Parking in own space/IAS as Kangaroo court/complaint to MA and freeholder

Grizebeck

Are they local to you ?( the MA)

Fruitcake

Do a leaflet drop to other residents.
Set up Fakebook or similar fightback group.
Call a residents meeting, throw out the MA and replace them with a new one made from residents.

KoalaMSEF

Grizebeck said:

Are they local to you ?( the MA)

Nope. This is one of those large MAs. 

KoalaMSEF

Fruitcake said:

Do a leaflet drop to other residents.
Set up Fakebook or similar fightback group.
Call a residents meeting, throw out the MA and replace them with a new one made from residents.

It is quite easily done in Scotland where we relocated from. We had a sense of community there. There is less a community spirit in Midlands as far as I am aware in this area. Don’t think the neighbours have the appetite for anything just like people in other posts have said. People simply will say just pay them and move on. We are new and it has been done and everybody seems to follow it. Anyway, it’s just shocking

Coupon-mad

KoalaMSEF said:

Grizebeck said:

Are they local to you ?( the MA)

Nope. This is one of those large MAs. 

FirstPort?  Like the other case on here?

Mullerice

Coupon-mad said:

KoalaMSEF said:

Grizebeck said:

Are they local to you ?( the MA)

Nope. This is one of those large MAs. 

FirstPort?  Like the other case on here?

Keen to know if it’s them. I might be preparing to go up against them to remove CPM from our estate 

h2g2

KoalaMSEF said:

Grizebeck said:

Are they local to you ?( the MA)

Nope. This is one of those large MAs. 

Are they part of Trust Ltd (like mine)?

KoalaMSEF

Hi all, been away for a while and just came back from overseas. It's Trinity. After a stream of complaints, we are now speaking to a manager, who is still kicking the ball to the P&P by setting up 'traps' to shift their responsibilities. P&P remained insisted that their charges were 'valid' because IAS said so (!!!) who had said in their message that they are not a legal body and have no influence on P&P's decision (!!!) explicitly. At least, Trinity and P&P as principal and agent are in the same email now. Don't know if they watch this space but this is just mind-boggling and I'm going to write a research paper about them and publish! Would appreciate you guys comments on this dubious practice in due course. 

Grizebeck

Show was they said please 

KoalaMSEF

Nothing new - 

P&P: "please pay online... Both appeals have been declined also with the IAS."
"The parking charge notices are valid and to be paid on line."

This has been the case despite that (1) a full lease is submitted as requested (2) P&P has said that our lease has granted us parking rights but we have to adhere to "landlord's condition", which is some mysterious catch phrase that subject to the leaseholder to an inferior status, thus can be bullied as they wish. There is no such condition in the lease. Landlord has nothing to do with this; it's Trinity.

Trinity -  denying all liabilities of failing duty of care, variation of lease, vicarious liabilities due to their agent's behaviour etc. In the last paragraph, it says "we have contacted the parking company P&P Management to see if they would remove the charges as goodwill, to which they have advised that you will need to appeal to them directly...they will be happy to help." Our understanding is they have talked to P&P and there was some agreement here. 

Hence we emailed P&P directly and copied Trinity's manager, who by the way has shifted their responsibilities in the previous correspondence of denying all the misinformation. This person asked us to send his email that denies all the responsibilities to all the parties here and promised to talk to "all parties."

At the moment, I emailed back and pointed out that he (Trinity) should know what we have said in relation to a range of things here and we trust he has the full information. We also pointed out that (1) lease is submitted and disregarded (2) IAS says that "once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances" (who is establishing whose liabilities? P&P?) and (3) P&P insisted that it's landlord, thus Trinity's condition, that causes the charges on parking in our own space. All these come back to Trinity, who hired P&P as the contractor in the first place. Hence, we hope this can be resolved and thank his assistance here. 

That's the current development.