parking cowboys invited round to my place

[Raify]

I've been so lazy, but I've got a letter almost written (in my head mostly) to send to this numpty concerned resident. We'll see where that leads us.

In the meantime, we can attach a contractual agreement of our own to your car, along the lines I suggested above...

Or we could just get loaded on friday evening and rip all the signs down...

[streaky]

The reference to the "resident" receiving £10.00 + VAT strongly suggests that it is expected to be a company/trader (VAT registered) - Streaky

[Raify]

Thanks! Another good point that I shall be adding to my letter.

[nonegreen]

superlightr said:

Raify said: why didn't you say that in the first place? I was asking for people's experiences of this company, and clearly you have a positive one. Thanks for offering a "light at the end of the tunnel" If what you say is true, it seems that they are the exception that proves the rule in the 'parking enforcement industry' Perhaps some friendly mod could change the thread title to "Parking company invited round to my place" Calling any business 'cowboys' is not really complying with the naming and shaming rules which is the part that was annoying to me. Nor can that company defend itself. Company reputations are valuable. Just by chance, we happend to have used this firm and know they are not Cowboys but to the general PH massive this would not have come across and imho did not reading the subsequent posts. I was keen to see if you had spoken to your managing agents first to get more facts who are employed to resolve your questions before digging abigger hole. - It would have been sensible for the managing agents to write a circular to the resident advising them of Parkforce and what they do. (we certainly do) Perhaps you need us instead of your current managing agents ! although its driving me bonkers dealing with all the problems we get as it is so perhaps dont call us, we will call you ! >> Edited by superlightr on Monday 5th September 16:20 >> Edited by superlightr on Monday 5th September 16:22

Interesting thought on the naming and shaming rules.

Surely though all managing agents and any company providing services like parkforce are just a con? I mean up here in the North there are lots of appartment blocks built and managing agents appointed and usually within a few months the residents sack them and employ their own local gardeners and window cleaners and reduce the service fees by 90%. Any firm that provided parking enforcement has to be on the wrong side of the law really. I mean its not even certain that the local council can prosecute for parking so its certain that a private concern is criminal activity. Taken to its logical conclusion we will be legalising protection racketeering next. I never pay any of these scum anyway.

[Raify]

I agree. I can understand superlightr's point of view about a company's reputation, but do they have one to protect in the first place?

reminds me of Sadam Hussein suing the Sun...

I'm joking of course, all usual disclaimers apply

[nightmare]

hmm....sorry guys dont agree.

Noneg...your points seem to be that usually people get rid of these guys and do it themselves. Surely the important point is 'ususally'? There are numerous industries which have an associated bad reputation BECAUSE some lazy-arsed conmen have exploited them, but that doesnt actually make that endevour bad in its own right (the merry world of alopecia/baldness treatments being quite a good example)

With that in mind, is it not unfair to condemn any new organisation who has realised or found a genuine service in that area just because others have dragged it into disrepute? Knee-jerk reactions are kinda the easy response, rather than doing a bit of research.

After all, I know a reliable plumber, an intelligent and pleasant council official and even a human lawyer....

[chrisgr31]

nonegreen said:

Any firm that provided parking enforcement has to be on the wrong side of the law really. I mean its not even certain that the local council can prosecute for parking so its certain that a private concern is criminal activity. Taken to its logical conclusion we will be legalising protection racketeering next. I never pay any of these scum anyway.

Why? They are treating the offence as a civil matter which it is. Basically they are supplying clear legible signs which state that it costs £X to park on that bit of land. You park there you become liable to pay £x. They write to you asking for you for £x you do not pay they take action against you for non-payment.

This has to be a far netter system than one where a tiny suign gives details of the charges, you park and a hidden git rushes out clamps you and refuses to remove it and charges you £70 or more for the priveledge.

I run a community hall where the adjacent garage regulary park cars in the car park, much to the annoyance of the hall users who quite reasonably expect to park there. The garage deny its tem even when I see it with my own eyes! I don;t want to go the clamping route, but this route seems ideal. After all won;t be the garage that gets the bill it will be the customers who will be less than impressed!

[Pies]

streaky said:

The reference to the "resident" receiving £10.00 + VAT strongly suggests that it is expected to be a company/trader (VAT registered) - Streaky

Inland revenue might want some of that £10 too

[g_attrill]

chrisgr31 said:

...They are treating the offence as a civil matter which it is. Basically they are supplying clear legible signs which state that it costs £X to park on that bit of land. You park there you become liable to pay £x. They write to you asking for you for £x you do not pay they take action against you for non-payment.

How they do know who to sue? They will be able to get the registered keeper's address from the DVLA but that may well not be who was using the car (and hence formed the contract) at the time. You can't sue the RK based on the actions of another person.

Gareth