PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Private clamping ban, Single thread to discuss Protection of Freedoms Bill
ollielumley
post Fri, 1 Oct 2010 - 00:43
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 93
Joined: 24 Feb 2010
Member No.: 35,850



hardly a great surprise...
Attached Image

Attached Image
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
10 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (60 - 79)
Advertisement
post Fri, 1 Oct 2010 - 00:43
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
pumps100
post Tue, 1 Feb 2011 - 19:35
Post #61


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 164
Joined: 5 Jan 2011
From: Reading
Member No.: 43,217



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


This post has been edited by pumps100: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 - 19:36


--------------------
NOTICE: The content of this post and of any replies to it may assist in or relate to the formulation of strategy tactics etcetera in a legal action. This post and any replies to it should therefore be assumed to be legally privileged and therefore must not be disclosed, copied, quoted, discussed, used or referred to outside of the PePiPoo forum on which it was originally posted, additionally it must not be disclosed, copied, quoted, discussed, used or referred to by any person or organisation other than a member of PePiPoo appropriately paid up and in full compliance with the PePiPoo terms of use for the forum on which it was originally posted. The PePiPoo terms of use can be found at http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=boardrules. For the avoidance of doubt, if you are reading this material in any form other than an on-line HTML resource directly and legitimately accessed via a URL commencing "http://forums.pepipoo.com" then it has been obtained by improper means and you are probably reading it in breach of legal privilege. If the material you are reading does not include this notice then it has been obtained improperly and you are probably reading it in breach of legal privilege. Your attention is drawn to the Written Standards for the Conduct of Professional Work issued by the Bar Standards Board particularly under heading 7, "Documents". Any advice given is taken at your own risk and no liability is accepted if things go wrong.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
pumps100
post Thu, 3 Feb 2011 - 16:19
Post #62


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 164
Joined: 5 Jan 2011
From: Reading
Member No.: 43,217



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."



--------------------
NOTICE: The content of this post and of any replies to it may assist in or relate to the formulation of strategy tactics etcetera in a legal action. This post and any replies to it should therefore be assumed to be legally privileged and therefore must not be disclosed, copied, quoted, discussed, used or referred to outside of the PePiPoo forum on which it was originally posted, additionally it must not be disclosed, copied, quoted, discussed, used or referred to by any person or organisation other than a member of PePiPoo appropriately paid up and in full compliance with the PePiPoo terms of use for the forum on which it was originally posted. The PePiPoo terms of use can be found at http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=boardrules. For the avoidance of doubt, if you are reading this material in any form other than an on-line HTML resource directly and legitimately accessed via a URL commencing "http://forums.pepipoo.com" then it has been obtained by improper means and you are probably reading it in breach of legal privilege. If the material you are reading does not include this notice then it has been obtained improperly and you are probably reading it in breach of legal privilege. Your attention is drawn to the Written Standards for the Conduct of Professional Work issued by the Bar Standards Board particularly under heading 7, "Documents". Any advice given is taken at your own risk and no liability is accepted if things go wrong.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mike7777777
post Thu, 3 Feb 2011 - 19:24
Post #63


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,361
Joined: 30 Jun 2006
Member No.: 6,428



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
X-treem
post Sun, 6 Feb 2011 - 12:33
Post #64


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,197
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
From: London, UK
Member No.: 376



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.


--------------------
Twitter

Notable Victories:
  • Richard Rippon (2008): Clamped by Richard Rippon's firm Redroute. Successfully sued him in court resulting in an intense media and legal battle that eventually saw his downfall. Success story here.
  • Luton Airport (2013): Clamped by Ontime Parking Solutions at London Luton Airport where the police assisted in the illegal clamping of my vehicle on private land, directly in contravention of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 eventually leading to all towing and clamping operations at the airport being ceased for several weeks. Success story here.
  • Huntingdonshire District Council (2012): ECN from HDC in in Huntingdon which I contested in the Magistrates' Court. The matter was publicised in the local newspapers and HDC were shown to be wasteful of public money on a minor matter. Success story here.
Current parking tally since 2001 (Council | Private):
  • UK: 88 | 15 tickets (inc. 5 | 9 clamps, 3 | 0 tows). Of those: 61 | 12 contested, 55 | 12 won, 1 | 0 pending.
  • NL: 4 | 0 tickets (inc. 0 | 0 clamps, 0 | 0 tows). Of those: 2 | 0 contested, 1 | 0 won, 0 | 0 pending.
I am also proud to be in the top 10 longest-serving members on this forum that have been active this year.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
pumps100
post Sun, 6 Feb 2011 - 13:15
Post #65


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 164
Joined: 5 Jan 2011
From: Reading
Member No.: 43,217



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.




--------------------
NOTICE: The content of this post and of any replies to it may assist in or relate to the formulation of strategy tactics etcetera in a legal action. This post and any replies to it should therefore be assumed to be legally privileged and therefore must not be disclosed, copied, quoted, discussed, used or referred to outside of the PePiPoo forum on which it was originally posted, additionally it must not be disclosed, copied, quoted, discussed, used or referred to by any person or organisation other than a member of PePiPoo appropriately paid up and in full compliance with the PePiPoo terms of use for the forum on which it was originally posted. The PePiPoo terms of use can be found at http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=boardrules. For the avoidance of doubt, if you are reading this material in any form other than an on-line HTML resource directly and legitimately accessed via a URL commencing "http://forums.pepipoo.com" then it has been obtained by improper means and you are probably reading it in breach of legal privilege. If the material you are reading does not include this notice then it has been obtained improperly and you are probably reading it in breach of legal privilege. Your attention is drawn to the Written Standards for the Conduct of Professional Work issued by the Bar Standards Board particularly under heading 7, "Documents". Any advice given is taken at your own risk and no liability is accepted if things go wrong.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
X-treem
post Sun, 6 Feb 2011 - 13:32
Post #66


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,197
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
From: London, UK
Member No.: 376



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

This post has been edited by X-treem: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 - 13:33


--------------------
Twitter

Notable Victories:
  • Richard Rippon (2008): Clamped by Richard Rippon's firm Redroute. Successfully sued him in court resulting in an intense media and legal battle that eventually saw his downfall. Success story here.
  • Luton Airport (2013): Clamped by Ontime Parking Solutions at London Luton Airport where the police assisted in the illegal clamping of my vehicle on private land, directly in contravention of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 eventually leading to all towing and clamping operations at the airport being ceased for several weeks. Success story here.
  • Huntingdonshire District Council (2012): ECN from HDC in in Huntingdon which I contested in the Magistrates' Court. The matter was publicised in the local newspapers and HDC were shown to be wasteful of public money on a minor matter. Success story here.
Current parking tally since 2001 (Council | Private):
  • UK: 88 | 15 tickets (inc. 5 | 9 clamps, 3 | 0 tows). Of those: 61 | 12 contested, 55 | 12 won, 1 | 0 pending.
  • NL: 4 | 0 tickets (inc. 0 | 0 clamps, 0 | 0 tows). Of those: 2 | 0 contested, 1 | 0 won, 0 | 0 pending.
I am also proud to be in the top 10 longest-serving members on this forum that have been active this year.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
pumps100
post Sun, 6 Feb 2011 - 15:49
Post #67


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 164
Joined: 5 Jan 2011
From: Reading
Member No.: 43,217



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/w...-ban-survey.htm

Regards

Ian


--------------------
NOTICE: The content of this post and of any replies to it may assist in or relate to the formulation of strategy tactics etcetera in a legal action. This post and any replies to it should therefore be assumed to be legally privileged and therefore must not be disclosed, copied, quoted, discussed, used or referred to outside of the PePiPoo forum on which it was originally posted, additionally it must not be disclosed, copied, quoted, discussed, used or referred to by any person or organisation other than a member of PePiPoo appropriately paid up and in full compliance with the PePiPoo terms of use for the forum on which it was originally posted. The PePiPoo terms of use can be found at http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=boardrules. For the avoidance of doubt, if you are reading this material in any form other than an on-line HTML resource directly and legitimately accessed via a URL commencing "http://forums.pepipoo.com" then it has been obtained by improper means and you are probably reading it in breach of legal privilege. If the material you are reading does not include this notice then it has been obtained improperly and you are probably reading it in breach of legal privilege. Your attention is drawn to the Written Standards for the Conduct of Professional Work issued by the Bar Standards Board particularly under heading 7, "Documents". Any advice given is taken at your own risk and no liability is accepted if things go wrong.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
X-treem
post Sun, 6 Feb 2011 - 17:08
Post #68


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,197
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
From: London, UK
Member No.: 376



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


--------------------
Twitter

Notable Victories:
  • Richard Rippon (2008): Clamped by Richard Rippon's firm Redroute. Successfully sued him in court resulting in an intense media and legal battle that eventually saw his downfall. Success story here.
  • Luton Airport (2013): Clamped by Ontime Parking Solutions at London Luton Airport where the police assisted in the illegal clamping of my vehicle on private land, directly in contravention of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 eventually leading to all towing and clamping operations at the airport being ceased for several weeks. Success story here.
  • Huntingdonshire District Council (2012): ECN from HDC in in Huntingdon which I contested in the Magistrates' Court. The matter was publicised in the local newspapers and HDC were shown to be wasteful of public money on a minor matter. Success story here.
Current parking tally since 2001 (Council | Private):
  • UK: 88 | 15 tickets (inc. 5 | 9 clamps, 3 | 0 tows). Of those: 61 | 12 contested, 55 | 12 won, 1 | 0 pending.
  • NL: 4 | 0 tickets (inc. 0 | 0 clamps, 0 | 0 tows). Of those: 2 | 0 contested, 1 | 0 won, 0 | 0 pending.
I am also proud to be in the top 10 longest-serving members on this forum that have been active this year.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Enceladus
post Tue, 8 Feb 2011 - 17:47
Post #69


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,721
Joined: 14 Jan 2009
Member No.: 25,447



When and or if the proposed clamping ban on private land comes into force in England / Wales, will that prevent the PPCs removing cars?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DBC
post Tue, 8 Feb 2011 - 17:59
Post #70


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,769
Joined: 7 Nov 2009
Member No.: 33,505



Yes. The bill also outlaws towing away by private parking companies who are not working for a council or the police.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
pumps100
post Tue, 8 Feb 2011 - 19:27
Post #71


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 164
Joined: 5 Jan 2011
From: Reading
Member No.: 43,217



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

This post has been edited by Fredd: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 - 21:08


--------------------
NOTICE: The content of this post and of any replies to it may assist in or relate to the formulation of strategy tactics etcetera in a legal action. This post and any replies to it should therefore be assumed to be legally privileged and therefore must not be disclosed, copied, quoted, discussed, used or referred to outside of the PePiPoo forum on which it was originally posted, additionally it must not be disclosed, copied, quoted, discussed, used or referred to by any person or organisation other than a member of PePiPoo appropriately paid up and in full compliance with the PePiPoo terms of use for the forum on which it was originally posted. The PePiPoo terms of use can be found at http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=boardrules. For the avoidance of doubt, if you are reading this material in any form other than an on-line HTML resource directly and legitimately accessed via a URL commencing "http://forums.pepipoo.com" then it has been obtained by improper means and you are probably reading it in breach of legal privilege. If the material you are reading does not include this notice then it has been obtained improperly and you are probably reading it in breach of legal privilege. Your attention is drawn to the Written Standards for the Conduct of Professional Work issued by the Bar Standards Board particularly under heading 7, "Documents". Any advice given is taken at your own risk and no liability is accepted if things go wrong.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BicycleRepairMan
post Wed, 9 Feb 2011 - 00:50
Post #72


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 194
Joined: 2 Nov 2010
Member No.: 41,790



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
anon45
post Wed, 9 Feb 2011 - 07:43
Post #73


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,114
Joined: 7 Aug 2009
Member No.: 31,007



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
roythebus
post Wed, 9 Feb 2011 - 08:44
Post #74


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,963
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
From: Near Calais
Member No.: 9,683



Railway bye-laws are seldom mentioned in the parking forums on here these days. Any railway related parking tickets are from PPCs.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
buttonpusher
post Wed, 9 Feb 2011 - 08:45
Post #75


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,091
Joined: 9 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,066



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-13...al-offence.html

Thanks to MSE'r for link which I nicked.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bama
post Wed, 9 Feb 2011 - 09:03
Post #76


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,931
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323



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


--------------------
Which facts in any situation or problem are “essential” and what makes them “essential”? If the “essential” facts are said to depend on the principles involved, then the whole business, all too obviously, goes right around in a circle. In the light of one principle or set of principles, one bunch of facts will be the “essential” ones; in the light of another principle or set of principles, a different bunch of facts will be “essential.” In order to settle on the right facts you first have to pick your principles, although the whole point of finding the facts was to indicate which principles apply.

Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved". Liability for application lies with the reader.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
emanresu
post Wed, 9 Feb 2011 - 10:02
Post #77


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,094
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Home alone
Member No.: 13,324



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.

Cowboys Clampers pocketing £55mn each 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
neil3841
post Fri, 11 Feb 2011 - 00:56
Post #78


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 725
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,184



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Enceladus
post Fri, 11 Feb 2011 - 02:22
Post #79


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,721
Joined: 14 Jan 2009
Member No.: 25,447



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.

This post has been edited by Enceladus: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 - 02:24
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bama
post Fri, 11 Feb 2011 - 08:05
Post #80


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,931
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323



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


--------------------
Which facts in any situation or problem are “essential” and what makes them “essential”? If the “essential” facts are said to depend on the principles involved, then the whole business, all too obviously, goes right around in a circle. In the light of one principle or set of principles, one bunch of facts will be the “essential” ones; in the light of another principle or set of principles, a different bunch of facts will be “essential.” In order to settle on the right facts you first have to pick your principles, although the whole point of finding the facts was to indicate which principles apply.

Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved". Liability for application lies with the reader.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

10 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > » 
Closed TopicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 15:47
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here