Cotswold Lakes Trust (Charity) Car Park PPC Minster Baywatch now with LBC from Gladstones

D_P_Dance

Have you complained to The Charity Commission, charities should not be getting into bed with private parking scammers.
i

DontWorryBeHappy27

@D_P_Dance. I have thought about a Charity Commission complaint , but it is not clear to me that they have breached any charity rules. The Trustees should investigate my concerns, they may find it unveils some concerns of their own I hope. It is possible that the non intervention policy may put them at odds with their remit and statement of purpose. 

I understand the charity came into being  after a major fraud by the finance director of the Cotswold Water Park Society in 2011  , which resulted in a Jail sentence. I would hope that current Trustees of the Cotswold Lakes Trust will look at what they need to do with fairness and their duties as Trustees.

DontWorryBeHappy27

This is the reply from the Executive Chairman of Cotswold Lakes Trust Charity about the PCN non intervention policy they have. I did not mention my specific case in the letter I sent to all nine Trustees. 

I will probably create a link in the future to keep the thread tidy in a couple of weeks time 


 Comments welcome.

Dear xxxxxxx 

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 28th of June address to myself and also sent to fellow trustees, following your recent lengthy exchange of emails with xxxxxx xxxx xxxx.

 

I note your well-researched comments on the recent history of car parking operators and PCN's  which I am sure is accurate as well as being informative. I understand that you recently became a member of the trust after you have been issued with a PCN at our Riverside Car Park (my note incorrect Car Park it was another one of their Car Parks)

I can assure you that the Trust spends a considerable amount of its limited resources and time focused on achieving and equitable balance between our core objectives  Conservation, Education and Recreation. 

A number of years ago the Trust actively managed the car parks at our various sites and after a few years' experience it was felt that all resources would be better used on other operations and consequently the activity was contracted out to Bransby Wilson. Since that time, I understand the PCN's issued by them has been extremely low compared with the number of people who either pay on the day or use the car park for free as benefit of being a member I am more than happy to make reference to this in our next annual report. I can confirm that the Trust does not financially benefit from the PCN charges levied by operator. 

The non-intervention policy that you refer to is necessary when using a third-party vendor as we do not have the resources available to follow-up on any parking related queries. The small dedicated team of people employed by the Trust, do not currently have sufficient time to manage the many core tasks expected of them which is vital in achieving our charitable objectives and therefore, when appropriate, we contract at certain activities using legally binding agreements for the benefit of the parties concerned. 

I believe the manner in which are car parking activities are operated are appropriate to meet the Trust's needs  that allows us to focus on delivering the Cotswold Lakes Trust's charitable objectives. 

Yours sincerely 

Xxxxxxxxx

Comments welcome

Fruitcake

In other words, the trust is happy to employ an unregulated parking company, referred to as rogues, scammers, and bloodsuckers by MPs from all parties, and alienate visitors and members alike.
Not only is the PPC unregulated, but so is PoPLA, which is funded by the PPCs so is therefore not an independent body.

I also don't understand the comment about not having the staff to intervene. Instead of sending a one liner to the PPC instructing them to cancel the charge, they have chosen to write a long missive, and leave themselves open to being involved in a court case. It really doesn't make sense to me.


If it were me, I would be cancelling my membership stating that a visit is too expensive if it comes with a £100 charge from an unregulated third party every time.

Umkomaas

One would assume he is well-versed in the principles of 'Vicarious Liability'?  Perhaps not? 

DontWorryBeHappy27

Fruitcake said:

In other words, the trust is happy to employ an unregulated parking company, referred to as rogues, scammers, and bloodsuckers by MPs from all parties, and alienate visitors and members alike.
Not only is the PPC unregulated, but so is PoPLA, which is funded by the PPCs so is therefore not an independent body.

I also don't understand the comment about not having the staff to intervene. Instead of sending a one liner to the PPC instructing them to cancel the charge, they have chosen to write a long missive, and leave themselves open to being involved in a court case. It really doesn't make sense to me.


If it were me, I would be cancelling my membership stating that a visit is too expensive if it comes with a £100 charge from an unregulated third party every time.

Fruitcake. I think ,perhaps naively that remaining a member of the Cotswold Lakes Trust may give me some leverage . Of course you are right that it only takes an email to the PPC to cancel the PCN. My research indicates the PPC provided all the kit for free. Maybe the Charity have signed a non intervention agreement . That way the PPC can recoup their costs via PCNs. 

I am considering raising the issue at the Charity AGM if I can find out how.  Most people get worried by these unfair parking charges and pay up without even appealing. If I can help others in the future I will be delighted.

ParkerstNick

DontWorryBeHappy27 said:

Maybe the Charity have signed a non intervention agreement . That way the PPC can recoup their costs via PCNs. 

I wouldn't have thought this was possible. The agent (PPC) needs their principal's authority to contract and enforce the contract. If the PPC has made the principal (landowner) sign away their authority to intervene the agent is left without any legal standing. 

KeithP

ParkerstNick said:

DontWorryBeHappy27 said:

Maybe the Charity have signed a non intervention agreement . That way the PPC can recoup their costs via PCNs. 

I wouldn't have thought this was possible.

Of course it is possible. The PPC writes a contract including those words. The Charity agrees those terms. From that point on the Charity believes they have signed away their rights to intervene.

ParkerstNick said:

DontWorryBeHappy27 said:

Maybe the Charity have signed a non intervention agreement . That way the PPC can recoup their costs via PCNs. 

If the PPC has made the principal (landowner) sign away their authority to intervene the agent is left without any legal standing. 

I have no idea whether that is true or not, but as above, if the landholder thinks they have signed away their rights then they are unlikely to intervene.

DontWorryBeHappy27

Wow read this!

This Charity will not it seems intervene even if its members forget to let them know that they have a new car and get a Parking Charge Notice from the Private Parking Company.

 "Members are responsible for keeping the Charity  informed as to their correct vehicle registration (VRM) at all times. Should this be provided incorrectly, or vehicle(s) changed without updating us, a parking charge notice (PCN) may be issued by the car park operator, which the Trust is unable to cancel.  The Trust cannot be held responsible or financially liable for any PCNs issued under such circumstances"

Fruitcake

Have you cancelled your membership yet?