PPC now patrolling my apartment's car park!!!

[DJXFM]

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!

[afcwben]

From what I have seen clamping your car in respect of an alleged debt is a criminal act, the invoices are totally un enforcable it is also worth checking if they are in the SIA

[DJXFM]

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!

[lamma]

have you signed any agreement to participate in this scheme ? get a copy of the contract between the management co and the PPC. odds are they make money from it. As principle they will will responsible for the actions of their agent - and so be liable I bet its a self ticketing thing and someone who lives there will be dishing out the confetti. Follow the money ! What do your deeds/lease say about parking exactly ? get more than 50 percent of the residents on side and you can kick the management company out.. might be worth letting them know that you know this

[DJXFM]

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!

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

I would also check to see whether the management company were authorised to make such a decision. For example, was this an agenda item notified to all residents in advance?

[buzby]

There probably won't be anything in the budget as it will be free of cost to the Management Company - all costs being recovered from the 'defaulters'. What does work against you was your inability to attend the AGM, as you would have been in a far better position to know the full score, and any objections. If it was put through on the nod, then your objection to it may be academic.

[lamma]

Is 14 a quorum ? What binds you to this vote ? They can't vote away your rights.

 

So 7 or 8 out 180 voted for it ? be interesting to know who they were...

[buzby]

Vote away your rights? Emotive stuff, if it was true! Reminds me of people who complain about their MP but never voted! Just like that famous line in Monty Python & The Holy Grail - King of The Britons? I didn't vote for him!

 

As the matter was discussed at a meeting, if those present voted for it, those that didn't or didn't go had their chance, so crying about it later is a bit rich. If the quorum was met, and 180 din't turn up, that does not invalidate the process.

[DJXFM]

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...

[kiptower]

quote " 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?? "

 

now tell the man' committee they will be allowing a criminal offence to be committed and that if it does happen you will be suing them for any cost involved , and reporting the matter to the Police and that the CLAMPER MUST BE SIA Registered to clamp, and there could be serious problems for them as they are allowing the threat of clampling, also tell them their is nothing in the lease so regardless of the vote it cannot be enforced , they cannot ammend your lease lawfully, also remind them they "CAN BE SACKED AND REPLACED" and that as you have already done they should seek urgent legal advice

[Conniff]

Why not do as lamma has suggested and go canvas all 180 homes, then you will know what strength you actually have.

[DJXFM]

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.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

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.

With respect, I feat thar will be a big mistake.

 

I note that you are proposing to canvass the other residents. While you are doing that I would find out whether the AGM was a quorate meeting and thus whether the decisions made were with appropriate authority. Then I would find out what the process is to call for an EGM where, with your supporters you can force the management co to reverse their decision or face having thge directors sacked.

 

That will be the most efficient and effective way of dealing with the situation.

[buzby]

Forget the canvas. That's a 'closing the stable door' option. Start with the MINUTES of the AGM, to see what transpired. Then (and only then) can you plan your next step with any surety. Once you have this. and there is something you need to change. you need an 'EGM' and your can then canvas the other owners/tenants to change the existing arrangement.

[DJXFM]

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!

[buzby]

A 'suitable majority' doesn;t really mean anything. If a quorum is 6. and at the meeting 20 voted for and 14 voted against (with, say 100 not voting at all) then there IS no issue. They should have voted, but didn't, and that is fully democratic. (there completely 'lawful'). This means your only option is to re-run the vote, next year - or seek an EGM under the provision that are required to call one. I fail to see how your insurance can be invalidated. Your car isn't parked in your driveway or garage, so effectively it is in the 'open' whether in your allotted space or outside the property's boundaty.

 

The issue (AISI) it a completely different one. For owners that have more cars than parking spaces, they are the ones that need to be controlled. The alternative is to move to a property that has a big enough driveway or garage to cope with the number of vehicles you own or plan to use. Shrugging shoulders and saying you need the additional vehicles is a fact, and is up to the Property Agents to resolve the issue doesn't seem an equitible way forward.

[kiptower]

point 1 ) ok start @ the begining , did they publish an agenda , and were you lettered or signs posted containing it , they must also publish the agenda 21 clear days before it is held is the first rules they must abide by, point 2 ) then if you have nothing in your lease then to add a condition of you living there they will introduce parking restrictions , it is an amendment to your lease, regardless of the voting, they cannot amend YOUR ACTUAL LEASE, a management committee does not have the power to do so,

[buzby]

What had an agenda got to do with anything? This would be a process of the meeting mechanism, and an irrelevance providing the matter was properly raised and voted on.

 

The timeframes stated are not relevant unless already stipulated. Otherwise, a clause stating such matters of common interest are dealt with at an AGM of the owners is all that is required to introduce it. No need to mention all the things that might be introduced at a later stage.

[kiptower]

matters relating to the agm must be published withing the notice calling the AGM 21 clear days before its held , and such a matter cannot be put under AOB @ an AGM

[buzby]

You know this, how? Are you an owner there? As for 21 clear days - where do you get that from? It can be ANY reasonable timeframe agreed as part of the associations articles. Or do you believe all AGMs have to abide by some statutory period by 'law'?

[kiptower]

yes I do know the answers what they do your side of the border as for law has sweet FA to do with england

[kiptower]

and the only exemption to the 21 day rule is when a

Extraordinary general meeting is called , where a matter of urgency has arisen

[kiptower]

most assosciation are goverened by the Charities Rules , very few can can fall outside these

 

read the following regarding proceedure

 

http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Publications/cc48.aspx#11

 

every thing is laid out there , it is set out to protect against ROUGE Assosciations etc doing their own thing ,

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

it is set out to protect against ROUGE Assosciations etc doing their own thing ,

 

But its not just the "reds under the beds" we have to guard against. What about "les bleus" even if its not woad that is used.

 

Or did you really mean ROGUE Associations?

 

(No offence intended by use of the word woad!)