.  You might like to edit your post to remove all that white space.

D_P_Dance

Sorry, done.