A story of dishonesty, daylight robbery, disgust and deceit.
Discussion
Decided to highlight that article dated 14 September regarding PCM here:
Daily Mail said:
A private wheel-clamping firm faces becoming the first in Britain to be given an Asbo banning it from operating in towns where its staff are accused of 'extortion' against motorists.
Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd has become notorious for its predatory and merciless approach and for breaches of industry rules.
But Windsor and Maidenhead Council in Berkshire is determined to call a halt to its cash-grabbing tactics because it is giving the area a bad name with tourists.
This month it will debate whether the firm can be barred from the towns by serving it with an antisocial behaviour order - a measure originally designed to crack down on thugs and hooligans.
For years PCM, which patrols a number of private car parks, has been accused of using deception to trap hundreds of tourists and other hapless motorists. The company does not publish accounts but is thought to rake in hundreds of thousands of pounds a year.
Town hall sources told the Mail how PCM's staff stalk the Windsor Castle car park where tourists 'unwittingly overstay because signs are hard to understand or because zealous operatives clamp their vehicles if they are literally seconds over their allotted time'.
'We regard what this firm is doing as legalised extortion,' said Colin Rayner, lead member for highways and streetcare with the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council.
'We are now of the belief that private clamping should be banned outright. The firm is giving Windsor and surrounding areas a bad name and we are hoping to put a stop to it.'
PCM is headed by managing director Ian Cordingley, 45, from Uxbridge, West London.
Town hall officials have said they also want to target David Blake, a business consultant who works for the firm and represents it on the industry body the British Parking Association, sitting on the board which oversees industry standards.
In January 73-year-old Mavis Maynard and her 77-year-old husband Brian fell foul of PCM when they parked outside a boarded-up office in Maidenhead for 23 minutes to visit the library.
They returned to find their car had been towed away by PCM and they faced demands for a staggering £375 - made up of a £200 removal fee, £130 to release the car, £40 for 'storage' and a £5 credit-card fee.
Mrs Maynard had three appeals to the BPA thrown out before the AA became involved in her case. Two months ago her £375 was finally returned, with a curt note from David Blake apologising for 'any inconvenience'.
She described the firm as the ' unacceptable face of clamping'.
Contacted by the Mail yesterday Mr Blake, who lives with his wife Carole in a £380,000 home in Marlow, Buckinghamshire, would not comment on the allegations against the firm, or the threat of an Asbo.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1213033/Th...
Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd has become notorious for its predatory and merciless approach and for breaches of industry rules.
But Windsor and Maidenhead Council in Berkshire is determined to call a halt to its cash-grabbing tactics because it is giving the area a bad name with tourists.
This month it will debate whether the firm can be barred from the towns by serving it with an antisocial behaviour order - a measure originally designed to crack down on thugs and hooligans.
For years PCM, which patrols a number of private car parks, has been accused of using deception to trap hundreds of tourists and other hapless motorists. The company does not publish accounts but is thought to rake in hundreds of thousands of pounds a year.
Town hall sources told the Mail how PCM's staff stalk the Windsor Castle car park where tourists 'unwittingly overstay because signs are hard to understand or because zealous operatives clamp their vehicles if they are literally seconds over their allotted time'.
'We regard what this firm is doing as legalised extortion,' said Colin Rayner, lead member for highways and streetcare with the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council.
'We are now of the belief that private clamping should be banned outright. The firm is giving Windsor and surrounding areas a bad name and we are hoping to put a stop to it.'
PCM is headed by managing director Ian Cordingley, 45, from Uxbridge, West London.
Town hall officials have said they also want to target David Blake, a business consultant who works for the firm and represents it on the industry body the British Parking Association, sitting on the board which oversees industry standards.
In January 73-year-old Mavis Maynard and her 77-year-old husband Brian fell foul of PCM when they parked outside a boarded-up office in Maidenhead for 23 minutes to visit the library.
They returned to find their car had been towed away by PCM and they faced demands for a staggering £375 - made up of a £200 removal fee, £130 to release the car, £40 for 'storage' and a £5 credit-card fee.
Mrs Maynard had three appeals to the BPA thrown out before the AA became involved in her case. Two months ago her £375 was finally returned, with a curt note from David Blake apologising for 'any inconvenience'.
She described the firm as the ' unacceptable face of clamping'.
Contacted by the Mail yesterday Mr Blake, who lives with his wife Carole in a £380,000 home in Marlow, Buckinghamshire, would not comment on the allegations against the firm, or the threat of an Asbo.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1213033/Th...
Dizeee said:
Yes, David Blake is the same person.
I spoke to him today on the phone.
He claims that he sent a defence to the court and that it has gone missing. He states the court are at fault because they deal with all the cases countrywide and are over worked. I stated it was too bad as I have won by default to which he claimed I had not won anything as he had lodged an appeal with the court regarding this lost defence and that it was all on hold as a result.
He seemed unphased by it all and emphasised he was more than happy to go to court and defend the ticket, very blaze.
I tried the line that this was irrelavant and that I was still now owed monies and this is reflected in the judgement, but he was not interested. They know the system all too well and have done this numerous times before, turning up will achieve nothing.
He might just be BSing you.I spoke to him today on the phone.
He claims that he sent a defence to the court and that it has gone missing. He states the court are at fault because they deal with all the cases countrywide and are over worked. I stated it was too bad as I have won by default to which he claimed I had not won anything as he had lodged an appeal with the court regarding this lost defence and that it was all on hold as a result.
He seemed unphased by it all and emphasised he was more than happy to go to court and defend the ticket, very blaze.
I tried the line that this was irrelavant and that I was still now owed monies and this is reflected in the judgement, but he was not interested. They know the system all too well and have done this numerous times before, turning up will achieve nothing.
Ring the court, and find out what the status of the claim is and find out if he has lodged an 'appeal'. If he knows what he is talking about it will be an application to get the default judgment 'set aside'.
Dizeee said:
Thats exactly what he said, a "set aside".
He even gave me the name of the clerk dealing with it.
Ring them tomorrow and find out whats happening, this guy is just hoping you'll get tired and go away. Many years ago I sued a guy over some bad T shirt printing, he lost and paid up in the end but tried all sorts of stuff to shake me off his tail. He even gave me the name of the clerk dealing with it.
1st hearing he didn't show up, I won by default.
He then gets it set aside saying he got the dates mixed up.
2nd hearing tries to get it moved to another court nearer to him, he failed.
3rd hearing finally loses.
He then tries to get this set aside saying I never returned all the damaged products to him.
Fails then I eventually contact the bailiffs. We go in front of the judge again at his request and finally I get paid a few days later.
These crooks just hope you'll give up.
Dizeee said:
Thats exactly what he said, a "set aside".
He even gave me the name of the clerk dealing with it.
Oh well,He even gave me the name of the clerk dealing with it.
Lets wait for their defence then.
I wouldn't post it online, but if you need a hand as to the best way to respond, feel free to PM me.
They still need to send someone out to defend the claim. IMHO, it will still not be worth it for them and they'll submit something to put the claimant off.
Just done a search on the forums on the net and their MO is to send out a stock defence with 19 pages of appendices.
IMHO, them being late might have even been just a tactic to string it along, as will the next step where they hope the claimant baulks. Thats standard procedure for solicitors let alone clampers. They will usually want to negotiate a deal a week before the trial date.
But to expand on what said at the top of the page.
As earlier it's exactly the same scenario as the Peter Ward case but in a different legal scenario.
This is their job, they can spend all day messing you and the system around.
This is not your job, you like everyone else is trying to make a living, look after a family / household with all the zillion tasks and issues that are related.
You are doing this for the first time, figuring everything out as you go.
They have a well known to them strategy and planned sequence of actions. For all we know they have a written protocol, so that if somebody literally fell under a bus (that is not a threat btw) , but if somebody became unavailable to the organisation at short notice someone else can step in and follow the procedure. Or if something unexpected hits them they change up and go for something else.
A significant part of their strategy, both this shower of scum and the scameraships is that at some point the person / persons fighting them think "I have not got the time and/or resources for this, sod this for a game of soldiers" and give up.
As they say on the streets :It's all in the game, ya feel me?"
edited for typos
As earlier it's exactly the same scenario as the Peter Ward case but in a different legal scenario.
This is their job, they can spend all day messing you and the system around.
This is not your job, you like everyone else is trying to make a living, look after a family / household with all the zillion tasks and issues that are related.
You are doing this for the first time, figuring everything out as you go.
They have a well known to them strategy and planned sequence of actions. For all we know they have a written protocol, so that if somebody literally fell under a bus (that is not a threat btw) , but if somebody became unavailable to the organisation at short notice someone else can step in and follow the procedure. Or if something unexpected hits them they change up and go for something else.
A significant part of their strategy, both this shower of scum and the scameraships is that at some point the person / persons fighting them think "I have not got the time and/or resources for this, sod this for a game of soldiers" and give up.
As they say on the streets :It's all in the game, ya feel me?"
edited for typos
Edited by F i F on Wednesday 16th September 10:48
To add insult to injury, I have now received correspondance from the court to say they cannot enter judgement for a whole load of reasons around validating an address for the company, and not sure whether it is a firm / ltd company etc
And, no, I have not got time or resources for this!
And, no, I have not got time or resources for this!
Dizeee said:
Landshark said:
Don't give up Diz!!!! Thats what they want!!!!
(P.s How's the new job going?)
Great thanks, just a whole load of courses back to back at the moment, I probably won't be free of them until 2011.(P.s How's the new job going?)
face has won.Dizee, go to this forum where there are lots of legal eagles and others who have been through what you are doing now. They are a great help there and the mods delete any "nonsense" posts so you don't get all the waffle.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=7a3abdcf9e71...
Had a quick look through for you. It seems you need to sue the landowner and the clamper. If the landowner says its not their responsibility then the clamping is deemed illegal. Were you in the Argos bay? They must have a contract with the clamper for him to operate.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=7a3abdcf9e71...
Had a quick look through for you. It seems you need to sue the landowner and the clamper. If the landowner says its not their responsibility then the clamping is deemed illegal. Were you in the Argos bay? They must have a contract with the clamper for him to operate.
Edited by sjn2004 on Wednesday 16th September 23:08
sjn2004 said:
Dizee, go to this forum where there are lots of legal eagles and others who have been through what you are doing now. They are a great help there and the mods delete any "nonsense" posts so you don't get all the waffle.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=7a3abdcf9e71...
Had a quick look through for you. It seems you need to sue the landowner and the clamper. If the landowner says its not their responsibility then the clamping is deemed illegal. Were you in the Argos bay? They must have a contract with the clamper for him to operate.
He wasn't in the Argos bay, he was in the bay next to the Argos bay.http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=7a3abdcf9e71...
Had a quick look through for you. It seems you need to sue the landowner and the clamper. If the landowner says its not their responsibility then the clamping is deemed illegal. Were you in the Argos bay? They must have a contract with the clamper for him to operate.
Edited by sjn2004 on Wednesday 16th September 23:08
Edited by herewego on Thursday 17th September 06:52
County Court said:
We are unable to register judgement for the following reasons:
1) We are unable to register a firm/limited company.
2) One or more of the following are missing or incomplete;
Name, Trading Name, House Number, Street, Post town, Postcode...
I entered all these details on the initial claim. When I logged onto the moneyclaim I saw a message relating to the address of PCM (which I obtained from their website) saying "The details of the address have been amended outside of moneyclaim.co.uk".1) We are unable to register a firm/limited company.
2) One or more of the following are missing or incomplete;
Name, Trading Name, House Number, Street, Post town, Postcode...
Now, of course, PCM's website is "under construction" and offline.
Are all these just delay tactics. How on earth, in this day in age, is it permissable for a single human being to be put through so much grief, in such a long time, just merely to obtain back a small amount of money that was taken unlawfully in the first place?
Dizeee said:
County Court said:
We are unable to register judgement for the following reasons:
1) We are unable to register a firm/limited company.
2) One or more of the following are missing or incomplete;
Name, Trading Name, House Number, Street, Post town, Postcode...
I entered all these details on the initial claim. When I logged onto the moneyclaim I saw a message relating to the address of PCM (which I obtained from their website) saying "The details of the address have been amended outside of moneyclaim.co.uk".1) We are unable to register a firm/limited company.
2) One or more of the following are missing or incomplete;
Name, Trading Name, House Number, Street, Post town, Postcode...
Now, of course, PCM's website is "under construction" and offline.
Are all these just delay tactics. How on earth, in this day in age, is it permissable for a single human being to be put through so much grief, in such a long time, just merely to obtain back a small amount of money that was taken unlawfully in the first place?
The WebCHeck service is available 24 hours 7 days a week
Name & Registered Office:
PARKING CONTROL MANAGEMENT (UK) LIMITED
THE COURTYARD
1A CRANBOURNE ROAD
SLOUGH
BERKSHIRE
SL1 2XF
Company No. 04395994
Status: Voluntary Arrangement
Date of Incorporation: 15/03/2002
Country of Origin: United Kingdom
Company Type: Private Limited Company
Nature of Business (SIC(03)):
7487 - Other business activities
Accounting Reference Date: 31/03
Last Accounts Made Up To: 31/03/2008 (TOTAL EXEMPTION SMALL)
Next Accounts Due: 31/01/2010
Last Return Made Up To: 15/03/2009
Next Return Due: 12/04/2010
Last Members List: 15/03/2009
Insolvency History
Previous Names:
No previous name information has been recorded over the last 20 years.
Branch Details
There are no branches associated with this company.
Oversea Company Info
There are no Oversea Details associated with this company.
http://www.dnsstuff.com
Domain name:
pcm-uk.co.uk
Registrant:
Parking Control Management
Registrant type:
Unknown
Registrant's address:
The Courtyard, 1a Cranbourne Road
Slough
Berkshire
SL1 2XF
United Kingdom
Registrar:
GX Networks Ltd t/a 123-Reg.co.uk [Tag = 123-REG]
URL: http://www.123-reg.co.uk
Relevant dates:
Registered on: 09-Jun-2005
Renewal date: 09-Jun-2011
Last updated: 06-Aug-2009
Registration status:
Registered until renewal date.
Name servers:
ns.123-reg.co.uk
ns2.123-reg.co.uk
WHOIS lookup made at 10:57:26 17-Sep-2009
Strangely Brown said:
Dizeee said:
money that was taken unlawfully in the first place?
That has not been established.Both contract law and the specific case law in this area show that Dizeee would have had to consented to his car being clamped.
He did not.
Therefore the clampers were unlawful in their actions. Whether they thought that they were lawful at the time, or even lawful later is irrelevant.
JustinP1 said:
Strangely Brown said:
Dizeee said:
money that was taken unlawfully in the first place?
That has not been established.Both contract law and the specific case law in this area show that Dizeee would have had to consented to his car being clamped.
He did not.
Therefore the clampers were unlawful in their actions. Whether they thought that they were lawful at the time, or even lawful later is irrelevant.
Edited by Strangely Brown on Thursday 17th September 14:59
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff