Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

FightBack Forums _ Government Policy _ Private clamping ban

Posted by: ollielumley Fri, 1 Oct 2010 - 00:43
Post #513327

hardly a great surprise...



Posted by: DBC Fri, 1 Oct 2010 - 06:24
Post #513336

Could someone tell Mr Troy that private clamping has been banned in Scotland for nearly twenty years, and that country hasn't ground to a halt because of it. 

Posted by: buttonpusher Fri, 1 Oct 2010 - 06:54
Post #513337

I see the old myth about ""people parking on your drive"" has reared its head.

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Sun, 10 Oct 2010 - 00:09
Post #515961

In the same vein as the above, but from the government:

I think this is a blog from August (not sure?) but it seems that anti-clamping Home Office minister Lynne Featherstone hasn't got a clue as to whether PPC tickets are enforceable or not! Or am I reading her blog wrong?

I think she needs some reasoned, polite replies to put her right so the Government don't do something alarmingly stupid in the Freedom Bill about ticketing:

What IS she on about http://www.lynnefeatherstone.org/2010/08/wheel-clamping-continued.htm?

QUOTE
But what to do about the owners of private land? Of course – there has to be something to take the place of wheel clamping – some deterrent to prohibit people from parking on private property. Landowners have an absolute right to protect their land from people parking on it. So – in Scotland private landowners either protected that land by a barrier method or switched to ticketing.
Ticketing is highly regulated and consumer protection legislation already applies. There is already an independent appeals process in place – and it is a good and proportionate deterrent.
QUOTE

Posted by: bama Sun, 10 Oct 2010 - 15:08
Post #516062

'regulated' - ar$e

Posted by: Hotel Oscar 87 Sun, 10 Oct 2010 - 19:52
Post #516114

QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Sun, 10 Oct 2010 - 01:09) *
What IS she on about http://www.lynnefeatherstone.org/2010/08/wheel-clamping-continued.htm?

QUOTE
But what to do about the owners of private land? Of course – there has to be something to take the place of wheel clamping – some deterrent to prohibit people from parking on private property. Landowners have an absolute right to protect their land from people parking on it. So – in Scotland private landowners either protected that land by a barrier method or switched to ticketing.
Ticketing is highly regulated and consumer protection legislation already applies. There is already an independent appeals process in place – and it is a good and proportionate deterrent.
QUOTE

Methinks someone has supped too oft at the propaganda table. This is clear evidence of the effectiveness of the BPA's lobbying for the regulation of private parking. It might already be too late to stop this gravy train.

Posted by: Bogsy Sun, 10 Oct 2010 - 22:08
Post #516149

QUOTE (Hotel Oscar 87 @ Sun, 10 Oct 2010 - 20:52) *
Methinks someone has supped too oft at the propaganda table. This is clear evidence of the effectiveness of the BPA's lobbying for the regulation of private parking. It might already be too late to stop this gravy train.


Agreed.

The BPA seem to have come from no where and suddenly self appointed themselves as a regulating body and advisors to Govt. They are very dangerous to the public since they do not serve their interest and should not be trusted. I'd rather see the AA given a bigger role in advising Govt than the self serving beast that is the BPA.

Posted by: andy_foster Mon, 11 Oct 2010 - 04:52
Post #516196

IMHO, the biggest danger is if the government make private tickets enforceable when they outlaw clamping, as has been suggested to be the case. If they merely assume that it is then there is no reason for them to do so.
If they don't do it when they outlaw clamping, they would be very unlikely to do it later.


Posted by: buttonpusher Mon, 11 Oct 2010 - 06:58
Post #516202

So the best plan of attack may well be keep stum, don't wake LF up and let the clamping ban be passed without change to private parking.

Posted by: mbrit79 Thu, 9 Dec 2010 - 18:06
Post #538080

Obvioulsy we know that back in mid August, all private clamping and towing was to be made illegal but what actual date will this come into force as i don't see it anywhere??

Just curious smile.gif

Posted by: J_Edgar Thu, 9 Dec 2010 - 18:23
Post #538087

A bit of an unknown, the primary legislation in way of the Freedom Bill is iirc due Feb of next year. There is then talk of the need to make regulations by SI to bring it into force.

There are concerns of delay.

Posted by: strollingplayer Thu, 9 Dec 2010 - 19:09
Post #538112

Hence the clampers seeking to fill their boots as quickly as they can, in the hope they can retire once the ban is confirmed.

Posted by: RD400E Thu, 9 Dec 2010 - 23:03
Post #538194

You could contact this MP and ask him. He was one of two that LBS threatened earlier this year..

http://www.markfrancois.com/text.aspx?id=1

Posted by: Enceladus Fri, 10 Dec 2010 - 00:09
Post #538216

QUOTE (RD400E @ Thu, 9 Dec 2010 - 23:03) *
You could contact this MP and ask him. He was one of two that LBS threatened earlier this year..

http://www.markfrancois.com/text.aspx?id=1


You can read about it here. http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/8271655.Clamper_threatens_to_block_MP___s_driveway/

Posted by: Gan Fri, 10 Dec 2010 - 00:46
Post #538226

Anon's report of some correspondence with the Home Office suggests that this is another item on the list of broken promises.

The Bill isn't going to be on the books until the autumn of next year with the actual ban delayed for several years afterward.

Posted by: JSB1 Fri, 10 Dec 2010 - 01:41
Post #538238

QUOTE (RD400E @ Thu, 9 Dec 2010 - 23:03) *
You could contact this MP and ask him. He was one of two that LBS threatened earlier this year..
http://www.markfrancois.com/text.aspx?id=1

I've just emailed him an invite to visit PePiPoo.

Posted by: anon45 Fri, 10 Dec 2010 - 09:36
Post #538293

QUOTE (Gan @ Fri, 10 Dec 2010 - 00:46) *
Anon's report of some correspondence with the Home Office suggests that this is another item on the list of broken promises.

The Bill isn't going to be on the books until the autumn of next year with the actual ban delayed for several years afterward.


The Home Office told me that there would "need to be a very substantial lead-in time to give vehicle immobilisation firms time to prepare and adjust to the forthcoming ban"- no precise timescale was given, but I fear, from the tone of the reply, that several years is exactly what they have in mind (that is, if the clamping firms don't succeed in persuading the Government to drop the ban altogether, and it appears they are lobbying very hard indeed).

If you think the situation is bad now, then, if anything, it will get even worse during this 'lead-in' time as rogue clampers will have absolutely nothing to lose.

I've said it 100 times before, but we really need a case where a victim is convicted of "criminal damage" by damaging a clamp lock or breaking into a pound to retrieve an unlawfully clamped or towed vehicle and then succeeds with an appeal by case stated on the basis of their honest and indeed reasonable belief , backed by the plain wording of 5(3) as universally interpreted in all non-clamping cases, that the reputation of rogue clampers (in ignoring both CCJs and court orders for the release of towed vehicles) and great difficulty in holding the contractor (if any!) responsible means that paying and suing would simply be throwing good money after bad, leaving no realistic alternative to the use of "self-help".


Posted by: jdh Fri, 10 Dec 2010 - 10:22
Post #538306

Can you imagine the uproar if it went

QUOTE
The Home Office told me that there would "need to be a very substantial lead-in time to give vehicle immobilisation firms drug dealers time to prepare and adjust to the forthcoming ban"


Posted by: PBC_1966 Sat, 11 Dec 2010 - 16:38
Post #538698

And since when does the government give two hoots about giving people time to prepare for anything else it does?

Does it announce in a budget that the massive tax hike will be in "a few years' time" to give people time to adjust finances? No - It sometimes comes into effect from "midnight tonight."

Does the government give people plenty of time when bringing in yet another petty piece of restrictive legislation? No - In many cases it doesn't even do anything to make people aware of the new law, until cops start handing out fines or some Gestapo-style "Health & Safety" inspector or similar little dictator starts throwing his weight around.

Posted by: JSB1 Sat, 11 Dec 2010 - 16:56
Post #538705

QUOTE (jdh @ Fri, 10 Dec 2010 - 10:22) *
Can you imagine the uproar if it went
QUOTE
The Home Office told me that there would "need to be a very substantial lead-in time to give vehicle immobilisation firms drug dealers time to prepare and adjust to the forthcoming ban"

You're thereby defaming, by association, the average drug dealer, methinks. sleep.gif

Posted by: Earl Purple Mon, 13 Dec 2010 - 13:00
Post #539187

Could they not bring in interim legislation?

For example

1. requiring specific written permission from the landowner or lessee for a vehicle to be clamped. Not just any vehicle - the actual vehicle. So no clampers hanging around empty car parks at night when the landowners/lessees are nowhere around. And no clamping people in their own parking spaces.

2. Making it a criminal offence to clamp unlawfully, not just a civil matter. One who clamps unlawfully would have to pay a big fine and compensation to the owner of the vehicle they clamped (not just return their money).

3. Whilst the demand for clampers would go down, there will soon be a higher demand for better parking control measures, eg fitting appropriate gates. They could be training the genuine companies (if there are any) in ways to install these devices so no need for redundancies.

Posted by: buttonpusher Mon, 13 Dec 2010 - 13:29
Post #539198

Maybe add to that......No ppc's where a gated or keyed entrance car park. Utterly pointless money spinner.

Posted by: whitewing Wed, 15 Dec 2010 - 23:58
Post #540051

The simple, easy answer would to be to withdraw, or at least not renew any SIA licenses.
And while they're at it, turn over the license database to HMCE for tax investigation.

They seem to have managed without these parasites for some time in Scotland...

Posted by: anon45 Fri, 17 Dec 2010 - 08:24
Post #540469

QUOTE (whitewing @ Wed, 15 Dec 2010 - 23:58) *
The simple, easy answer would to be to withdraw, or at least not renew any SIA licenses.
And while they're at it, turn over the license database to HMCE for tax investigation.

They seem to have managed without these parasites for some time in Scotland...


I'll be writing to my MP drawing attention to various blatant criminal offences, that these abuses have increased since August, and to full police support for these crimes, demanding that:
i) The clamping ban be expedited and come into force immediately upon receiving Royal Assent, without being subject to a 'commencement order'
ii) All SIA licences to be withdrawn in the meantime
iii) New guidance to be issued to police in the meantime so that they properly consider the possibility of blackmail and/or theft by the clamping firms and do not simply insist "it's a civil matter sir"

I would encourage other Pepipooers to do the same. smile.gif

Posted by: Michael 194 Sat, 18 Dec 2010 - 07:28
Post #540748

The fact is that this government has reneged on EVERY pledge made before the General Election

Posted by: anon45 Sat, 18 Dec 2010 - 08:04
Post #540751

QUOTE (Michael 194 @ Sat, 18 Dec 2010 - 07:28) *
The fact is that this government has reneged on EVERY pledge made before the General Election


Not quite; they promised that taxes would go up, and have certainly delivered on that score wink.gif

Posted by: Fredd Sat, 18 Dec 2010 - 12:08
Post #540771

QUOTE (Michael 194 @ Sat, 18 Dec 2010 - 07:28) *
The fact is that this government has reneged on EVERY pledge made before the General Election

Without wishing to defend this government's works, that's not entirely accurate. One that immediately comes to mind is that they did scrap ID cards.

Posted by: londonliverpoolfan Fri, 21 Jan 2011 - 10:57
Post #550698

Morning all. Just a quick query as I've googled it and am only getting more confused.

My Dad was clamped yesterday for leaving his car behind some shops in Borehamwood. This is private land (not council) and the clamping firm were private. He was charged £130 for his car to be released.

As I understood it I thought clamping on private land was banned on Nov 2010?

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Nl1/Newsroom/DG_190178

QUOTE
Private wheel clamping to be banned
  • Published: Tuesday, 17 August 2010
Wheel clamping on private land is to be banned in England and Wales. The ban, which will be introduced in the new Freedom Bill in November, will impose tough penalties on anyone who clamps a vehicle or tows it away on private land.


Wheel clamping on private land
Once the ban comes into force it will be illegal to clamp, tow away or in any way immobilise a vehicle on private land.

Anyone who clamps, immobilises or tows away a vehicle on private land without the specific legal authority to do so will face criminal charges or civil penalties.

However, the ban will only apply to private land. It will not affect local authorities’ and the police’s right to clamp vehicles.

The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) will continue to clamp or tow away vehicles if the vehicle tax has not been paid.


The Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) will also continue to clamp or tow away un-roadworthy vehicles to stop them being used on the road.

At the moment, if someone wants to work clamping vehicles, they must hold a frontline licence from the Security Industry Authority (SIA). This will stop once the ban comes into force.

There are currently 2,150 people who are licensed by the SIA to clamp vehicles.


However reading the latest document (updated Jan 2011) from the Citizens Advice Bureau states that clamping is still allowed as long as you have a SIA licence - http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/t_wheel-clamping_on_private_land.pdf

Can anyone clear this up for me?

Thanks

Posted by: Gan Fri, 21 Jan 2011 - 11:15
Post #550713

The Government was very economical with the truth when it announced a clamping ban.

According to correspondence that one member has had with the Home Office, the Bill that provides for clamping to be outlawed won't get through Parliament until the end of this year.

Actually banning the practice won't take place for several years afterward to provide time for the industry to adapt. In other words don't expect it to be stopped for at least three years.

Regarding your father's situation, read some of the other threads to see the procedures for the long haul to reclaim the money - usually from the company that employed them because clampers ignore CCJs.

A couple of questions for starters :

How did he pay - possibility of chargeback if credit card ?
Did the receipt include name, signature, SIA number ? If any are missing it was automatically unlawful .
Which company ?

Posted by: dave-o Fri, 21 Jan 2011 - 11:19
Post #550718

Start by posting up the receipt and pics of the sign and site layout.

Posted by: londonliverpoolfan Fri, 21 Jan 2011 - 12:51
Post #550757

Ha, that's not so easy. My Dad is one of the least computer literate people in the world!

I've asked him if he can get someone to scan the ticket and receipt and email them to me.

He did tell me the company was PCM - Parking Control Management based in Slough, and that the clamper wasn't displaying any ID at all.

Posted by: dave-o Fri, 21 Jan 2011 - 12:52
Post #550758

He can take digi photos on close up mode if he prefers. Really need to see those bits first.

Posted by: Gan Fri, 21 Jan 2011 - 13:17
Post #550763

This company is very well known and will usually ignore any court documents and CCJs that result.

You need to find out who employed them. First stop is the land registry to identify the land owner. They will usually not employ the clamper themselves but there's a good chance that they will tell you who they employ to manage the site. This is the company that you want.

As already advised, we need to see that receipt.


Posted by: Monster 900 Fri, 21 Jan 2011 - 17:00
Post #550870

Since the OP seems concerned about the speed (lack of) reform in this area they may also http://www.writetothem.com/ to chivvy them along a bit.

Posted by: pumps100 Tue, 25 Jan 2011 - 18:57
Post #552546

I noticed a letter in today's Independent from the British Parking Association 'Clamping ban will be a disaster'. If anyone is interested in replying the address for emails is letters@independent.co.uk - you have to give your name and address with phone number.

Here's the letter - my reply is also copied. But if your reading this and you agree that private wheel clamping should be banned you should take action.

QUOTE
Clamping ban will be a disaster

The Coalition plans to ban clamping and towing away on private land. To the casual observer this sounds attractive, but to many law-abiding motorists, and those householders, tenants and landowners who own car parks, it is a recipe for disaster.

There will be a small percentage of drivers who continue to ignore reasonable requests not to park on private land or who will overstay their welcome. People who run car parks need to ensure that, for the benefit of all, such abuses are dealt with.

In particular, the proposal by Government to ban towing away on private land means that if someone parks, say, in front of a fire exit to a block of flats, an ambulance bay at A&E or even on your front there is nothing you can do about it if the ban becomes law. The suggestion by the Home Office Minister responsible, that the police will have powers to tow away vehicles on private land, is naive.

The problem is that the management of parking on private land is largely unregulated. The British Parking Association has long campaigned for better regulation and has put a proposal to government which would improve the way parking on private land is managed. It would protect the motorists from the excesses of some clamping operators who have for too long fuelled a sensationalist media portrayal of this activity. We call on the Government to reconsider its intention of a total ban and instead regulate this sector properly.

These provisions will be included in The Freedom Bill, to be brought forward in February. The reality is that landowners will be denied the freedom to manage their land, with the state dictating which freedoms they can have and which they can't.

Patrick Troy
Chief Executive, British Parking Association, Haywards Heath


My reply (I am Scottish)

QUOTE
Wheel clamping – Uncertainty of timescale to the ban, is the disaster

Private wheel clamping is unlawful in Scotland and has been for a number of years and based on their experience it has not been a disaster. (Clamping ban will be a disaster- Letters 25th January 2011). I am surprised at the Independent for publishing a letter which suggests that it is not a good idea to ban it – but perhaps the British Parking Association, and their members, have a commercial interest in seeing the practice/racket continue.

The Scottish legal system got it entirely correct in their judgment (Black v Carmichael) in relation to private wheel clamping -- that is, the wheel clamping of a vehicle until it is released on payment of a charge, which is not done under the authority of a statute -- amounts to extortion, and as such is accordingly criminal.

What is a disaster, is the current uncertainty of when the ban in England will come in to place. Like greedy deckchair attendants on the Titanic private wheel clampers are becoming ever more predatory than even before. Pick up any local newspaper, and you'll find many stories about private wheel clampers; additional tow charges being applied for non existent trucks, people being clamped outside their own homes, churches, on the road after being stuck in snow, and so on. They are apparently clamping with impunity.

The public do have recourse through the Courts, but private wheel clampers apparently seem to treat the court system with complete disdain, having little regard for County Court Judgments (CCJ's) held against them – one Essex firm had over 25 unsatisfied CCJ's held against them – the company ceased trading, and the motorists are left chasing ghosts (and their money).

I also have personal experience when a private clamper forced an 8 month pregnant woman in floods of tears, on a dark winters night, to walk half a mile to a cashpoint so that he could get his ill gotten gains. Not even Dick Turpin would have done that.

Yours sincerely,


Come on everybody write a letter to the paper and your MP calling for that ban on private wheel clamping to be implemented without further delay and stop the appeasement to those who who support the extortion continuing.

Regards

Ian

Posted by: bama Tue, 25 Jan 2011 - 20:14
Post #552581

Troy shoots !

He misses - again

Posted by: sarahg1969 Tue, 25 Jan 2011 - 23:07
Post #552645

What a t1t. Obviously, things will be a whole lot better if you've got a clamped car in front of of fire exit or in an ambulance bay. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: pumps100 Tue, 25 Jan 2011 - 23:14
Post #552651

QUOTE (sarahg1969 @ Tue, 25 Jan 2011 - 23:07) *
What a t1t. Obviously, things will be a whole lot better if you've got a clamped car in front of of fire exit or in an ambulance bay. rolleyes.gif


Very funny - I missed that biggrin.gif

Posted by: Glitch Wed, 26 Jan 2011 - 07:56
Post #552699

Maybe landowners should get a fence, a gate, a padlock, or some other parking control mechanism to protect their land.

Neanderthals with wheel clamps and tow trucks is not the answer!

Posted by: pumps100 Wed, 26 Jan 2011 - 12:36
Post #552767

While out with the dog this morning I came up with another thought about a comment I should have incorporated into the letter to the Independent. Mr Troy suggests regulation is the answer to the issue of the private wheel clamping industry. You cannot seriously expect government to regulate what is effectively racketeering. The solution is simple - ban it completely as in Scotland and the problem is resolved.

Please feel free to use any of this for any letters.

BTW was Troy a character in Fireball XL5 - or was it Stingray?

Regards

Ian

Posted by: Mortimer Wed, 26 Jan 2011 - 13:10
Post #552792

Troy Tempest was the captain of Stingray.

Posted by: Ocelot Wed, 26 Jan 2011 - 13:13
Post #552794

QUOTE (pumps100 @ Wed, 26 Jan 2011 - 12:36) *
While out with the dog this morning I came up with another thought about a comment I should have incorporated into the letter to the Independent. Mr Troy suggests regulation is the answer to the issue of the private wheel clamping industry. You cannot seriously expect government to regulate what is effectively racketeering. The solution is simple - ban it completely as in Scotland and the problem is resolved.

Please feel free to use any of this for any letters.

BTW was Troy a character in Fireball XL5 - or was it Stingray?

Regards

Ian


Stingray!

Posted by: Gan Wed, 26 Jan 2011 - 14:11
Post #552820

QUOTE (pumps100 @ Wed, 26 Jan 2011 - 12:36) *
While out with the dog this morning I came up with another thought about a comment I should have incorporated into the letter to the Independent. Mr Troy suggests regulation is the answer to the issue of the private wheel clamping industry. You cannot seriously expect government to regulate what is effectively racketeering. The solution is simple - ban it completely as in Scotland and the problem is resolved.

Please feel free to use any of this for any letters.

BTW was Troy a character in Fireball XL5 - or was it Stingray?

Regards

Ian


The mention of Fireball XL5 just reminded me that my first crush was a blonde puppet, although, in my defence, I was very young and Dr Venus was French.

Didn't Stingray feature the voices of Ray Barrett and Lois Maxwell (Miss Moneypenny) ?

Posted by: nigel_bytes Wed, 26 Jan 2011 - 14:31
Post #552825

Did Parker ever get clamped ? Maybe he'd call International Rescue laugh.gif

Posted by: pumps100 Wed, 26 Jan 2011 - 14:45
Post #552834

QUOTE (nigel_bytes @ Wed, 26 Jan 2011 - 14:31) *
Did Parker ever get clamped ? Maybe he'd call International Rescue laugh.gif


I see my appeal for solidarity against the clamping industry has turned into something else. I started the decline so I suppose it is entirely my fault.

Nigel,

You have gone completely off topic. As most will know Parker was Lady Penelope's chauffeur and it was Thunderbirds (I think!) biggrin.gif

Regards

Ian

Posted by: Gan Wed, 26 Jan 2011 - 16:37
Post #552904

My former manager was nicknamed Thunderbird 1.

Whenever a situation involved the chance of overseas travel he would be the first on the scene.

Responsibility for lugging all the equipment and doing something with it was left to the poor unfortunate who had ended up as TB2 for the day.

Posted by: pumps100 Wed, 26 Jan 2011 - 18:31
Post #552951

For the avoidance of any doubt I believe this is the Troy under discussion



Regards

Ian

Posted by: roythebus Wed, 26 Jan 2011 - 19:05
Post #552960

Seen in the local lonely hearts column: Thunderbirds fan seeks romance-no strings attached.

Posted by: pumps100 Wed, 26 Jan 2011 - 20:21
Post #552978

Guess what if you google 'Patrick Troy (not Troy Tempest) and wheel clamping' you get library of press articles/real stories about wheel clamping incidents. It is a useful but sad point of reference. Troy Tempest's stock response is " Wheel clamping is a last resport....". What a lot of tosh.

Regards

Ian

Posted by: JSB1 Thu, 27 Jan 2011 - 01:03
Post #553103


Patrick Troy, Esq.

QUOTE (pumps100 @ Wed, 26 Jan 2011 - 18:31) *
For the avoidance of any doubt I believe this is the Troy under discussion

No, the picture I provided is funnier.

Posted by: Ossian Thu, 27 Jan 2011 - 07:50
Post #553132

But both of them show strings being pulled laughing6.gif

Posted by: buttonpusher Thu, 27 Jan 2011 - 08:11
Post #553134

BPA motto, "If at first you don't succeed, Troy, Troy again".

Posted by: pumps100 Thu, 27 Jan 2011 - 15:50
Post #553335

Well surprise surprise there are a couple of letters in today's Independent in response to Troy Tempest's wheel clamping letter of earlier in the week. Both letters fit very nicely as a combo.

One of them I have seen somewhere before.

Enjoy



Regards

Ian

Posted by: Glacier2 Thu, 27 Jan 2011 - 16:21
Post #553348

QUOTE
BPA motto, "If at first you don't succeed, Troy, Troy again".

LOL! biggrin.gif

Posted by: pumps100 Sun, 30 Jan 2011 - 14:24
Post #554358

I noticed that Lynn Featherstone MP the Home Office Minister answered a written question in parliament on 26th january about 'protection' in the Freedom Bill for private landowners. I wonder if the person asking the question is on the board of the SIA or Troy tempest's BPA. Seems an odd question.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2011-01-26a.35693.h

Regards

Ian

Posted by: pumps100 Tue, 1 Feb 2011 - 09:10
Post #554998

The Independent is continuing with its Perspectives on Wheel Clamping in the letters page.

I think it is the infamous LBS??

From The Independent 31.1.11

QUOTE
How a sick lady was gouged for £500

I stopped my car for just five minutes in an empty car park in Essex because I desperately needed the loo at an adjacent petrol station (letters, 25 January). I came out to find my vehicle clamped and the clamper standing beside my car.

I begged and pleaded. I had barely the cash for my petrol, no credit cards, no mobile phone, a middle-aged woman in poor health, 80 miles from home and no one I could contact.

The clampers produced an ancient tow-truck within a few minutes and removed my car. I was crying so much I couldn't even understand where they were taking it. By now, the anxiety, together with an underlying illness, was causing an asthma attack but I somehow had to make my way to the clamper "headquarters" in Ockendon.

This turned out to be a scrapyard with roaming pit-bull terriers, where I was admitted and then locked in with the abusive and terrifying owner who refused to release my car until I had paid £500.

I eventually managed to get a friend to phone over payment. By this time, the asthma attack had become severe and an ambulance had to be called. A kindly paramedic retrieved my car; I couldn't take any more of the jeering and sneering clampers and their laughing comments that I had brought it all on myself.

Essex police were not interested. Likewise the relevant council and trading standards. I believe this Essex clamping firm laughs at anyone who attempts to sue them. They merely cease trading then re-emerge under a variety of names.

I would be so grateful for advice from Patrick Troy, the chief executive of the British Parking Association about where I should go from here, bearing in mind I have no money for legal fees or solicitors, and I am still paying back the £500.

Diana Jennings


If you have read this and you want to play your part in bringing an end to private wheel clamping without appeasement to the racketeers can you do this?

1. Go on the internet and find out your member of parliament's name and get his/her email address at Westminster - easy to find.

2. Send him/her and email regarding 'Wheel Clamping' something like:-
QUOTE
I understand that as part of the Governments Freedom Bill there is to be a ban on the clamping of vehicles on private land by private wheel clampers. But what seems unclear to me is when the actual ban will become law. In my opinion the current uncertainty is making the situation even worse as private clampers are apparently becoming ever more predatory.

Can you please ask the Home Office Minister when the ban on private wheel clamping will become law - or give a best estimate of when will actually happen.


3. Your MP will just send your query to the Home Office and hopefully public opinion should help to move matters forward. The longer it takes the more fears I have that they will take a softer line with the racketeers.

Your action can make a difference.

Regards

Ian

Posted by: pumps100 Tue, 1 Feb 2011 - 14:10
Post #555091

From today's Independent - more letters.

Not so sure I understand what the man from the RAC is saying

QUOTE
Clamp ban won't end the misery

The RAC Foundation has the utmost sympathy with motorists who are clamped on private land and treated unreasonably, like Diana Jennings (letter, 31 January). But a ban on wheel clamping will not end the misery of fines imposed by parking enforcers on private land. If the Government goes ahead and prohibits wheel-clamping without regulating other activities, motorists may find themselves worse off.

It is our belief that rogue clampers will simply become rogue ticketers – pressuring drivers into paying charges on the spot, or following them home. What is being proposed by the Government falls far short of what is needed to ensure that motorists will not be exploited by an unregulated parking industry. Anyone dealing with parking matters and collection of penalties and charges should have to abide by a government-approved code of conduct. The war on the motorist will not end with a ban on wheel clamping.

Stephen Glaister
Director, RAC Foundation, London

And this
QUOTE
The distressing letter from Diana Jennings about her experience in being forced to pay £500 to a gang of wheel-clampers shows what the nature of the problem is.
Gangs of crooks are taking over patches of unused land and are using them to lure unsuspecting motorists into situations where money can be extorted from them. This is nothing to do with the provision of parking but everything to do with organised robbery on a large scale.

Currently the law in England is taking a relaxed view about this process, provided that the word "parking" is quoted. However, this should be seen as nothing more than the forcible demanding of money with menaces, and the existing law on this crime must be applied with maximum severity.

Sam Boote
Nottingham


Regards

Ian

Posted by: Mortimer Tue, 1 Feb 2011 - 15:29
Post #555117

I think what the RAC chap is getting at is that if clamping is banned, all that will happen is that vulnerable drivers will find themselves with tickets instead, and a PPC van blocking their exit until the ticket has been paid, or worse driving home and being confronted by a PPC operative who has followed them.

I can see how for some people this could actually be worse.

So what the chap is getting at is that the proposals do not go far enough in the sense that it isn't just the clamping, it should include any attempts to block drivers from driving their vehicles away, and also to ensure that drivers are protected from thuggish harassment either at the scene or at home.

Posted by: neil3841 Tue, 1 Feb 2011 - 18:33
Post #555211

QUOTE (Mortimer @ Tue, 1 Feb 2011 - 15:29) *
I think what the RAC chap is getting at is that if clamping is banned, all that will happen is that vulnerable drivers will find themselves with tickets instead, and a PPC van blocking their exit until the ticket has been paid, or worse driving home and being confronted by a PPC operative who has followed them.

I can see how for some people this could actually be worse.

So what the chap is getting at is that the proposals do not go far enough in the sense that it isn't just the clamping, it should include any attempts to block drivers from driving their vehicles away, and also to ensure that drivers are protected from thuggish harassment either at the scene or at home.



But causing a obstuction with a vehicle is ticketable by the police therefore calling them and making a complaint should result is them getting a valid ticket. However what is less clear what happens it they put a chain accross the gate.

Posted by: emanresu Tue, 1 Feb 2011 - 19:16
Post #555227

QUOTE
Clamp ban won't end the misery


Any change in legislation usually gets the comment - Did you trial it? / Are you going to trial it?

Everyone seems to forget that north of the border there is no private clamping. A real long term "trial" which has not caused massed jam-ups.

It seems that most commentators either have a vested interest or are talking out of their alternative mouthpieces.

Posted by: pumps100 Tue, 1 Feb 2011 - 19:35
Post #555234

QUOTE (emanresu @ Tue, 1 Feb 2011 - 19:16) *
Everyone seems to forget that north of the border there is no private clamping. A real long term "trial" which has not caused massed jam-ups.

It seems that most commentators either have a vested interest or are talking out of their alternative mouthpieces.


Good point. I had an email yesterday from my MP - he even makes the same point about the 'trial' in Scotland - private wheel clamping has been banned/unlawful since 1992 (19 years)!

Maybe he could send his letter to the Independent!

Regards

Ian
QUOTE
Dear Ian

Thank you for your e mail and my apologies for the delay in replying. I am sorry to hear of your bad experience and I will try to raise your point with the Chief Constable in our next bilateral.

On a more general point, I believe it is deplorable that many motorists have fallen victim to unscrupulous tactics by some clamping firms. Reports of motorists being marched to cash points or left stranded after their car has been towed are simply unacceptable. Many clamping firms have been seemingly targeting the elderly and the vulnerable which is completely unacceptable.

There are currently 2,150 individuals who are licensed by the Security Industry Authority (SIA) to clamp vehicles. However, businesses remain largely unregulated. They are not required to be licensed but can seek accreditation under a voluntary scheme.

This Government has pledged to tackle rogue private sector wheel clampers. The Home Office announced that rogue wheel clampers will be stopped under a new ban on wheel clamping on private land. The ban, which will be introduced in the new Freedom Bill, to be introduced to Parliament in February, will stop wheel clamping firms in England and Wales from being able to clamp vehicles parked on private land. Once the ban is in place, anyone who clamps a vehicle or tows it away on private land will face tough penalties. The SIA licensing system in England and Wales will cease once the ban is in place.

I note that wheel clamping is illegal in Scotland and this has worked since 1992 with no serious problems.

John

John Howell OBE MP

Posted by: pumps100 Thu, 3 Feb 2011 - 16:19
Post #555952

I found an old press article from The Independent from May of 2010. I am sure the story would have been well covered on Pepipoo at the time regarding Inter Park UK. How I would like to see the same sort of article with the name Richard Rippon and Patrol Plus substituted!

What amazed me was the amount of money involved - up to £3000 per day!!!!!!

I have a question - why in the case did Trading Standards instigate the prosecution?
We've all heard and read how rubbish TS are in relation to consumer support re wheel-clamping - but when do they get involved - what grounds are needed for TS to take up the case? Any ideas?

Thanks

Ian

QUOTE
Man jailed over 'ruthless' wheel-clamping scam

An unlicensed wheel-clamping firm boss who fleeced dozens of innocent motorists was jailed for two years today after his "business" was condemned as a ruthless scam.

Judge Philip Parker QC told Andrew Baker that his company, Inter Park UK, was nothing more than a simple con which had left its victims feeling robbed and bullied. As Baker's heavily-pregnant wife watched from the public gallery at Birmingham Crown Court, the judge criticised the rogue clamper for leaving motorists stranded and distressed.

Baker, of Pithall Road, Shard End, Birmingham, pleaded guilty at a previous hearing to conspiracy to defraud drivers in Birmingham and other parts of the West Midlands between March 2007 and March 2008. The 29-year-old father-of-one, who has previous convictions for robbery, obtaining property by deception, harassment and theft, showed no emotion as he was sentenced.

A previous hearing was told that Baker left 36 victims - including some who had paid and displayed - in a state of distress after conning them out of more than £12,000.
Passing sentence, Judge Parker told the convicted burglar that he accepted the clamping business had operated legitimately when it was set up in 2005.

But the judge added that operation then became a "con" in which motorists parked legitimately saw their vehicles clamped and towed away before being held to ransom for up to £445.
The judge told Baker: "You were not in fact licensed for this activity, as it is accepted you should have been.

"Your website was a travesty of the truth, suggesting as it did that you worked closely with Trading Standards and the police. "It's plain by this fraud that in effect you illegally impounded people's cars, not just causing them distress and inconvenience, but naturally feelings of real loss and panic.

"People felt held to ransom - the victims felt they had been bullied, felt that they had been robbed in ordinary terms, or as the prosecution opened it, fleeced."
The business was operating as a simple scam with a false cloak of legitimacy, the judge said, ruling the offences to a confidence fraud.

"This to my mind is professional offending - there is a failure to respond to warnings... there is an abuse of power... there are multiple victims and in the end one can see this case as a ruthless exploitation of vulnerable persons," he added.

Two other men who worked for Inter Park UK were also before the court and were each fined £500 after admitting one count of fraud.

The prosecution followed an investigation by Birmingham City Council's Trading Standards department, which had received numerous complaints from furious motorists who felt they had been unfairly clamped or towed away by Inter Park UK.

Inter Park UK operated at numerous sites in Birmingham and Wolverhampton, where warning signs could not be seen easily, as well as clamping cars at three locations were it had no contractual right to do so.

Among those who fell victim to the firm were Christmas shoppers at a site in New Canal Street, Birmingham, who were told they had parked "inches over the line" even though the lines were not clearly painted. On one occasion in February 2008, Inter Park UK removed several cars on what turned out to be land owned by Walsall Council, which had no agreement with the firm.

Birmingham City Council believes that Inter Park UK may have been netting up to £3,000 per day and that many motorists were so intimidated that they did not contact the authorities.
In a statement, Councillor Neil Eustace, Birmingham's Chair of Public Protection, called for greater powers to allow the authority to regulate the car-clamping sector.

Mr Eustace said: "Birmingham City Council's Public Protection Committee has made several representations to the government calling for further regulations to curb the excessive practices still engaged in by a number of clamping companies, and the misery that they ultimately cause to their victims."


Posted by: Mike7777777 Thu, 3 Feb 2011 - 19:24
Post #556041

The CPS need to make a theft by blackmail charge stick on a clamper. No new legislation needed. Get that bit right and it makes the conversation with Essex plod regarding a current clamping a lot easier. And those conversations with Essex plod should also occur re: historical clamping.

Posted by: X-treem Sun, 6 Feb 2011 - 12:33
Post #556829

QUOTE (pumps100 @ Tue, 1 Feb 2011 - 14:10) *
From today's Independent - more letters.

Not so sure I understand what the man from the RAC is saying
QUOTE
Clamp ban won't end the misery

The RAC Foundation has the utmost sympathy with motorists who are clamped on private land and treated unreasonably, like Diana Jennings (letter, 31 January). But a ban on wheel clamping will not end the misery of fines imposed by parking enforcers on private land. If the Government goes ahead and prohibits wheel-clamping without regulating other activities, motorists may find themselves worse off.

It is our belief that rogue clampers will simply become rogue ticketers – pressuring drivers into paying charges on the spot, or following them home. What is being proposed by the Government falls far short of what is needed to ensure that motorists will not be exploited by an unregulated parking industry. Anyone dealing with parking matters and collection of penalties and charges should have to abide by a government-approved code of conduct. The war on the motorist will not end with a ban on wheel clamping.

Stephen Glaister
Director, RAC Foundation, London

And this
QUOTE
The distressing letter from Diana Jennings about her experience in being forced to pay £500 to a gang of wheel-clampers shows what the nature of the problem is.
Gangs of crooks are taking over patches of unused land and are using them to lure unsuspecting motorists into situations where money can be extorted from them. This is nothing to do with the provision of parking but everything to do with organised robbery on a large scale.

Currently the law in England is taking a relaxed view about this process, provided that the word "parking" is quoted. However, this should be seen as nothing more than the forcible demanding of money with menaces, and the existing law on this crime must be applied with maximum severity.

Sam Boote
Nottingham


Regards

Ian



QUOTE (neil3841 @ Tue, 1 Feb 2011 - 18:33) *
QUOTE (Mortimer @ Tue, 1 Feb 2011 - 15:29) *
I think what the RAC chap is getting at is that if clamping is banned, all that will happen is that vulnerable drivers will find themselves with tickets instead, and a PPC van blocking their exit until the ticket has been paid, or worse driving home and being confronted by a PPC operative who has followed them.

I can see how for some people this could actually be worse.

So what the chap is getting at is that the proposals do not go far enough in the sense that it isn't just the clamping, it should include any attempts to block drivers from driving their vehicles away, and also to ensure that drivers are protected from thuggish harassment either at the scene or at home.



But causing a obstuction with a vehicle is ticketable by the police therefore calling them and making a complaint should result is them getting a valid ticket. However what is less clear what happens it they put a chain accross the gate.


All this talk about a clamping ban making motorists worse off due to rogue ticketers and blocking people in, chaining gates, following people home and using intimidation tactics, it's complete tosh!

The logic is simple and could probably be proven statistically, not to mention the fact there has been no problems in Scotland since the clamping ban there. Basically, if clamping is not banned, every person who is becomes a victim of these rogues/thugs will 100% not be able to move there car until they cough up the dosh; and then and only then will they be able to fight for their money back through a myriad of legal hoops to jump through. If clamping is banned, sure, there will be a certain proportion of people who will still not be able to take their car away for the abovementioned reasons (blocked in, gate chained, etc.), but it won't be as high as 100%. It will probably not even be as high as 10% generally, maybe not even 1%! Surely, this is better than the alternative.

Posted by: pumps100 Sun, 6 Feb 2011 - 13:15
Post #556845

Yes, it has been unlawful in Scotland since 1992 (19 years).

Somewhat depressingly I came across an article written in July 1992 from the Independent. Worth reading if only to appreciate how slow the wheels of justice turn.

Regards

Ian

QUOTE
Private wheel-clamping 'may be a criminal act'

by STEPHEN GOODWIN, Parliamentary Correspondent
Friday, 17 July 1992

WHEEL-CLAMPERS who charge large sums to release cars immobilised on private land could be committing the criminal offence of demanding money with menaces, a Home Office minister told the Commons yesterday.

The Government is urgently examining what can be done to curb the questionable enterprise of 'cowboy clampers' in England and Wales after the recent finding of the Scottish Court of Justiciary that private wheel-clamping amounts to 'extortion and theft'.

Likening the clampers to 'modern-day highwaymen', John Spellar, Labour MP for Warley West, said some were offering profit-sharing schemes to landowners. There were cases of cars being deliberately left on waste land to entice others, which were then clamped. Release charges were 'outrageous', ranging from pounds 50 to a record pounds 240 in Hebden Bridge, West Yorkshire. 'The car clampers are judge, jury and court bailiff all rolled in to one and all at the same moment,' Mr Spellar said. 'We cannot allow these outrages to continue throughout the summer.'

But the Government's response is unlikely to be so prompt. Not only is the legal position unclear, but also the Home Office does not have hard information on how widespread the problem really is.

Michael Jack, Minister of State at the Home Office, told MPs he shared their frustration and repeatedly assured them the matter was under urgent consideration - 'including the question of whether any action is needed to prohibit or to regulate the use of wheel clamps on private property'. It was 'unfortunate' that neither the civil nor the criminal law had been tested on the broad issue, he said. 'It seems that in certain circumstances, the courts might find that wheel-clamping on private land amounts to a criminal offence or civil wrong.'

Under Scottish law it is not necessary for a charge of theft to prove an intention permanently to deprive an owner of his property. South of the border it is. However, Mr Jack said other elements of the Theft Act 1986 might be relevant, notably Section 21 on making any unwarranted demand with menaces.

'It would be for a court to determine, but it is possible that a court would find that an offence had been committed if, for example, a demand for payment was made against the threat that the vehicle would otherwise continue to be immobilised and, particularly, if the fee was deemed to be excessive - even more so if no notice had been displayed warning drivers of the risk of clamping.'

Turning to civil remedies, Mr Jack said fixing a clamp could amount to the civil tort of trespass to goods, although any damages recoverable would not normally be substantial unless there was physical damage. Refusing to return a vehicle unless a fee was paid might also be actionable as an act of conversion.



Posted by: X-treem Sun, 6 Feb 2011 - 13:32
Post #556852

Just sent the following e-mail to The Independent seeing as it's a hot topic at the moment. I'm posting here in case it doesn't make it on to the letter pages, so at least it's still available for people to read:

QUOTE
In May 2008, my car was clamped in Reading on a private road in a city centre estate that was not obviously private. Reading the signage on a nearby wall, I contacted the clamping company, Redroute, to pay the fee and have the clamp removed. However, I was met by someone who was rude and obstructive and I was asked for my name and address before they would accept payment and release the clamp. I refused to provide my address details although I expressed I was fully compliant with paying the release fee. Before long, two men arrived to tell me that a tow truck had been "allocated" and that I must pay the additional tow truck fee. Realising I was being swindled, I refused to pay the additional fee as a tow truck was only "allocated" after I agreed to pay the clamp release fee but refused to provide my personal address. A heated discussion ensued and the police attended. The police forced me to pay the full amount saying that I would be arrested if I refused even though they said it was a civil matter and I should take up the dispute with the civil courts afterwards.

I paid the full amount by PayPal and filed a small claim in the County Court subsequently against the owner of Redroute, Mr. Richard Rippon. It turned out that the address Mr. Rippon used for Redroute and during the entire court proceedings was a false address - a mailbox address held at Mail Boxes Etc in Bournemouth. Despite putting together a lengthy but fanciful defence, Mr. Rippon did not attend the court hearing in January 2009 and he was judged against. Not unexpected, he failed to pay and I sought to enforce judgment through the court. With the help of members of the online fightback forum www.pepipoo.com, Mr. Rippon's actual address details were found on the Insolvency Service website as he had been made bankrupt.

In March 2010, I attended Mr. Rippon's address along with my girlfriend to serve court papers on him. He ended up attacking me in the street after I served papers on, and we ended up grappling on the floor and my girlfriend filmed the whole thing. He put me in a lock preventing me from breathing and the police attended. The police verified my reason for being there by the court papers and were considering arresting Mr. Rippon for assault. In the end, Mr. Rippon paid me the money I was owed.

Since then, the rogue clamper has created an online blog at pepipoo.wordpress.com which lists my business website, my car registration and a lot of negative commentary regarding my disposition. The whole saga has been publicised in three newspapers: Bournemouth Echo, Reading Evening Post, Daily Mail.

If Patrick Troy believes that the clamping ban will be a disaster, how on earth will it be worse than what I went through? The logic is simple and could probably be proven statistically, not to mention the fact there has been no problems in Scotland since the clamping ban there. Sure, there may be some problems which Mr. Troy has mentioned, but will this really be as chaotic and disastrous as he makes out? Cars blocking ambulance bays and fire exits can still be issued with tickets enforced through the courts if necessary, but did he fail to realise that clamping and immobilising a car parked in an ambulance bay seems ironically rather a backward way to solve the problem of the car being there?!

Jason Payne, London


SIA and Watchdog next wink.gif

Posted by: pumps100 Sun, 6 Feb 2011 - 15:49
Post #556893

Good job Jason. Knowing your luck you'll probably get a full feature!.

But come on everybody please get on the Home Office minister's blog and make a post .

http://www.lynnefeatherstone.org/2010/08/wheel-clamp-ban-survey.htm

Regards

Ian

Posted by: X-treem Sun, 6 Feb 2011 - 17:08
Post #556921

Just put a post on there which will hopefully appear soon pending moderation. Also, just written to the SIA and Watchdog. I see a new fun chapter beginning of giving Rippon a good media kicking! laugh.gif

Posted by: Enceladus Tue, 8 Feb 2011 - 17:47
Post #557883

When and or if the proposed clamping ban on private land comes into force in England / Wales, will that prevent the PPCs removing cars?

Posted by: DBC Tue, 8 Feb 2011 - 17:59
Post #557888

Yes. The bill also outlaws towing away by private parking companies who are not working for a council or the police.

Posted by: pumps100 Tue, 8 Feb 2011 - 19:27
Post #557939

I am going overseas for a few weeks.

Together with a few colleagues on the site we have been doing a big push with the local media and with the BBC on Patrol Plus/Redroute and RICHARD JOHN RIPPON in particular.

I think we have done quite a good job and we've thrown absolutely everything at it. We've given the media details of who we believe Rippon has worked for in the Reading area, and we've given a bit of his history with previous - his bankruptcy, setting up the new co in his wife's name, general [Mod edit], and his day to day activities at Holybrook, and elsewhere in the Reading area. Oh, and his Stage 1 warnings under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 - almost forgot that.

Swine's case when his wife was pregnant and was marched to the cashpoint will be mentioned as will X-treems and my case at Forbury.

For example, anybody who lives near to Reading should get this weeks Reading Chronicle - it should be this week. But the guy that is writing the piece has so much it could be next week - but it will definitely run. Keep me a copy!

Edit Note. I have just spoken to the journalist something will definitely be in this week's edition - but as he has so much stuff he is going to do a few articles spread over the coming weeks including photos and a walk round with door-knock at Holybrook.

Regards

Ian

Posted by: BicycleRepairMan Wed, 9 Feb 2011 - 00:50
Post #558084

Clamping on private land – typically land owned by individuals but also including, for example, train station and supermarket car parks – will be banned outright.

Towing away will also be outlawed, with private landowners – who often share in clamping firms’ profits – restricted to erecting barriers to keep drivers out or charging regulated parking fees.

Under previous Home Office plans, clamping would have continued but with drivers getting an independent right of appeal. There would also have been a maximum limit on release charges. All clampers would have been forced to be registered and stick to a code of conduct.

But now, under an outright ban far tougher than even campaigners had hoped for, clampers will risk not only an unlimited fine but also a criminal record for life which they would have to declare when they apply for new jobs.

The criminal offence will be punishable by an unlimited fine before the Crown Court for more serious cases, or up to £5,000 in magistrates court.

Finally, common sense prevails, these latter day Highway Robbers will be finally banished. never was there such an outrageous bit of government ignored daylight robbery. Nu Labour should hang there heads in shame for failing utterly to address this massive iniquity and licence to mug unsuspecting motorists.

Posted by: anon45 Wed, 9 Feb 2011 - 07:43
Post #558116

QUOTE (BicycleRepairMan @ Wed, 9 Feb 2011 - 00:50) *
Clamping on private land – typically land owned by individuals but also including, for example, train station and supermarket car parks – will be banned outright.


I'm not entirely sure it will cover train station car parks, for which the current authority to tow or clamp comes directly from railway byelaws. However, I certainly hope so, and note that the Scottish clamping ban does include station car parks, although unlawfully parked vehicles that are causing an obstruction can be towed away under direction of the police. Although real railway byelaw tickets (as opposed to PPC invoices) are very rare, they have teeth in that they can be enforced by way of criminal prosecution in the magistrates court.

Posted by: roythebus Wed, 9 Feb 2011 - 08:44
Post #558128

Railway bye-laws are seldom mentioned in the parking forums on here these days. Any railway related parking tickets are from PPCs.

Posted by: buttonpusher Wed, 9 Feb 2011 - 08:45
Post #558130

Apart from the fact that the DailyFail is the only onetrying to get rid of clampers this is nice to see. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1355005/Wheel-clamping-private-land-criminal-offence.html

Thanks to MSE'r for link which I nicked.

Posted by: bama Wed, 9 Feb 2011 - 09:03
Post #558134

QUOTE (roythebus @ Wed, 9 Feb 2011 - 08:44) *
Railway bye-laws are seldom mentioned in the parking forums on here these days. Any railway related parking tickets are from PPCs.


they do crop up - but very very rarely.

mostly its 'NCP type' stuff

Posted by: emanresu Wed, 9 Feb 2011 - 10:02
Post #558148

Cowboy clampers take up to £55 million from drivers every year, the Home Office said. Seems a low figure but I wonder if this is part of the BPA's push to get their "adjudication" process included in the new bill.

http://www.24dash.com/news/communities/2011-02-09-Cowboy-clampers-pocketing-55m-a-year

I like Edmund Kings comment.

"One word of warning is that we are seeing evidence that some of the cowboys, drinking in the last-chance saloon, are increasing their clamping activity before the ban is introduced. So watch where you park."

Nice juxtaposition of cowboys and saloon.

Posted by: neil3841 Fri, 11 Feb 2011 - 00:56
Post #558849

hopefully they will not legitimise private parking tickets. I doubt it as it woulld involve allowing penalty causes in contracts but it is a worry. You can bet BPA will be lobbying for it. It does sound too good to be true though can't get clamped or towed and the tickets unenforcable. where is the kick in the teeth. Lets hope there is no catch.

Posted by: Enceladus Fri, 11 Feb 2011 - 02:22
Post #558877

QUOTE (neil3841 @ Fri, 11 Feb 2011 - 00:56) *
hopefully they will not legitimise private parking tickets. I doubt it as it woulld involve allowing penalty causes in contracts but it is a worry. You can bet BPA will be lobbying for it. It does sound too good to be true though can't get clamped or towed and the tickets unenforcable. where is the kick in the teeth. Lets hope there is no catch.


The Telegraph, for one, thinks they are lobbying. And have been for a while.

Posted by: bama Fri, 11 Feb 2011 - 08:05
Post #558895

they have been. its been part of their five year plan for quite some time.

Posted by: Gan Fri, 11 Feb 2011 - 08:45
Post #558903

The Law of Unintended Consequences that any action by a Government will make a situation worse.

If the BPA is lobbying to make tickets enforceable, it's announcing by definition that they're not enforceable now - as their Chairman told Parliament although the media didn't notice.

It would make more sense for his members to drop their prices to modest amounts that would be paid without protest. If at the level of nominal trespass damages it could in theory be enforced.

My concern though is that the comments sections of the DM show little sympathy for drivers who park where they shouldn't and the significance of a legal change would be missed.

The problem with a reasonable charges approach is of course that they don't make money out of it.


Posted by: Enceladus Fri, 11 Feb 2011 - 12:47
Post #558980

QUOTE (Gan @ Fri, 11 Feb 2011 - 08:45) *
The Law of Unintended Consequences that any action by a Government will make a situation worse.

If the BPA is lobbying to make tickets enforceable, it's announcing by definition that they're not enforceable now - as their Chairman told Parliament although the media didn't notice.

It would make more sense for his members to drop their prices to modest amounts that would be paid without protest. If at the level of nominal trespass damages it could in theory be enforced.

My concern though is that the comments sections of the DM show little sympathy for drivers who park where they shouldn't and the significance of a legal change would be missed.

The problem with a reasonable charges approach is of course that they don't make money out of it.

See here: more incompetence on the part of our elected representatives.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=59039

Posted by: AlexT Fri, 11 Feb 2011 - 21:26
Post #559208

So, the Protection of Freedom Act removes clampers (woo yay!) but instead it puts civil liability for parking notices on private land onto the Registered Keeper.

So my Devious Thought of the Day is thus: Form a Limited Company to act as Registered Keeper. This Ltd Co will own no assets, and would ideally file Dormant Accounts with Companies house (£15 a year).

All good so far. The only potential snag would be if your limited company was taken to court, and lost. This may require you to file trading accounts.

Now, the interesting part happens with the DVLA and their fines for SORN and the Continuous Insurance Enforcement, as well as Local Authority Parking Notices. They appear to have no bearing upon the Driver, and no requirements to disclose the Driver.

Obviously DVLA/Councils are much more likely to simply take the Limited Company to Court regardless, but a Private Parking company would probably be best discouraged by a simple letter back pointing out the basics:

1) The Registered Keeper did not enter into a contract with them.
2) The Registered Keeper is a Dormant Limited Liability Company.
3) The Registered Keeper has no assets.

i.e. take the RK to court. You might win, but you'll not get a penny easily!

What does the collective here think?

Posted by: Gan Fri, 11 Feb 2011 - 21:44
Post #559216

I'd be sorely tempted to gift some wrecks to the politicians who drafted this Act, deliver them to some land patrolled by PPCs, and let them experience the consequences of their own law-making.

Posted by: AlexT Fri, 11 Feb 2011 - 21:49
Post #559218

QUOTE (Gan @ Fri, 11 Feb 2011 - 21:44) *
I'd be sorely tempted to gift some wrecks to the politicians who drafted this Act, deliver them to some land patrolled by PPCs, and let them experience the consequences of their own law-making.

Find out the reg mark of their private motor, print out an A4 page with the right font/colour, and go take a wander past the "IN" ANPR cameras at your local McDonalds... then pop back a few hours later to go past the "OUT" camera wink.gif

Posted by: Alexis Fri, 11 Feb 2011 - 22:58
Post #559243

After reading through the Bill, I don't see how anything will change.

The contract still needs to enforceable under contract law. For 'relevant contract' (their words), read 'enforceable contract'. The only difference is if a PPC is daft enough to take the RK to court, the first hurdle for them about driver ID is just removed.

It just means RKs will be getting letters which happily proclaim "YOU ARE LIABLE UNDER THE FREEDOM ACT 2011".

The junk can then just be ignored as usual.

Of course, the PPCs will be happy out there because they can dupe keepers into paying when they don't have to.

Edit - email an MP who has knowledge of these things - Ann McGuire of Stirling: http://www.annemcguiremp.org.uk

Posted by: AlexT Fri, 11 Feb 2011 - 23:12
Post #559247

You're correct of course, but it does make the argument in court a lot harder. That said, it relies upon them getting someone on the hook and actively responding, someone who doesn't respond is likely to be binned as not worth the effort.

Posted by: Mike7777777 Sat, 12 Feb 2011 - 20:11
Post #559555

But how does this change benefit Joe Public? It doesn't and it stinks. Nothing wrong with the present PPC system of issuing meaningless invoices that can be thrown in the bin.

Posted by: bama Sat, 12 Feb 2011 - 21:03
Post #559572

still a few readings to go folks.

don't get too previous.

Posted by: emanresu Sun, 13 Feb 2011 - 08:20
Post #559659

Looking at it again, I'm trying to see where and how far it is removed from current law.

1. Relevant Contract.

There seems to be no mechanism to define whether a contract has been formed. Is the assumption that if the signs are prominent enough (BPA's:450x450) then a contract is formed?

2. Keeper/Driver.

I've called this "Perky's revenge" before because it seems to be on the concept of Agency. I can see this as applying if for example company driver in company car on company business but why should agency be read over into other areas.

3. Charges.

Daily parking rate for a railway car park is around £5 -£10 say. No indication that driver has paid (may/may not have) but PPC is looking for £100. Penalty says current law.

No indication in legislation of whether the charge should be limited to loss (or loss plus admin). There is a restriction on double collection whatever that means.

Is there a proposal here to say, reclaimable charges no more that 2 times or 3 times the daily rate?


Just looking to see if there is something that could be put together to send to MP's. I'll put it up on googledocs or we could use Edgar_J's server.

Also what about a Sticky thread so all the contributions / comments are together.

Posted by: thejuggler Sun, 13 Feb 2011 - 08:42
Post #559661

So if in the small print of a sign it says "Red cars will incur a parking fee of £10,000" and someone parks in there who doesn't read English (foreign visitor in a hire car for example) the RK will get a bill for £10,000?

Please tell me that's not true, because as sure is eggs is eggs a PPC will do this.

Posted by: marvin28 Mon, 14 Feb 2011 - 21:05
Post #560401

Schedule 4 "Unpaid Parking Charges" of Clegg's http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2010-2011/0146/2011146.pdf (page 106-111) relates to PPCs and their parking charges.

It appears to allow them to send their invoices to the keeper when they do not know who the driver is, removing the hurdle of proving the driver.

p37 onwards covers the offence of immobilising vehicles and extends powers to remove vehicles from land.

Posted by: clark_kent Mon, 14 Feb 2011 - 21:08
Post #560405

QUOTE (marvin28 @ Mon, 14 Feb 2011 - 21:05) *
Schedule 4 "Unpaid Parking Charges" of Clegg's http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2010-2011/0146/2011146.pdf (page 106-111) relates to PPCs and their parking charges.

It appears to allow them to send their invoices to the keeper when they do not know who the driver is, removing the hurdle of proving the driver.

p37 onwards covers the offence of immobilising vehicles and extends powers to remove vehicles from land.



I think you'll find you are about the 4th post on the same subject!!

Posted by: marvin28 Mon, 14 Feb 2011 - 21:24
Post #560414

Before posting, I did go back through posts back to friday, when I understand the Bill was released, and failed to spot anything relevant. I've found older posts discussing what may be in the Bill, but this is the first post that has linked to the Bill itself, as far as I can tell.

Posted by: roythebus Mon, 14 Feb 2011 - 22:18
Post #560426

The Act says:

CHAPTER 2
VEHICLES LEFT ON LAND
Offence of immobilising etc. vehicles
54 Offence of immobilising etc. vehicles
(1) A person commits an offence who, without lawful authority—
(a) immobilises a motor vehicle by the attachment to the vehicle, or a part
of it, of an immobilising device, or
(b) moves, or restricts the movement of, such a vehicle by any means,
intending to prevent or inhibit the removal of the vehicle by a person otherwise
entitled to remove it.
(2) The express or implied consent (whether or not legally binding) of a person
otherwise entitled to remove the vehicle to the immobilisation, movement or
restriction concerned is not lawful authority for the purposes of subsection (1).
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply where—
(a) there is express or implied consent by the driver of the vehicle to
restricting its movement by a fixed barrier, and
(b) the barrier was present (whether or not lowered into place or otherwise
restricting movement) when the vehicle was parked.
(4) A person who is entitled to remove a vehicle cannot commit an offence under
this section in relation to that vehicle.
(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine,
(b) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory
maximum.
(6) In this section “motor vehicle” means a mechanically propelled vehicle or a
vehicle designed or adapted for towing by a mechanically propelled vehicle.
0
5Protection of Freedoms Bill
Part 3 — Protection of property from disproportionate enforcement action
Chapter 2 — Vehicles left on land
38
Alternative remedies in relation to vehicles left on land
55 Extension of powers to remove vehicles from land
(1) Section 99 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (removal of vehicles
illegally, obstructively or dangerously parked, or abandoned or broken down)
is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—
(a) in paragraph (a), after “road” insert “or other land”,
(b) in paragraph (b)—
(i) after “road”, where it appears for the first time, insert “or other
land”, and
(ii) after “road”, where it appears for the second time, insert “or
land concerned”,
© in paragraph © for “, or on any land in the open air,” substitute “or
other land”, and
(d) at the end insert “or other land”.
(3) In subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), after “road”, where it appears for the third time, insert
“or on land other than a road”, and
(b) after paragraph (a), insert—
“(aa) may provide, in the case of a vehicle which may be
removed from land other than a road, for the moving of
the vehicle from one position on such land to another
position on such land or on any road;”.
56 Recovery of unpaid parking charges
Schedule 4 (which makes provision for the recovery of unpaid parking charges
from the keeper of a vehicle in cases where it is not known who was driving
the vehicle when the charges were incurred) has effect.

Posted by: pumps100 Tue, 15 Feb 2011 - 06:00
Post #560476

I might have mentioned elsewhere that there were quite a few pro-clamping posts on the lovely Lynn Featherstone's blog. There was a lot of dyslexia and familiar syntax, so that if I was a betting person, I would put money on the posts been written by one muppet (using multiple aliases) called RICHARD JOHN RIPPON.

Most have now been deleted as I believe complaints were made.

There was a good reply though which was not deleted:-

QUOTE
Colin, FYI Anewman posts on MSE in that name, as I do in the name I have used here. We are entitled to use our forum usernames, just as you are entitled to be called Colin.

No-one is saying that people should not pay a reasonable FEE for the service of parking, paid to the landowner/agent/retailer entitled to it. You know, the ones that actually own and/or maintain the car park, or who have an office or shop, manage flats, or provide a service at the site.

I can see a lot of the clampers on here are dyslexic so I will try to spell it out clearly for you all, what the problem is with your so-called 'industry'.

What people object to is the idea of being FINED a ridiculous amount by a third party parasite company leeching off the back of legitimate hardworking people.

And if you think the Freedom Bill is actually going to be passed with registered keeper responsibility for your cronies' exorbitant fines (hiding under the guise of Parking Charge Notices, deliberately named to confuse people into thinking they are a real PCN) then you have another think coming.

Good luck at the job centre everyone.

Posted by: Fredd Tue, 15 Feb 2011 - 07:30
Post #560477

There's more than one sub-forum here; not everything parking-related belongs in this one, which is for helping individuals with their specific cases. You'll find the threads on this subject in the Government Policy sub-forum.

Posted by: roythebus Tue, 15 Feb 2011 - 09:40
Post #560508

Yep, I posted the appropriate bit of the Bill there last night.

Posted by: Sirdan Wed, 16 Feb 2011 - 11:47
Post #561030

It's not an Act ..yet and it may well change.

All the above is very interesting but the main concern most people seem to have is with some of the actual content of Schedule 4.

Posted by: anon45 Wed, 16 Feb 2011 - 17:31
Post #561173

Members of the public are officially invited by the Government to make comments here at what it calls a "new Public Reading stage" prior to Second Reading:
http://publicreadingstage.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/54-offence-of-immobilising-etc-vehicles
http://publicreadingstage.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/56-recovery-of-unpaid-parking-charges

I'm sure Pepipoo members will have something to say about Schedule 4...

Posted by: roythebus Wed, 16 Feb 2011 - 17:37
Post #561174

It says "parking charges", not penalty charges, excess charges, admin charges, and "the keeper", not "the registered keeper". lol.

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Wed, 16 Feb 2011 - 23:59
Post #561360

QUOTE (pumps100 @ Tue, 15 Feb 2011 - 06:00) *
I might have mentioned elsewhere that there were quite a few pro-clamping posts on the lovely Lynn Featherstone's blog. There was a lot of dyslexia and familiar syntax, so that if I was a betting person, I would put money on the posts been written by one muppet (using multiple aliases) called RICHARD JOHN RIPPON.

Most have now been deleted as I believe complaints were made.

There was a good reply though which was not deleted:-
QUOTE
Colin, FYI Anewman posts on MSE in that name, as I do in the name I have used here. We are entitled to use our forum usernames, just as you are entitled to be called Colin.

No-one is saying that people should not pay a reasonable FEE for the service of parking, paid to the landowner/agent/retailer entitled to it. You know, the ones that actually own and/or maintain the car park, or who have an office or shop, manage flats, or provide a service at the site.

I can see a lot of the clampers on here are dyslexic so I will try to spell it out clearly for you all, what the problem is with your so-called 'industry'.

What people object to is the idea of being FINED a ridiculous amount by a third party parasite company leeching off the back of legitimate hardworking people.

And if you think the Freedom Bill is actually going to be passed with registered keeper responsibility for your cronies' exorbitant fines (hiding under the guise of Parking Charge Notices, deliberately named to confuse people into thinking they are a real PCN) then you have another think coming.

Good luck at the job centre everyone.






I was quite proud of my reply too, thanks for the compliment!

Posted by: srg Tue, 1 Mar 2011 - 13:02
Post #566382

Protection of Freedom Bill gets Second Reading in the Commons today. Debate starts at 2.30pm.

Posted by: KillerSteve Tue, 1 Mar 2011 - 19:47
Post #566630

Democracy in Action. What a joke! The only mention this controversial piece of legislation got in the 2nd reading is Theresa May suggesting that the RK will be responsible in certain circumstances. Not even a single MP challenged it – not that there were many of them in there earning their keep anyway. Rubbish! The RK in this legislation will be responsible in ALL circumstances as liablity by default reverts to the RK. Pathetic attempt at democracy. I cannot see how this legislation can be held as having met the requirments of proper parliamentry scrutiny when issues are just not addressed.

Posted by: roythebus Tue, 1 Mar 2011 - 22:44
Post #566704

In my view most Bills are never properly scrutinised by MPs, that's why we have so many rubbish laws passed. It's then down to the Lords, who sometimes pick up on things, failing that, it's down to the courts, then the lords, then the European court.

Read FIRST before passing bill would be something for those representing us to remember.

Posted by: buttonpusher Wed, 2 Mar 2011 - 13:31
Post #566891

Apart from it being nice that someone did their job corectly it would also be a lot, lot cheaper.

Posted by: Broadsword Wed, 2 Mar 2011 - 15:18
Post #566928

Consumer Focus are interested in this section and looking into it, feel free to email them and make them aware of your concerns. I have.

contact@consumerfocus.org.uk

Posted by: anon45 Wed, 2 Mar 2011 - 15:38
Post #566933

It's being reported on:
http://ofinteresttolwayers.blogspot.com/2011/02/goodbye-clamping.html, and
http://obiterj.blogspot.com/2011/02/vehicle-immobilisation-clamping.html
that Clause 54(3), which negates Clause 54(2) where a barrier is fitted, will mean that clamping and towing to extract a ransom from the victim will remain entirely lawful so long as a barrier is fitted at the entry to the private parking area in which clamping or towing takes place.

This would appear to negate the entire purpose of the clause, namely to outlaw private clamping and towing, and would seem to be an extraordinary loophole. It also contradicts the public statements by Ministers that "private wheelclamping is being abolished altogether on private land".

Posted by: buttonpusher Wed, 2 Mar 2011 - 17:29
Post #566987

Reply to email to Ms Featherstone.

Thank you for your e-mail of 12 February to Lynne Featherstone about the regulation of vehicle immobilisation. Your e-mail has been passed to the Home Office and I have been asked to reply.

The Government included a commitment in its Coalition Agreement to tackle rogue private sector wheel-clampers. In line with this commitment, on 11 February, the Government introduced the Protection of Freedoms Bill which includes provisions for a ban on the immobilisation and towing away of vehicles without lawful authority.

A new offence of immobilising, moving or restricting the movement of a vehicle without lawful authority will be created. In effect, this will ban most clamping and towing by anyone other than the police, local authorities and Government agencies acting in accordance with their statutory or other powers.

To be guilty of the offence, the person immobilising or moving the vehicle must intend to prevent or inhibit the removal of the vehicle by its driver or owner.

The penalty for the new offence will be a fine. This will be either an unlimited fine on conviction in the Crown Court (on indictment) or a fine of not more than the statutory minimum (currently £5,000) in a magistrates’ court (on summary conviction).

The new provisions include some exemptions. For example, they allow for the use of fixed barriers to control car parks to continue. They will not prevent the owner or driver of a vehicle clamping it themselves, for example to prevent theft. Also, clamping and towing with lawful authority will still be legal.

The provisions also extend the powers of the police so they can tow away vehicles parked on private land which are obstructively or dangerously parked. The new police powers relating to towing vehicles away are expected to be used only in exceptional circumstances at the discretion of the police: for example, where a vehicle is blocking a hospital entrance. The police will not be expected to take on the role of parking enforcers for private land.

We are aware of the parking industry’s concerns about securing payment of ticketed charges. Under our proposals, a parking firm which qualifies to apply to DVLA will be able to hold the keeper liable for payment of a parking related charge if the driver has failed to pay. This liability will apply only if a request for payment was made when the parking incident took place and has not been paid.

Once the new offence takes effect the Security Industry Authority’s licensing regime for vehicle immobilisers will become redundant. The relevant provisions under the Private Security Industry Act 2001 will be repealed at that point. Similarly, the provisions in the Crime and Security Act 2010 which provided for the licensing of wheel clamping businesses and an independent appeal system for motorists, which have not been brought into force, will also be repealed.

Subject to parliamentary approval, it is expected that the Bill will receive Royal Assent by the end of the current session (by Easter 2012). We will aim to bring the ban into force as soon as possible after the Bill has been passed. Once in place, anyone who clamps a vehicle or tows it away without lawful authority could face criminal proceedings.

Further information on the rest of the Bill’s contents can be found here: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/legislation/protection-freedoms-bill/.

Yours sincerely,



Miss A Lean

Posted by: KillerSteve Wed, 2 Mar 2011 - 19:13
Post #567035

Does anyone know what legislation allows the DVLA to pass on private details to a private company? Does this legislation overule the ECHR privacy laws, the Human Rights Act, etc? Otherwise are they just passing on these details without regard to the above?

Posted by: DBC Wed, 2 Mar 2011 - 19:18
Post #567039

QUOTE (KillerSteve @ Wed, 2 Mar 2011 - 19:13) *
Does anyone know what legislation allows the DVLA to pass on private details to a private company? Does this legislation overule the ECHR privacy laws, the Human Rights Act, etc? Otherwise are they just passing on these details without regard to the above?





You give that permission to the DVLA when you sign your car documents. It's in the small print somewhere.



Posted by: Gan Thu, 3 Mar 2011 - 01:23
Post #567188

QUOTE (KillerSteve @ Tue, 1 Mar 2011 - 19:47) *
Democracy in Action. What a joke! The only mention this controversial piece of legislation got in the 2nd reading is Theresa May suggesting that the RK will be responsible in certain circumstances. Not even a single MP challenged it – not that there were many of them in there earning their keep anyway. Rubbish! The RK in this legislation will be responsible in ALL circumstances as liablity by default reverts to the RK. Pathetic attempt at democracy. I cannot see how this legislation can be held as having met the requirments of proper parliamentry scrutiny when issues are just not addressed.

If this becomes law, instead of finding a registered scrap dealer we should donate the vehicles to our elected representatives to remind them of their responsibilities.

Posted by: Broadsword Thu, 3 Mar 2011 - 08:46
Post #567207

QUOTE (KillerSteve @ Wed, 2 Mar 2011 - 19:13) *
Does anyone know what legislation allows the DVLA to pass on private details to a private company? Does this legislation overule the ECHR privacy laws, the Human Rights Act, etc? Otherwise are they just passing on these details without regard to the above?


Quote from the DVLA; "Regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 requires the DVLA to release information from the vehicle register to the police, to local authorities for purposes associated with the investigation of an offence or decriminalised parking contravention, and to anyone who can demonstrate 'reasonable cause' to have it."

"Reasonable cause is not defined in legislation and requests are considered on their merits"

BUT

"We have been advised that requests from private car parking enforcement companies are considered to meet the reasonable cause criteria"

So there you have it, at the stroke of a pen, the DVLA have bypassed the "reasonable cause" safeguard and instead replaced it with an arbitrary and blanket policy for requests from PPCs................(I don't suspect for one minute that the 6 million pounds a year revenue that this brings into the DVLA coffers has anything to do with this (IMO) unlawful policy)

Posted by: buttonpusher Thu, 3 Mar 2011 - 13:28
Post #567294

""The provisions also extend the powers of the police so they can tow away vehicles parked on private land which are obstructively or dangerously parked.""

This could be complicated. Would the ppc rat on the RK, (of course they would) if so how would they benefit? Would they get a rake off? Would the BIB say its a civil matter? Police acting as towing company for a ppc is a mite worrying.

Posted by: picko Thu, 3 Mar 2011 - 13:43
Post #567299

QUOTE (buttonpusher @ Thu, 3 Mar 2011 - 13:28) *
Police acting as towing company for a ppc is a mite worrying.


They've been acting as their protectors so far so not much of a change... rolleyes.gif

Posted by: bama Fri, 4 Mar 2011 - 07:46
Post #567583

ICO making (sensible) noises about it
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/03/ico_freedoms_bill/


Posted by: anon45 Sat, 12 Mar 2011 - 02:11
Post #570571

CAB briefing on 'parking' provisions of Protection of Freedoms Bill: http://www.consumerfocus.org.uk/files/2010/06/Protection-of-Freedoms-Bill-briefing-February-2011.pdf

Posted by: DBC Sat, 12 Mar 2011 - 09:15
Post #570587

From the above document:-

Clause 56 should be removed. It allows creditors to pursue the registered keeper of a vehicle for unpaid parking charges, whether or not the keeper was the driver at the time the charge was incurred. This allows a creditor to hold a non-contracting party responsible for a breach of contract in which they played no part. This would undermine a long held legal principle. Clause 56 also requires parking operators to meet certain conditions before they can pursue the keeper of the vehicle for any unpaid charges. But it places no burden of proof on the parking operator to demonstrate that these conditions have been met, nor does it provide a system of dispute resolution for vehicle keepers pursued for payment where these conditions are not met.


Posted by: emanresu Sat, 12 Mar 2011 - 14:05
Post #570659

QUOTE
nor does it provide a system of dispute resolution for vehicle keepers pursued for payment where these conditions are not met.


The BPA have been trialling an independent(?) appeal system and lobbying judges about it. This is to legitimise Sec 56. They plan to issue a report on their findings(?) in a week or so.


Posted by: Glitch Sat, 12 Mar 2011 - 20:39
Post #570813

The innocent motorist is likely to lose out yet again.

Who is fighting for them?

The people making money out of will no doubt find a way to keep their revenue streams intact.

Posted by: alloageorge Sat, 12 Mar 2011 - 21:47
Post #570836

if i fit my parking spaces with manual rising bollards
and charge a £300 exit fee will i be within the new
legislation?

Posted by: Broadsword Sun, 13 Mar 2011 - 18:29
Post #571073

QUOTE (Glitch @ Sat, 12 Mar 2011 - 20:39) *
The innocent motorist is likely to lose out yet again.

Who is fighting for them?


Every motorist who complains to his MP, Trading Standards and Customer Focus

Those who don't complain actually add support to these scammers by their silence.

Posted by: Rustledust Thu, 17 Mar 2011 - 13:10
Post #572673

I thought I'd try and get some info on when the ban in due to become law so e-mailed the Home Office and below is the main part of the response:-

Subject to parliamentary approval, it is expected that the Protection of Freedoms Bill will receive Royal Assent by the end of the current session (by Easter 2012). We will aim to bring the ban into force as soon as possible after the Bill has been passed. Once in place, anyone who clamps a vehicle or tows it away without lawful authority could face criminal proceedings. Further information on the rest of the Bill’s contents can be found at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/legislation/protection-freedoms-bill/.

2012 ohmy.gif !! Is that when the current session ends or do you think they mean 2011?

Sorry if this is old news but hadn't seen anything recently on the topic.

Posted by: ManxRed Thu, 17 Mar 2011 - 13:12
Post #572675

I think there's a thread in one of the discussion forums.

2012 seems about right.

Posted by: Alexis Thu, 17 Mar 2011 - 13:12
Post #572676

The Bill is still being debated up until May 2010. Then it will be revised and debated again in the autumn.

Posted by: Gan Thu, 17 Mar 2011 - 13:14
Post #572679

They might mean 2011 but that's only to put the legislation in place that enables them to bring a ban into force.

Correspondence from the Home Office to another member stated that the intention is to bring in the ban "several years later"

Posted by: hcandersen Thu, 17 Mar 2011 - 13:36
Post #572693

The Bill has been referred to a Public Bill Committee which will start its scrutiny on 22 March.

The Committee has put out a call for written evidence which may be submitted until 10 May.


See this web page from the Parliament web site:


http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/february/second-reading-of-protection-of-freedoms-bill/

These are the Home Secretary's responses to questions raised at 2nd Reading:

Mrs May: I have been in touch with colleagues across Departments about powers of entry because they are found in all sorts of places. All Departments will be required to review powers of entry, and duplication will be exactly the sort of issue we will be looking at.

We know that powers of entry are of great concern to the public, and another issue of great concern is wheel-clamping. The Bill will protect motorists from cowboy clampers, making it a criminal offence to immobilise, move or restrict the movement of a vehicle without lawful authority. For too long, motorists have fallen victim to extortion and abuse from rogue clamping companies. We have heard stories of drivers being frogmarched to cash points late at night or left stranded by rogue operators who have towed their vehicle away. Clearly that is unacceptable.

Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op): There will be support from across the House for measures to restrict the efforts of cowboy clampers, but what would the Home Secretary say to my constituent Mary Harrison who has concerns about her residential area being overrun with cars because the existing structures to enforce parking restrictions are not sufficient?

Mrs May: Other powers will be available to control parking, such as barriers and ticketing. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman point out to his constituent the experience in Scotland, where such clamping was banned in 1992, I think. No problems have arisen from that change, so that is a good example for him to consider.


1 Mar 2011 : Column 210
Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab): I just want to say that this part of the Bill is fantastic and that the Home Secretary has my full support for it. [Hon. Members: "Where's the barb?"] There is none-I just want to be nice. The thousands of people who signed my cowboy clampers petition will thank her for finally listening to the people of West Bromwich.

Mrs May: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those remarks. It is good to have cross-party support on such issues as this one, which affects many MPs whose constituents have suffered from cowboy clampers. By criminalising clamping and towing without lawful authority, the Government are committing rogue clampers to history and putting an end to intimidation and excessive charges once and for all.

Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con): Further to my right hon. Friend's answer to the hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker), will she confirm that local authorities will continue to have the power to clamp on the public highway? Will residents in private developments be able to contract with their local authority to clamp on private developments? I have been contacted by a large number of people in my constituency who have tried ticketing and barriers but found that they do not work close to the town centre and public transport hubs. Could local authorities continue to clamp on private land?

Mrs May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. Local authorities already have the ability to take a controlling interest and to run parking on private land, subject to the agreement and request of the landowner, although that facility has not been much used.

To ensure continued access to key buildings, existing powers for the police to remove vehicles that are illegally, dangerously or obstructively parked on roads will be extended to other land. The registered keeper of a vehicle will also be made liable, in certain circumstances, for charges incurred as a result of parking on private land.



If this is posted in the wrong area, I prostrate myself before the mods with a plea that it be moved to where it belongs.

HCA

Posted by: MrCarrot Thu, 17 Mar 2011 - 13:40
Post #572696

I wish they'd hurry up and make it illegal

Posted by: roythebus Thu, 17 Mar 2011 - 14:23
Post #572723

don't we all, ppc's excepted!

Posted by: Jamez80 Thu, 2 Jun 2011 - 13:18
Post #596058

No more news on this?

Posted by: srg Thu, 2 Jun 2011 - 20:51
Post #596183

QUOTE (Jamez80 @ Thu, 2 Jun 2011 - 14:18) *
No more news on this?

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/protectionoffreedoms.html

Has finished its Committee stage in the Commons, awaiting Report stage. So some way to go yet.

Even once the Bill gets Royal Assent, nothing will actually be brought in until the end of next year at the earliest.

Posted by: buttonpusher Sat, 9 Jun 2012 - 12:56
Post #706970

Just pondering:-
There is supposed to be an Independent Appeals Process coming. This would sort out appeals between a PPC and Driver/RK. If the PPC does not have the right to offer a contract as they don't own the land or have the right to form a contract given them by the owner then what good is an adjudicator when there's nothing to adjudicate.

Posted by: Alexis Mon, 25 Jun 2012 - 09:01
Post #711971

Very true.

Posted by: KillerSteve Mon, 25 Jun 2012 - 13:28
Post #712070

QUOTE (buttonpusher @ Sat, 9 Jun 2012 - 13:56) *
Just pondering:-
There is supposed to be an Independent Appeals Process coming. This would sort out appeals between a PPC and Driver/RK. If the PPC does not have the right to offer a contract as they don't own the land or have the right to form a contract given them by the owner then what good is an adjudicator when there's nothing to adjudicate.


"independant appeals process"! there will be no such thing. The BPA ( an association of the same people who issue the invoices) has put the appointment of an IAS out to tender and of course they will choose the so called IAS based on whoever is going to make them ( the PPCs that are members ) the most money by rejecting appeals or making biased decisions. How can it by the the same PPC companies that are issuing the invoices are able to decide who should be appointed to adjudicate on appeals? its a joke and shocking that parliament allowed it through. If the BPA did not have any of the PPCs as members in any decision making role or level, then perhaps it could be independent enough to appoint an IAS, but this is not the state of the BPA. I can see many legal challenges to the RK liability as all court and adjudication prcoeedings are supposed to be fair and unbiased, and there is no reasonable way any IAS
can be reasonablly independent when apppinted by the BPA when members of the PPCs are at a decision making level within that organisation.

Posted by: anon45 Tue, 26 Jun 2012 - 17:36
Post #712486

It's worth pointing out that the clamping ban applicable to England and Wales from 1 October 2012 will not apply in Northern Ireland; however the Northern Irish Government are currently consulting on whether the clamping ban should be extended to Northern Ireland in the future: http://www.dojni.gov.uk/future-regulation-of-the-private-security-industry

Any Pepipoo members based in Northern Ireland, particularly those who have been the victim of aggressive private clamping, may wish to consider responding to this consultation.

Scotland, of course, has long since done the sensible thing, with a court ruling (Black v Carmichael 1992 SCCR 709) declaring it to be "extortion and theft".

Posted by: SuperSeagull Wed, 26 Sep 2012 - 18:11
Post #738328

I believe that new legislation is due in very shortly, if it has not come in by now, controlling clamping and giving of parking tickets on private land. How will this affect the legality of parking Notices and the payment when issued by private parking companies with regard to fighting them.

Posted by: Basfordlad Wed, 26 Sep 2012 - 18:16
Post #738329

QUOTE (SuperSeagull @ Wed, 26 Sep 2012 - 19:11) *
I believe that new legislation is due in very shortly, if it has not come in by now, controlling clamping and giving of parking tickets on private land. How will this affect the legality of parking Notices and the payment when issued by private parking companies with regard to fighting them.


It wont change the status of invoices parking companies issue,

you still dont need to pay them!

But i think the advice is going to be to appeal , then appeal to popla in order to cost the ppc £32

QUOTE (SuperSeagull @ Wed, 26 Sep 2012 - 19:11) *
I believe that new legislation is due in very shortly, if it has not come in by now, controlling clamping and giving of parking tickets on private land. How will this affect the legality of parking Notices and the payment when issued by private parking companies with regard to fighting them.


It wont change the status of invoices parking companies issue,

you still dont need to pay them!

But i think the advice is going to be to appeal , then appeal to popla in order to cost the ppc £32

Posted by: Glacier2 Thu, 27 Sep 2012 - 00:50
Post #738430

I reckon the likes of Rip-Off will keep clamping regardless.

Posted by: silverfox60017 Sun, 30 Sep 2012 - 10:36
Post #739532

I am more a lurker on here, as i tend to steer clear of confrontation with PPC, but with this new legislation coming in can someone bring me up to speed on what is different from tomorrow

As i understand it prior to 1/10/2012 we could ignore these notices ....full stop

Now these PPC can chase the registered keeper to get the money.

So, what what can we do in the following scenario

Park up at say a well known supermarket/Business park that has two hours free parking and then the 'charges' kick in

If i overstay for whatever reason, how much can they chase me for legally

If there was a chargeable car park, say £1.00 per hour and i pay £1,00 and stay for more than one but less than two, can they still go for £60.00 or whatever, or just the £1.00 i havent paid plus any costs in getting my details

OR can we still have a go at them ?

Sorry to appear dense , but i have not seen a thumbnail 'what the new law means' thread,......or have i missed it?

Thanks for being patient, if i have missed it can someone give us a link.

As i said, i dont go out of my way to park illegally, but forwarned etc etc.

Posted by: Gan Sun, 30 Sep 2012 - 11:24
Post #739547

The media are making a very poor job of presenting the changes and still talking about fines and penalties

The BPA is still keeping up the pretence that £100 is a fair estimate of costs

The Home Office IIRC is still under the impression that parking companies can offer contracts they are able to enforce as long as they've displayed proper signs.

The Department for Transport seems to be the only source that's noticed the elephant sitting comfortably with its feet up on the coffee table. They've pointed out that the losses are the land-owners, that only genuine losses are claimable and there's such a thing as unfair contracts legislation.

If you follow these principles, nothing has changed and they're only entitled to £1 + £2-50 for DVLA plus the stamp.
If it's a free car park they're stuffed for the £60

The only difference, apart from the veneer of respectability from legislation, is that they're no longer abusing the DVLA database by holding the keeper liable if they can't identify the driver.

Regarding the advice that will be given here, "Ignore" is still likely to be a good option but we'll probably also suggest following the appeals process for tickets issued by BPA members. The OP will still be entitled to to disregard a failed appeal but will cost the PPC £27 in the process. This will definitely be advisable for drivers of lease, hire and company vehicles although tickets issued by ANPR will continue to cause problems.

I suspect that as a result of the confusion, clampers will become rogue PPC operators issuing very expensive tickets for no reason. Most victims pay up anyway so they will have no need for BPA membership and its laughable regulation just to get access to the DVLA database and mop up the non-payers. Even the BPA members will find more tickets than previously are paid.

The Law of Unintended Consequences - no situation so desperate that Government action can't make it worse

Posted by: DBC Sun, 30 Sep 2012 - 12:01
Post #739554

This is the sort of rubbish that's being peddled -from today's Sunday Express:-

Motoring groups predict that 2.3 million fixed penalty notices a year will be issued after new powers come into force at midnight.

They say that half a million parking tickets are now likely to be dished out at thousands of locations including supermarkets, retail parks and housing estates.

The AA predicts the total will rise even higher once private firms have legal backing to deluge drivers with £100 fixed penalty notices.

Posted by: Glacier2 Sun, 30 Sep 2012 - 12:57
Post #739563

In 10 hours private clamping is to become criminalised.

What's the betting it won't stop for a while afterwards. I can't see the likes of Rip-Off just stopping.

Posted by: prosnap Sun, 30 Sep 2012 - 13:03
Post #739564

Chance of Jail time and big fines if they don't stop.

I'd pay to see that!

Posted by: Gan Sun, 30 Sep 2012 - 13:47
Post #739571

If a car is clamped today without being towed, does it have to be released at midnight without payment ?

Posted by: Gan Sun, 30 Sep 2012 - 13:52
Post #739572

Newspapers would be a lot less dangerous if they confined their activities to hacking celebrities' phones instead of spreading this misinformation

If they're not quoting the BPA press releases verbatim they could at least make some effort to get their facts straight.
And I expected the AA to do better

There was a time when the answer to any disagreement was to check what it said in the newspaper


Posted by: Glacier2 Sun, 30 Sep 2012 - 14:00
Post #739576

That is the 64K question.

Posted by: DBC Sun, 30 Sep 2012 - 14:05
Post #739578

I doubt that the AA used the words "fixed penalty charge". It's more likely down to the superb journalistic "skills" of the Express hack - (don't laugh)

Here is the article in full. Luckily some corrective comments have been added:-

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/349124/Clamping-banned-but-millions-more-tickets

Posted by: fluff34567 Sun, 30 Sep 2012 - 16:45
Post #739612

Daily mail also has 2 articles today, both blabber on about penalties and fines .... i have responded but doubt my comments will be published.

Posted by: DBC Sun, 30 Sep 2012 - 17:00
Post #739615

Ans we have our old freind Trevor Whitehouse chiming in:-

Trevor Whitehouse of National Clamps, whose clients include Oxford University, said: ‘We charge £80 to unclamp a vehicle, which is a lot less than some operators. But from next week we’ll be putting our penalty tickets up to £100 "

Posted by: fluff34567 Sun, 30 Sep 2012 - 17:06
Post #739619

as mentioned in another thread... I think it would be greatly beneficial for someone to write out the bullet points regarding the clamping/towing ban and changes/integration of an " independent" appeals service and the registered keeper liability aspect.....


It could be made as a sticky as already there are quite a few posts all asking the sme questions regarding 1st October.

Anyone?

Posted by: bama Sun, 30 Sep 2012 - 17:39
Post #739635

Hasn't the DfT done that for us already with their latest doc

Posted by: fluff34567 Sun, 30 Sep 2012 - 17:54
Post #739643

yes and no.. for those that take the time to sit thru and read it yes, for the average person that comes here looking for advice, then no, as they will not read through it all.

It doesnt say anything in the DfT doc that member PPC's pay £27 for appeals for example.

Posted by: Glacier2 Sun, 30 Sep 2012 - 21:27
Post #739702

Clamping does not happen in NI.

Posted by: anon45 Mon, 1 Oct 2012 - 07:26
Post #739757

QUOTE (Glacier2 @ Sun, 30 Sep 2012 - 22:27) *
Clamping does not happen in NI.


Are you sure- the NI Government says it does, and the BPA says it does (Appendix A): http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/BPA_Code_of_Practice_2012_Version_1_October_2012.pdf

Further to my previous posts, I have also been informed that RK liability was indeed commenced in Wales today, notwithstanding that I am still unable to locate the relevant commencement order on legislation.gov.uk.

Posted by: Pancras Mon, 1 Oct 2012 - 13:26
Post #739888

Can anyone please explain to a lay person the new rules?

I am led to believe that the owner/registered keeper becomes liable in law from today onwards, but reading this thread it is not clear.

In simple terms, is the advice still to not enter into correspondance?

Many thanks.

Posted by: ManxRed Mon, 1 Oct 2012 - 13:36
Post #739889

The only change to before is this, if the PPC does not know the identity of the driver then they can hold the RK liable. However, if they do know the driver's details (and the RK will be invited to furnish them with this info) then the RK is no longer liable and will not be from there on in.

The tickets themselves are still unenforceable contract penalties, and the PPCs still won't have (in the majority of cases) sufficient landowner rights to form contracts with anyone. So no change there.

Our advice may change slightly in order to factor in the new 'independent' (and I use this word as loosely as possible) appeals service from POPLA.

Posted by: Broadsword Mon, 1 Oct 2012 - 13:41
Post #739891

QUOTE (ManxRed @ Mon, 1 Oct 2012 - 14:36) *
The only change to before is this, if the PPC does not know the identity of the driver then they can hold the RK liable. However, if they do know the driver's details (and the RK will be invited to furnish them with this info) then the RK is no longer liable and will not be from there on in.

The tickets themselves are still unenforceable contract penalties, and the PPCs still won't have (in the majority of cases) sufficient landowner rights to form contracts with anyone. So no change there.

Our advice may change slightly in order to factor in the new 'independent' (and I use this word as loosely as possible) appeals service from POPLA.


It has been suggested that from now on it is only ever referred to as the 'Industry Appeals Service' so that there can be no misunderstanding that it is the BPA who are pulling the strings.

To continue to refer to it as 'Independent' would confer on it a false and misleading title.

Posted by: ManxRed Mon, 1 Oct 2012 - 14:02
Post #739895

Good idea. I'll go with that.

Posted by: Fredd Mon, 1 Oct 2012 - 16:33
Post #739941

QUOTE (Pancras @ Mon, 1 Oct 2012 - 14:26) *
Can anyone please explain to a lay person the new rules?

I am led to believe that the owner/registered keeper becomes liable in law from today onwards, but reading this thread it is not clear.

In simple terms, is the advice still to not enter into correspondance?

The http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=46975 has been updated to reflect the (quite limited) effects of the new Act, and expanded somewhat.

Posted by: ruffled Mon, 1 Oct 2012 - 18:12
Post #739979

please tell me:

if said private ticket company can now legally enforce disclosure of driver from registered owner - what would happen if said owner says driver was donald duck, of duck road, duck city etc........in other words, the ticket would be requested to be paid from some completely unknown name and address so would be in turn 'ignored'. then what do they do?

Posted by: ruffled Mon, 1 Oct 2012 - 18:34
Post #739990

i agree with above nevertheless it appears these abhorrent companies are now going to 'get away with it' due to new laws in respect of contacting registered keepers of vehicles. however, i can't see why one can't give some unknown name and address as to who was the driver?......or indeed, if the keeper has to BY LAW respond?...

Posted by: DBC Mon, 1 Oct 2012 - 18:43
Post #739991

QUOTE (ruffled @ Mon, 1 Oct 2012 - 19:12) *
please tell me:

if said private ticket company can now legally enforce disclosure of driver from registered owner - what would happen if said owner says driver was donald duck, of duck road, duck city etc........in other words, the ticket would be requested to be paid from some completely unknown name and address so would be in turn 'ignored'. then what do they do?


If you refuse to name the driver they can't do much about it. This is part of the reply I received from Transport Minister Norman Baker:-

The alternative option was to make it a criminal offence for the keeper to refuse to name the driver in charge of the vehicle. This was discarded because criminal sanctions were deemed a disproportionate sanction to a parking charge on private property.

Posted by: Alexis Mon, 1 Oct 2012 - 19:44
Post #740015

They would not 'know' the identity of the driver and they would know it. They'd just carry on pursuing the keeper.

You would need to tweak your hypothetical plan slightly.


Posted by: ruffled Mon, 1 Oct 2012 - 20:01
Post #740020

ok. thanks. was wondering what would happen in that case. so, it appears that one is now legally obliged to answer all correspondence from these companies - either by naming driver or paying up as the registered keeper. previously, i ignored approximately 50 papers of correspondence from flashpark and debtors. they actually stopped. now - unsure what to do dry.gif

Posted by: southpaw82 Mon, 1 Oct 2012 - 20:11
Post #740022

QUOTE (ruffled @ Mon, 1 Oct 2012 - 21:01) *
ok. thanks. was wondering what would happen in that case. so, it appears that one is now legally obliged to answer all correspondence from these companies - either by naming driver or paying up as the registered keeper. previously, i ignored approximately 50 papers of correspondence from flashpark and debtors. they actually stopped. now - unsure what to do dry.gif


Rubbish. One is not legally obliged to answer anything of the sort. The driver or registered keeper can still ignore them, nothing has changed with the law in respect of the unenforceability of these charges.

Posted by: ruffled Mon, 1 Oct 2012 - 20:27
Post #740027

well if that's the case, then superb.
i ignored everything in the past as advised and absolutely nothing happened..... they gave up.
i am hoping to be as brave again..thank you! biggrin.gif

Posted by: bama Mon, 1 Oct 2012 - 20:27
Post #740029

exactly !

Posted by: Alexis Mon, 1 Oct 2012 - 20:44
Post #740038

The wording of the Act is actually that the PPC can 'invite' the keeper to name the driver.

Posted by: Thea Mon, 1 Oct 2012 - 20:56
Post #740043

QUOTE (DBC @ Sun, 30 Sep 2012 - 18:00) *
Ans we have our old freind Trevor Whitehouse chiming in:-

Trevor Whitehouse of National Clamps, whose clients include Oxford University, said: ‘We charge £80 to unclamp a vehicle, which is a lot less than some operators. But from next week we’ll be putting our penalty tickets up to £100 "


Nice of him to acknowledge on the record that it's a penalty.

Posted by: axeman Mon, 1 Oct 2012 - 21:37
Post #740053

QUOTE (ruffled @ Mon, 1 Oct 2012 - 19:12) *
please tell me:

if said private ticket company can now legally enforce disclosure of driver from registered owner - what would happen if said owner says driver was donald duck, of duck road, duck city etc........in other words, the ticket would be requested to be paid from some completely unknown name and address so would be in turn 'ignored'. then what do they do?


already covered earlier in this thread, not a wise move, have a read

Posted by: thundergar Mon, 1 Oct 2012 - 21:51
Post #740063

Similar to 'Ruffled' I have ignored a wad of tickets caused by an unfriendly neighbourhood association determined to squeeze a visitors parking space onto an access road by my house thereby obstructing access to my drive.
If someone uses their stupid space I can't nose forward then back into my drive so I occupy it to ensure access.
I honestly can't remember who parked the car last, so is ignorance a defence? Or would I be better to just ignore them like before.

Posted by: southpaw82 Mon, 1 Oct 2012 - 22:01
Post #740064

Ignorance is not a defence. Thankfully you have plenty of others available.

Posted by: Pete P Tue, 2 Oct 2012 - 07:53
Post #740110

As the title. It's good that clamping and towing are banned now, but it also makes the RK responsible for PPC tickets instead of just the driver. Does this mean the companies more easily have them enforced?

Posted by: Basfordlad Tue, 2 Oct 2012 - 07:56
Post #740114

QUOTE (Pete P @ Tue, 2 Oct 2012 - 08:53) *
As the title. It's good that clamping and towing are banned now, but it also makes the RK responsible for PPC tickets instead of just the driver. Does this mean the companies more easily have them enforced?


Not at all! smile.gif

Posted by: ppc_guy Tue, 2 Oct 2012 - 08:01
Post #740117

The title actually contradicts the content tongue.gif

Posted by: ItchyCrakus Tue, 2 Oct 2012 - 08:46
Post #740130

QUOTE (ppc_guy @ Tue, 2 Oct 2012 - 09:01) *
The title actually contradicts the content tongue.gif



You got nothing to do at the moment? biggrin.gif

Posted by: Gan Tue, 2 Oct 2012 - 09:00
Post #740132

The BPA have managed quite an effective campaign to convince some of the media that they can now be enforced

I prefer the Department for Transport interpretation.

In their Guidance Notes they effectively say that nothing has changed and draw attention to the issue that only the PPC losses can be claimed. They also refer to Unfair Contract regulations regarding Terms and Conditions.

In other words, the PPC may be entitled to the cost of an unpaid parking fee plus direct costs.
Even this is questionable according to VCS v HMRC

They're not entitled to to the £100 payments that BPA suggest to be a fair calculation of their loss.
Several members spent yesterday collecting tickets to test the "independent" appeal system on this point

The only real difference is that a PPC that cannot identify the driver doesn't risk DVLA sanctions if it holds the RK liable for an unenforceable invoice

Posted by: Alexis Tue, 2 Oct 2012 - 09:26
Post #740140

Contract law has not altered in any way.

Only difference, is if you are one of the 0.1% of people taken to court and you were the keeper but not the driver, but had not informed the PPC, in theory you would have to defend.

The onus would still be on the PPC to make their claim.

Posted by: ruffled Tue, 2 Oct 2012 - 09:48
Post #740144

That makes sense, however, does this mean we continue to ignore the 'tickets' or do we respond stating we are the keeper/driver and we will not be paying. Which element of this new law is actually legal - paying or responding or neither?! The BPA statements and media succinctly imply that we have a legal obligation to reply as the keeper..... very, very confused. I received huge numbers of tickets last year as I have to park in a space on a (questionably) private road in order to protect access in and out of my own driveway; thus I was ticketed/photographed every day by neighbours. I ignored all of them and they stopped - but now? It appears that court summons will be used frequently as they can actually point to the keeper for the payment of ticket and I never received a court summons last year - just debt collectors letters and obviously the company themselves - FLASHPARK.

Posted by: bargepole Tue, 2 Oct 2012 - 10:12
Post #740161

QUOTE (ruffled @ Tue, 2 Oct 2012 - 10:48) *
That makes sense, however, does this mean we continue to ignore the 'tickets' or do we respond stating we are the keeper/driver and we will not be paying. Which element of this new law is actually legal - paying or responding or neither?! The BPA statements and media succinctly imply that we have a legal obligation to reply as the keeper..... very, very confused. I received huge numbers of tickets last year as I have to park in a space on a (questionably) private road in order to protect access in and out of my own driveway; thus I was ticketed/photographed every day by neighbours. I ignored all of them and they stopped - but now? It appears that court summons will be used frequently as they can actually point to the keeper for the payment of ticket and I never received a court summons last year - just debt collectors letters and obviously the company themselves - FLASHPARK.

See the updated advice on the http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=46975

Posted by: Alexis Tue, 2 Oct 2012 - 10:27
Post #740166

QUOTE (ruffled @ Tue, 2 Oct 2012 - 10:48) *
That makes sense, however, does this mean we continue to ignore the 'tickets' or do we respond stating we are the keeper/driver and we will not be paying. Which element of this new law is actually legal - paying or responding or neither?! The BPA statements and media succinctly imply that we have a legal obligation to reply as the keeper..... very, very confused. I received huge numbers of tickets last year as I have to park in a space on a (questionably) private road in order to protect access in and out of my own driveway; thus I was ticketed/photographed every day by neighbours. I ignored all of them and they stopped - but now? It appears that court summons will be used frequently as they can actually point to the keeper for the payment of ticket and I never received a court summons last year - just debt collectors letters and obviously the company themselves - FLASHPARK.


The new Act states the keeper is 'invited' to provide driver details.

I doubt court claims will increase. In reality the keeper isn't the driver in the minority of cases. All it means is that if a PPC attempts court, the risk of them being ambushed having have sued the wrong person is removed.


Posted by: Lynnzer Thu, 4 Oct 2012 - 09:25
Post #740767

QUOTE (Thea @ Mon, 1 Oct 2012 - 21:56) *
QUOTE (DBC @ Sun, 30 Sep 2012 - 18:00) *
Ans we have our old freind Trevor Whitehouse chiming in:-

Trevor Whitehouse of National Clamps, whose clients include Oxford University, said: ‘We charge £80 to unclamp a vehicle, which is a lot less than some operators. But from next week we’ll be putting our penalty tickets up to £100 "


Nice of him to acknowledge on the record that it's a penalty.

Now there's a lovey example of a well thought out payment for a quantifiable financial loss to the landowner ????

Posted by: Messiburna Sat, 9 Jan 2021 - 14:24
Post #1609977

This is a good thing that I will always support but nonetheless drivers also need to act responsibly and park only where authorised, with managers of private car parks able to control parking through infrastructure, ticketing, signage and enforcement through local parking agreements with local governments. Towing of unauthorised vehicles will be used as a last resort.

Posted by: The Rookie Mon, 11 Jan 2021 - 10:11
Post #1610312

Yeah, you completely misunderstand what this is about in your 9 year resurrection.

Private car parks cannot be enforced through local government control, towing isn't permitted as that's classed the same as immobilisation under POFA.

I'm guessing you're a septic.

Posted by: Ocelot Sun, 21 Feb 2021 - 17:41
Post #1619588

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 11 Jan 2021 - 10:11) *
Yeah, you completely misunderstand what this is about in your 9 year resurrection.

Private car parks cannot be enforced through local government control, towing isn't permitted as that's classed the same as immobilisation under POFA.

I'm guessing you're a septic.


Septic or sceptic? smile.gif

Posted by: mickR Sun, 21 Feb 2021 - 17:59
Post #1619592

QUOTE (Ocelot @ Sun, 21 Feb 2021 - 17:41) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 11 Jan 2021 - 10:11) *
Yeah, you completely misunderstand what this is about in your 9 year resurrection.

Private car parks cannot be enforced through local government control, towing isn't permitted as that's classed the same as immobilisation under POFA.

I'm guessing you're a septic.


Septic or sceptic? smile.gif

Thats a tough one rolleyes.gif

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)