Letter: Questions asked over clamped cars

Correspondent • Published 4 Nov 2010 12:30 2 Comments

See also:

I AM writing to make people aware of the unscrupulous and immoral tactics being used by private car-clamping companies operating in Reading.

It would seem that Trinity Parking Solutions Ltd, who operate under the name “PCN Services” and are based in Slough, set a trap for churchgoers in Watlington Street on Sunday, October 31.

There is very limited parking for the large congregation that attend services at the Sacred Heart Polish Church.

As far as I am aware, no objections have been raised to people using the vacant parking area immediately opposite the church. The area has been used by regular churchgoers for many years without complaint.

It is true that a small sign has recently been put up warning that cars may be clamped, but this was taken to relate to a designated area for permit holders not used by churchgoers.

On Sunday, the gate to the parking area was left open, apparently in an attempt to lure in unsuspecting victims.

Approximately 20 cars were left unattended for the length of the church service.

Four cars were clamped, and the others trapped by a PCH vehicle that blocked the exit.

Stunned churchgoers were advised that the fee for removing the clamp was £130, and a further £250 would be charged to cancel the PCN removal truck that had been promptly called out.

I understand that the British Parking Association code of practice states: “you cannot be charged a clamping and removal fee if you return to the car within three hours.” The rule seems to have been disregarded!

Police were called to the scene, but seemed powerless to act. A police request to PCN staff to stop blocking the exit was ignored until the unfortunate clamped car drivers paid out fines of £385 each and the other victims received £100 penalty tickets.

How long can we allow vigilante companies to operate in our towns and cities?

Yes, private individuals and companies have a right to ensure others do not encroach on their land, but many other questions are raised:

- Can it be right that car owners are blocked from exiting a site? Is this not tantamount to false imprisonment?

- How can a company’s representatives be allowed to ignore police requests to stop blocking the exit?

- Why is the British Parking Association code of practice, that you cannot be charged a clamping and removal fee if you return to the car within three hours, not made law?

- Why is there not more short-term parking available outside the Sacred Heart Church?

I am shocked that a company is allowed to operate in this way and would be very interested to hear of similar experiences. Maybe then the authorities will act to prevent these unfair bullying tactics being used in our town.

Trevor Cobb

Wokingham

This letter appeared in Reading Chronicle 04 Nov 10

Have your say. Post a comment on this article.

michael
Unregistered User
Nov 4, 21:30
Report comment

Dear Trevor,

firstly I am sorry that things have come this and i wish to make very clear that Watlington House and myself only want a good relationship with the Church and will endeavour to see this maintained. The events of the weekend are regrettable to say the least and something I do not wish.

However reading your letter I am compelled to correct you on certain matters and feel its important to highlight matters we have experienced, in doing so I hope you can understand the reasons for our actions and you might share this with your colleagues and also understand that we are working to help you very much.

Mrs Nicpon approached myself early 2010 to see if approved parking would be allowed during Church services on our land, to which we agreed in exchange for some free labour in the Garden (which happened for one day). No time scale and no cost was applied to this and the condition of understanding being this was free and upon our permission, in other words we could cease this casual agreement at anytime and it was always explained that we had plans to lease out parking.

For me I was delighted to help, especially because for me this meant relations with our neighbours was being built unlike those before me. The Polish Church have never been allowed to park here free despite your claim, far from it the only time permitted was from speaking to Mrs Nicpon, this year, the wheel clampers have been present always, only when I allowed the Church to use the parking for free did I cease their monitoring.

In being a Charity though you must understand we have to gain certain incomes to survive and we serve other Charities too, one asset we hold being to the land to the rear and so we allow people to pay for parking here, both residential and commercial, mostly in the back area but we also have 3 people using the front evenings and weekends people living in the new flats and so only require parking for the evening. So despite your claim "vacant" area this is very much in use. This has been a gradual increase in demand and when this became full I explained to Mrs Nicpon you could only use the front for parking.

However this soon became an issue because nothing was being monitored, nearly everyone parking was doing so almost on top of one another and problems began in a manner that effected other users at Watlington House. I received a complaint from a Tenant because their vehicle had been blocked in by those church users parking in Watlington House, so they had to wait for the Church users to finish the service, another person paying for parking here complained twice they could not even access the car park (despite having a space clearly marked out reserved for evenings and weekends the Church users still parked in her space and this cost me money, I had to refund a months fees!), I had another complaint from another tenant blocked in again by the church completely blocking the car park, and on numerous occasions i came along to the building only to find i could not even get my car into the car park. Also I received a complaint from people using the hall on a Sunday because the church had taken up all of the parking spaces and those using and paying for the hall had no where to park! And on a week day when other business tenants were using the building we had the front car park completely blocked in by people attending a funeral, now I allowed the funeral parking but to completely block this area is wholey unacceptable especially when we have paying tenants for the building.

Please note that whenever i had issues i contacted Mrs Nicpon highlighting these and asking these get resolved and Mrs Nicpon has worked hard to resolve these too however clearly let down by those parking. In August when i noticed someone parking in front of the main door i asked them to move their car and park somewhere else on the parkiung area, the response i got was "what's the point its going to be blocked in a minute" so he parked the car in a space marked "reserved", again i asked they moved the car, the response i got was not forthcoming, thus i got another complaint from a paying tenant.

I spoke to the Trustees and we decided to introduce the Wheel clampers again, so we gave Mrs Nicpon and your Priest 2 weeks notice that parking was no longer allowed, in writing, I hand delivered the letters myself and passed one to the Priest, Mrs Nicpon made every effort in helping with the issues but the actions of a few make it difficult for all. The car park is clearly 4 signs indicating the presence of Wheel Clamping, these have been here for the past 2 years, we also have Caretakers who are also aware of what was happening, these too attend your Church and Club. We made every effort to ensure these people where informed.

Two weeks ago on a Sunday i discovered people had parked their cars in the rear, so i locked the gates to stop others coming in and in the hope those people parked their would come and see me first before getting in their cars, in doing so I could warn them about the clampers and explain that tonight would be overlooked. Instead people came back from the Church, jumped over the wall and forced the gates open, thus breaking the lock which i have since repaired at my expense. The people then ran to their cars, clearly an omission they knew they should not be there! not one person attempted to knock on the door and approach me

I have worked extremely hard to build a relationship here but the church must understand we are a business and we have people paying for parking access 24/7 and so you must respect this, furthermore we have groups using the hall, these people should quite rightly be allowed to have free accessible parking and not the Church, last month the Tap Dancers using the hall called me to complain the Polish Church was parking all over the place making things extremely difficult . Recent actions of the Church is frustrating to say the least and I fully appreciate the circumstance you face of having no free parking, we have worked extremely hard to resolve these matters, though I have been told the Church have an area they rent out parking already, is this true? I had to install chains across the front entrance to stop the parking abuse, again at my expense to stop access.

The blocking of the parking area is a serious issue, not only do you stop other tenants from getting access but you seriously compromise any chance of access which could be very serious in the matter of a Fire or other emergency situations. The actions of the Church have cost us and we now have to deal with the issue of our parking area being monitored, so far this has cost me refunding of fees for a months parking, damaged locks, bent post, 4 complaints and now chains that I had to purchase.

The cost of the Clampers is shocking I agree however we have no control on this only in that we allow our parking to be monitored, we do not profit either unlike some companies. We are though going to meet some people from the Church in the coming weeks when we have our next tenants meeting, I hope parking will be again approved but this must be monitored by the Church and sensible, in other words being conscious of other users. The actions of the wheel clampers is unacceptable i agree but to suggest they left the gate open for entrapment is wrong, the Hall and Parking areas is used by many and so could have been anyone using the parking area, please see the note below I have received from them;

The vehicle clamped 8 vehicles before the drivers started returning to their cars. The 10 vehicles that were not clamped were given Parking Charge Notices (PCN’s). The PCN’s are similar to a council parking ticket where they have 14 days to pay £50.00 and 28 days to pay £100.00 if they don’t pay the discounted amount. Only vehicles that were clamped were charged and paid on the spot.

The vehicles clamped were asked for £130.00 clamp release fee, there was some disputes with some people being threatening and refusing to pay even stating that they were going to get other polish people to come down and cause trouble and cut off the clamps. It was us that called the police to help keep the peace. As far as i know only one driver agreed to pay the clamp release fee of £130.00; for the other cars whose drivers refused to pay, we called out three additional removal units to take them off the property. In the end they paid an additional £250.00 for a removal/tow truck cancellation fee.

Lets be clear on something, I dont wish to be tit for tat on this and wish to move on from this quickly and with a good resolve for both sides, I felt though it was important for you to understand more of the background to this and the issues we too face, i hope in doing so we can have a good working relationship with the church.

Michael A Jones

Caversham

Securing our Heritage: http://watlingtonhouse.org.uk/index.php

Recommend? Yes 0 No 0
hudson
Unregistered User
Jan 6, 16:01
Report comment

"The cost of the Clampers is shocking I agree however we have no control on this only in that we allow our parking to be monitored" and this your charity should and would surely have fully understood before contracting the company in question?

Companies are not allowed to issue anything resembling a PCN ticket. I believe that anyone contesting the incident in court would win. I understand that refusing to pay the "fine" does not end up in any charges being levelled because of the cost involved. It's a bluff - the majority of folk just pay up as it looks like a PCN ticket.

If the charity was not happy with the quid pro quo arrangement and felt cheated, why did it not seek to discuss and redress this?

It is no coincidence that clamping on private land will be made illegal this year and I am disappointed that the charity was not aware of this and was naive in its approach to the whole matter. The incident looks like a sting, maybe even revenge.

I have nothing to do with the church or any of the people clamped or involved.

I am however a long standing resident of Reading and I care for the quality of life here. And that means behaving decently and honourably, particularly in difficult circumstances.

Given the apology of the charity, I look forward to hearing of their proposals to reimburse the victims.

Recommend? Yes 0 No 0

Return to the main index, get more from this section or browse our Opinion archives.

Follow @rdgchronicle