My scanner is knackered so I can't show you the site plan but it clearly marks all the spaces together with the apartment they belong to. Regarding my own space - if I park there as normal I will (should) not receive a ticket from the PPC but if someone else does I should be able to call the PPC to get them to move the offending car. That is the only way this scheme could possibly benefit me though whether they would come out at 3am when I get back from work is another matter. The main problem is that at the moment cars are parked sensibly in non-marked spaces and these cars will be penalised. The management company have made little effort to create any more spaces, and the decision not to was taken at a meeting attended by very few residents. The PPC have sent forms out to all the residents asking for details of which cars park in which spaces. I am not sending it back. Hopefully this will not result in my car being clamped in my space whenever they visit!! The quicker the clamping ban the better. Incidentally, I emailed the management company with my points and have asked to see a copy of their contract with the PPC but have heard nothing!! Surprise surprise.

Unfortunately there is. It's defined as a particular space which is highlighted on one of the site plans attached to the lease.

Unfortunately there is. It's defined as a particular space which is highlighted on one of the site plans attached to the lease.

I have checked out the Clamping Guide before now and was interested to read the section under "Permits or no permits" and wondered if the same approach to rejecting the scheme could be applied to my situation?!! I see no reason why not!

OK - Here's a little snippet of the lease! (It's pretty dry reading!) There is a section entitled "Enforcement by a third party" which reads: "ANY person who is not a party to this Deed has no rights under the Contracts (Right of Third Parties) Act 1999 to enforce any term of this Deed. This does not affect any right or remedy of a third party which exists or is available apart from that Act including (without limitation) rights of successors in title of the parties hereto". Parts of the lease relevant to the parking space. Under "Description of the property": "The Parking Space shall include for the purpose of grant only the macadam surface thereof but excludes:- 2.1 the land below the macadam surface 2.2 any Conduits not serving exclusively the Property" Under "Rights granted to the Lessee": "1. The rights for the Lessee (in common with the Lessor the Developer the Management Company and all others authorised by the Lessor the Developer or the Management Company or entitled to the like right) at all times and for all purposes incidental to the occupation and enjoyment of the Property:- 1.1 .................. 1.2 The right with or without vehicles for all reasonable purposes connected with the use of the Property to go pass and re-pass firstly along the Estate Roads and secondly over the Private Accessway to gain access to and egress from the Property. 1.3 ................. 8. The right for the Lessee's visitors to park one roadworthy private motor car on a Visitor's Parking Space for short term parking on a first come first served temporary basis and subject to any regulations made by the Management Company." "Lessee's covenants": Not to do or suffer to be done anything which might hinder or prevent free access with or without vehicles to and over the Hard Standing Area for Fire Appliance shown as such on Plan 1 and to the entrance to the Block or any part of the Development and in particular not to park or allow the parking of any motor vehicle on any part of the block or any part of the Development except upon the Parking Accommodation or in the Visitor's Parking Spaces but only in accordance with Paragraph 12 of Part II of the Third Schedule of this Lease." Paragraph 12, Part II, 3rd Schedule: "12. Not to park any vehicle caravan trailer or boat of any kind on the Property or any park of the Development except that 12.1 private motorcars and private motorcycles may be parked on the Parking Space 12.2 vehicles delivering or collecting goods may be parked temporarily on the Private Accessway or vacant Visitor Parking Spaces 12.3 Visitors to the Property may park in a Visitor's Parking Space on a first come first served basis 13. Not to allow any occupier of or visitor to the Property to infringe these covenants relating to parking." The last section of the lease describes "purposes for which the service charge is to be applied" and states that one of the costs may be to employ contractors to carry out any of the Management Company's or Lessor's obligations under the lease. That's it for parking! The lease doesn't go into any detail about how to conduct AGMs etc, but I have found one paragraph which hints at the need for a majority vote for matters relating to the spending of the service charge: "If at any time the Management Company shall reasonably consider that it would be in the general interest of the lessees of the properties on the Current Phase so to do the Management Company shall have power to discontinue any of the matters specified in the Fifth Schedule [Purposes for which the Service Charge is to be applied] and the Sixth Schedule [block and Estate Costs] which in its opinion shall have become impracticable obsolete unnecessary or excessively costly provided that in deciding whether or not to discontinue any such matter the Management Company shall consider the views and wishes of the majority of the lessees of the properties on the Current Phase." But that seems to be contradicted in the "provisos" section that follows: "Power to impose or vary Regulations The Management Company may at any time or times during the Term in the interests of good estate management impose such regulations of general application regarding the Current Phase or the properties therein as it may in its absolute discretion think fit (but so that any such regulations shall not conflict with this Lease) and the Management Company the Lessor and the Developer shall have power in their absolute discretion to revoke amend or add to those regulations or any additions thereto or substitutions therefore." It looks like they can amend the lease as they please but I am not up to speed with the need for a new lease etc if they choose to implement new measures. If there is such a need, surely we all need to sign it?? Phew!!

Thanks again everyone. I have emailed the lady at the management company who represents our site detailing my concerns and requested details of attendance at the AGM, and details of the votes cast. However, I have dealt with her before, and she is hopeless. So I shall wait to see what she says! I strongly suspect, for the reasons I have outlined above, that the decisions made at the AGM were not made by a suitable majority. Once I have details of the attendees, how can I prove that the vote was unlawful?? The management company aren't very good listeners to the residents and I don't think they will be very receptive to my arguments. Already I have had a reply from the guy that lives here basically saying "tough, it's happening"! I haven't presented him with the quorate theory yet... The problem is if you have 2 cars in your household you are not going to be catered for. You never have been and you never will be because you only ever signed the lease agreeing to the use of one space. Apart from the employment of a cowboy parking company, my other concern is security outside of the site during the wee small hours which is often when my girlfriend or I might find ourselves returning from work. If we have to park some way outside the gates, my car insurance is invalidated if it is broken into and I am left with a stroll back to the flat through an area with a high crime rate. In the last few months there have been THREE carjackings near the gates to the car parks when people have left their car to go and enter a code to open the gates. This hardly fills me with confidence!

Yeah I'm gonna do just that. Going to prepare some kind of flyer and drop it in people's letterboxes asking them to email me or something - haven't quite finalised the plan! It strikes me that a disproportionate number of people who clearly would not want extra spaces created attended the AGM when the vote was cast and produced an inaccurate result. I guess the argument would be that if parking enforcement can be introduced after such a one-sided vote, then more parking spaces could be created on the same basis!! The director of the management company seems to think that there will be only ticketing on the site. If they ticket, fair enough, no one has to pay and I will make sure everyone knows this, but clamping takes it to another level! He has been away for some time recently and allowed the management company to introduce the parking enforcement scheme without him there to monitor what is being said. I think they are setting themselves up for a big fall if any of this progresses to court. He has not seen the contract with the PPC yet and has assured me he'll forward me a copy asap. I have not managed to find anything about TGS Parking Services being SIA registered. Their clamping on our site is illegal regardless, I would have thought, and since all accusations of illegal parking will always remain unproven they cannot come and clamp on the site. The management company say they are a large organisation with several sites across Manchester but all I can find are 2 mobile numbers. The website offers no clues. I guess if this goes ahead I will have to inform our local MP, the police, and maybe even a local newspaper. I think that would give us the best chance of fighting these cowboys.

Interesting responses, thanks. I am not aware of the diplomatic ins and outs of the AGM so maybe that is something to put on the back burner for a while. I emailed one of the directors of the management company who lives on the site and he confirmed that (Busby, you're absolutely correct!) there is no cost to the management company for employing the PPC. Obviously this means they will ticket like mad to make money out of us. Clamping is only to be done when three unpaid tickets have been accrued by a vehicle. I assume that if I park incorrectly on the site, receive 3 tickets, ignore them all, then get clamped whilst parked properly in my space, that is illegal as I believe I read somewhere that clamping of a vehicle as a punishment for non-payment of previous fines is a no-no?? I have no intention of paying any tickets and I believe that there will be very few options to park on the site other than in my space (if my girlfriend isn't already in it) so if they clamp me or remove my car is the best advice to pay up then sue the PPC / management company for the costs? The usual arguments against the ridiculous charges employed by the PPC that I mentioned above still stand but I fear there is little I can do about it since I use the car park every day and somehow they are allowed to just take my car away. What's more infuriating is that several attendees voted against the creation of more parking spaces around the site. Looking at those present at the AGM, 3 of the properties already have two spaces allocated to them and several of the others I believe are single occupants so it's understandable why they didn't want the budget spent on spaces they won't ever need. There are only 6 properties with two car parking spaces, and 3 of them turned up to vote in a group of 14!! The director of the management company and his wife only have one space and voted for the creation of others but were in the minority. I am going to put all the input from this thread, as well as other info gathered from round the site and send it to the management company. I expect they will ignore it so I guess then it's up to me to inform my neighbours of their rights...

Lamma, Once again you have come up with some great ideas, thanks! I'll be writing to our management company asking to see the contract. There is nothing in this year's budget for parking enforcement so it might come under something else, in which case it could be an inside job. I know one of the directors of the management company (he lives on the site) and he is a nice bloke. He took over following the ridiculous inefficiency of the last lot. Our lease makes no mention of parking enforcement, but parking outside of designated bays (even if the car is safely tucked away) is effectively a breach of the lease. I don't know about the management company's right to enforce that. The notes from a recent AGM show that people living in 14 of the properties on the site attended. By my estimation there are 180 properties affected by this. Of the attendees, the "majority of the leaseholders voted in favour of a ticketing enforcement scheme rather than clamping". But clamping we have. If a pessimistic 51% voted for parking enforcement, that would account for a decision like this being made by 4% of the leaseholders on the site!! If all the attendees voted in favour that is only 8%. I have signed nothing and disagree with the principle of employing PPCs outside my own house. Is this an argument?? This scheme is operating on an initial 3 month trial - you can bet it'll be kept on if it's a moneyspinner!!! Thanks again!

Having had a look around the SIA website, there appears to be no mention of them as approved contractors. This company may just be one bloke though whose name I don't have...? Their website shows no affiliation with any regulatory authority (such as they are!). What I am concerned about is the lack of guidelines. It's early stages as the enforcement begins next month but I am concerned that they have access to my car at all times so if I refuse to pay a charge they can come and clamp me anytime. If I remove it, I get done!

After years of fighting them off, my issue with PPCs has just got a lot closer to home - and I am not happy about it. I live in a block of apartments with secure, gated parking. Each apartment is allocated one parking space and there are a few visitors spaces dotted around the site. Most of the apartments are running two cars and, generally, parking on the access roads has been considerate around the site on occasions when all parking spaces have been occupied. However, this has not been enough for our management company who, after a recent AGM which I couldn't attend, have decided to employ a private parking company to enforce parking around the site. The area around our site has an above-average rate of car crime and is poorly lit at night times. Both my girlfriend and I work shifts and often return from work late at night. Secure parking offers us a degree of personal safety. We both feel that this has now been taken away from us. What's more, our cars are insured when parked in a secure area. Parking on the road is going to cost us more in insurance so that's another reason why we want to carry on parking inside the gates!! The PPC will be able to clamp / remove cars parked without authorisation in numbered spaces belonging to individual apartments (fair enough). However, they will be clamping any car that is not parked in a bay and those cars that are parked in visitors spaces for longer than three days. Naturally I am fuming. Our management company will not listen to any objections that relate to any property owning more than one car (that's most, if not all, of them). So, in order to spread the word to my neighbours I am looking for advice. The PPC is called TGS Parking Services based in Stretford, Manchester. Their only contact telephone number is a mobile number. Their charges are as follows: Parking charge - £90 Clamping release fee - £90 Vehicle removal and impound charges £210 + £30 per day storage. The policy on our site is to issue 3 tickets before clamping, but the rules are so wishy washy I am not exactly sure how strict they will be. We would really appreciate any advice on how to deal with this new system. The parking company is not welcome and is a step too far for the minor parking problems we experience, but the fear is that they will now run wild outside my own home. Our management company are not interested and have not made any effort to create more parking spaces before the introduction of this scheme!! Many thanks for your tips!

I'm wondering how safe it is to return to a car park which has previously resulted in a ticket (successfully ignored!) issued to my car. Can they clamp me for non-payment if they see my car there even if it is parked "legally"?

Same news from me. No communication for nearly a year and their last letter suggested such urgency that I pay or court blah de blah!! They can't be too fussed about my money then...

The SIP thing has taken another step towards their ultimate embarassment. Today I received a letter entitled "FINAL NOTICE"!! It reads: "Despite previous reminders you still have an outstanding balance for £147 payable immediately. Please be advised that if this payment is not settled within the next 28 days we will commence County Court proceedings against you. To avoid court appearance, you are strongly advised to call 0845 671 0047 now to settle your outstanding PCN. Once court action commences, the appropriate fees and interest will be added." This one is from the "legal department" now. Interestingly, the signature is similar to that on the letter from the "appeals department". Also, they have failed to charge me another £15 for receiving the letter which they promised to do AND they have put a comma in the wrong place. So bring on the court appearance! I cannot wait! I'll have to stop myself from laughing at their pathetic case. Once that is settled I will concentrate all my efforts having them shut down for good and spend the £147 I've just saved on a really good shredder for all their letters. How was the other SIP case coming along? Has anyone heard anything? I haven't seen the thread for ages.

I'd be interested to hear more about this too! If there's another letter on it's way I'll be due one soon as the most recent correspondence from these people was a month ago. Was this letter from SIP Parking?

I have received another red letter! This time it says in big red letters: "2nd reminder: Failure to respond to this letter may affect your credit rating and may lead to legal action". Firstly I won't comment on their use of "2nd" to begin a paragraph nor will I mention too many uses of the word "may", but I will mention that they have never given me any credit so can't touch my credit rating! They have charged me £15 for the honour of receiving their rubbish and now the "full charge amount" stands at £147 - it started at £25! (And even then I owed them nothing). Keep 'em coming, S.I.P. The more letters I receive the more you shoot yourself in the legal (proverbial) foot.

Just received this letter from SIP - it's in red now, OOOOOOOOHHHH!! What does being a member of the British Parking Association give to a private parking company?? Is it a government-run thing or simply a private set-up to monitor private set-ups? Cheers.

The ticket was issued on private property. They even say on another letter regarding our appeal "The car park in question is on private land which is not controlled by Local Authorities". That's us off the hook if you ask me! Thanks all.

I have scanned the front page of the Notice to Owner I recieved from SIP. [/url] The more interesting stuff is on the back which didn't work but it says: "Why should I respond to this notice? If you fail to respond to this notice, legal proceedings may be issued against you in the county Courts/Sheriffs Court. This may result in: 1. You having to pay more in the end because of court costs 2. A court judgement/decree 3. Your possessions being seized" If anyone has any other problems with them I would like to hear how they dealt with you. I think we owe them 5p for the overstay so I might deliver it in person. They use a PO Box but their address if you wish to do the same is: SIP CAR PARKS LIMITED PETER HOUSE OXFORD ROAD MANCHESTER GREATER MANCHESTER M1 5AN Company No. 06752444 Cheers

Thanks again everyone. I'll try to post up all our communications to/from SIP tomorrow and I'd be interested to hear what you think!

TFT, Jogs, thanks for your replies. We will gratefully take your advice and ignore everything we receive from them. Our concern was that they threaten to use CCTV footage as well as photographs of the car that they took on the day itself. However, if the bar that *owns* the car park keeps CCTV footage for more than six months, I'll be amazed. How do these cowboys continue to fleece those who have not been fortunate enough to read the information on this site before paying up? Why doesn't this stuff make the local papers more often? If more people knew about their tricks it would put them out of business!

Yes! My girlfriend and I have been entangled in a dispute with SIP since August last year. A PCN was issued for an overstay at a private pay & display car park in Manchester. The guy was all too quick to dart out of the office and slap a ticket on our car even though we were standing a few yards away, albeit a few minutes past the ticket's expiry time. We also watched him take a number of photos of the car. However, the registration on the ticket was incorrect by 1 digit - an "E" had been inputted instead of an "F". Before we had discovered what we know now thanks to these forums, we were too honest with the parking company and sent them a letter indicating the ticket was incorrectly issued and we want nothing to do with them. The registered address of the vehicle was not used for correspondence. They threatened and abused my girlfriend over the phone following subsequent contact and accused us of altering the ticket in our favour to display an incorrect registration (we didn't touch it). They obtained our details and issued us with a "Notice to Owner" and, having consulted this and other websites, we decided to use a template letter to write to them in which we indicated the signage was inadequate, their use of threatening language and accusations of altering the ticket contravened the "Administration of Justice Act 1970" etc etc. Our reply incidentally began "I am the driver and registered keeper and confirm I was so at the time of the alleged infringement", the closest we have come to admitting anything to them! However, we have just received a letter from them which (to paraphrase) says "tough, pay up" and continues to allege tampering with the ticket. By all indications, this is essentially a standard letter as the grammar is far better than that used in previous correspondence. It also mentions they will use CCTV footage if necessary to take us to court. That, and the photos they took on the day itself, is a little worrying! So have we gone too far to start ignoring them now??!? I know we shouldn't have contacted them in the first place but we are honest people and had no idea they were [causing problems] us!! Following our contact with them are we likely to be the 0.01% who are taken to court? We have until the 18th March to pay up then they say they will add £15 per notice thereafter that is sent. I will keep my mouth shut next time I promise!! Any help is appreciated!