From Hansard




Interested in the definition of "lawful authority". It seems we're seeing back-peddling here.

Wonder why Angie Bray is asking? Anyone know her background?

There is potentially a need to protect the rights of legal occupiers. Clamping case law demonstrated that law has historically been written by the landowners, but did provide legal occupiers effective powers in respect of unauthorised clamping on their land.

Clamping is currently massively out of control - due in no small measure to the refusal of the police and trading standards to do their job. The new government clearly realised that 'regulation' had done absolutely nothing and decided that the only solution was to ban clamping. Delaying the implementation of the ban to allow the clampers to prepare for the impact is perverse and absurd as the actions of the clampers (and it seems fair to tar the entire 'industry' with the same brush) are what made the government decide that a ban was the only solution.

"Lawful authority" would be a positive legal right. The owner of a vehicle or his agent could clamp it or tow it from private property (e.g. if it had broken down) as he would have lawful authority to do so. Under certain circumstances the DVLA have lawful authority to clamp or tow a vehicle from private land.

I'm not sure whether the current principle of volenti non fit injuria applying to drivers of clamped vehicles on private land could be construed as lawful authority for the landowner/occupier or their agents to clamp, but even if such a common law authority were not explicitly repealed, revocation of SIA clamping licences would seem to do the job.

Prior to becoming an MP she was a Greater London Assembly member and was the conservative party transport spokesman there. She has been - and continues to be - involved in various transport oriented groups and, now as an MP, sits on the Transport Select Committee. Obviously something of a petrol head, or not.

Is there a potential danger that PPCs could use "fixed barriers" as a means of effectively substituting for clamping by blocking in a vehicle and and demanding a ransom of several hundred pounds, as with existing clamping and towing?

It seems to me that refusing to raise a fixed barrier to release a vehicle until a legitimate parking charge (e.g. £5) has been paid would almost certainly be legitimate, so, given this, who is to decide what constitutes a 'legitimate' charge? What is there, in practice, to prevent PPCs from introducing "lost ticket charges" of £500 (I know this would be a blatant penalty charge, but, in practice the police would doubtless insist "it's a civil matter"), and simply using a fixed barrier or similar method such as 'locking the gates' to hold vehicles to ransom until the sum is paid, and then ignoring CCJs in the same way as at present?

I foresee potential confrontations and even physical violence between drivers and PPCs/ landowners, with the possibility of drivers deliberately 'tailgating' behind an exiting vehicle upon exit in order to avoid paying a charge which they consider to be illegitimate, with the possibility of physical damage to the barrier and car, and also the question of whether the driver has potentially committed theft by making off without paying.

I have written to my MP to raise this issue, including strongly arguing against the Government's apparent proposals to delay implementation for several years, for the reasons set out by andy_foster in his excellent and informative post. If I get a (useful) substantive reply, I will post the gist of it on this forum.

If you get a (useful) substantive reply from your MP it will make headline news all over the country (sorry to say)

How does it work in Scotland? Is it different because of the underlying trepass laws in England?
We don't want the cowboys to have a way back in to continue their extortion.

Landowners and their tenants need to take more control and responsibility. They may be discouraged by having to spend some money instead of getting a free service from the bully boys.

Would using them individual poles that padlock when placed in the ground be classed as immobilising a vehicle?

the idea is that you use gates or barriers to
stop people entering.since there will be no
licenced clampers/towers in should be illegal
to purposely block someone in as it is now.

unless an mp successfully add an amendment.

I flagged this odd question up on another thread re Angie Bray [Wheel-clamping in the media] post 21.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...mp;#entry555952

Could be just a question from a constituent. She has a donation from Karali Ltd but they are not a lobby co - they do take away food.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/angie_bra...ntral_and_acton

On the thread mentioned above I have been asking for people to email their MP to ask when the ban on wheel clamping will be put into force (become law). I have had recent wishy-washy stuff back from the Home Office about Freedom Bill Feb 2011 and so on and they stall on any idea of a date for it passing into law. The more people who write to their MP who will simply forward it on to the Home Office the better.

Regards

Ian

By the way, has anyone else noted that the ban will not apply to Northern Ireland, because the Government has taken a profoundly perverse policy decision that, although it accepts that clamping is inherently unjust, and that regulation will do nothing to prevent abuses, it nonetheless believes that such abuses (and toothless SIA licensing) must be allowed to continue in Northern Ireland, even after they are banned in England and Wales?

I note that Sections 42 to 44 of the Crime and Security Act 2010 for supposed "regulation" of clamping, which the Home Office has rightly decided not to commence, would have applied to Northern Ireland, so there is no reason why the clamping ban should not also apply to Northern Ireland.

The result of the Government's formal policy decision is that rogue clampers will continue to clamp unlawfully, demand extortionate release fees, and ignore county court judgements with complete impunity in Northern Ireland, without even the pretence of regulation.

Can anyone foresee HMG doing anything that goes against the mantra of "Obey and Pay !"

If uppity motorists think they have rights and can make successful challenges who knows where it will end ?
More people may start fighting PCNs and FPNs ! And standing up for themselves in general.

I remind people not to infer anything from the title "Freedom Bill".
History is replete with examples of the name given by the Government being the opposite of what the intent and execution is. An example par excellence being the "Committee of Public Safety".

Lets wait and see what it actually says and what its real effects will be.



'Everything the State says is lie.'

I suspect the good people of Ulster would have their own ways of dealing with clampers. Black and Deckers at the ready. Possible use of crtches and knee surgery after a while...

IMHO....anything that starts with "Protection of Freedoms Bill" should be viewed with maximum suspicion. There will always be a little hand grenade lobbed in at the 11th hour that´ll give "protection" the same meaning as it did under the Mafia.

We'll it seems we have been warned



From the same source (HM), the expectation is a 24 month lead in to a clamping ban.

I have now received a reply from my MP stating that:
1) the proposals to ban private clamping etc will indeed be included in the 'Freedom Bill' (as she describes it) to be introduced to Parliament later this month
2) the Bill is expected to receive Royal Assent in the autumn
3) she will write to the Home Office (presumably) to ask why there is deemed to be a necessity to delay the introduction of the secondary legislation needed to commence the ban

Quote from Home Office website:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/media-centre/...-saves-millions
"But legislation due to come into force early nex (sic) year will make clamping on private land a criminal offence."
This implies that the current plan is to commence the relevant sections at some point between January and June 2012, giving rogue clampers a year or more to "fill their boots" and ignore CCJs with complete police support.

Update: the Bill has been published now:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/c.../11146.i-v.html
It seems that Schedule 4 makes the RK legally liable for PPC invoices even if they were not the driver, but I'll wait for eagles to make further comments

It is unlawful to detain any person for whatever reason unless a police officer or similar. More than likely they would have to let you go and then follow it up.

The proposed legislation re: PPC invoices is needless legislation, nothing wrong with the current system, why change something that works? The bill should be streamlined to reduce costs and red tape, this is one of the clauses that should go.

Two questions.

What is the "Freedom that is being protected" and "Cui bono"