RE: PPC's and Vehicle Tax

[flyingdoc]

Interestingly the council is getting more involved in this and some councils are using anpr software to target untaxed cars, and then impound them.

 

An extract from a havering council document

 

Drivers also need to be aware that from the end of September untaxed vehicles may also be removed from private parking areas including shopping precincts and pub car parks.

 

Cllr xxxxxxxx added: "The extension of DVLA removal powers to private car parking areas will give those who do not tax their vehicles, but still continue to use them, something else to think about."

 

 

Now that the council can make revenue from this you will probably see this happening far more often

 

The charges for recovering an untaxed vehicle is:

Within 24 hours of removal - £80, plus a surety of £120 or a valid tax disc. After 24 hours of removal - £160, plus a surety of £120 or a valid tax disc. Storage is charged at £15 per day from the third day after removal.

[Al27]

Fair enough - because it's done properly.

 

Using tax discs as another method to issue unenforceable invoices, or clamp for profit is another kettle of fish.

[flyingdoc]

As I might have mentioned I hate PPC's and I think clamping is an abomination and all clampers ought to be hung drawn quartered strangled and ,..... (I cant think of anything bad enough)

 

However I do think that a landowner has the right to exclude anyone from his/her property - for whatever reason

 

What I am saying is that I could refuse entry to my carpark to anyone who does not display a valid tax disk.

 

In the absence of standing at the entrance and monitoring the flow of traffic I would be legally allowed to enforce this by whatever means necessary (ie clamping, towing)

 

This would not be contract, but trespass

Arthur and Another v Anker

THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS said that the first ground of defence relied; on was the medieval self-help remedy, adapted to modern conditions, of distress damage feasant whereby if a landowner found property of another causing damage on his land he could seize the offending property and withhold it from its owner until adequate compensation had been tendered for the damage done.

[/Quote]

Smith v Baker and Sons [1891] AC 325, 360), ..a maxim founded on good sense and justice that "One who has invited or assented to an act being done towards him cannot, when he suffers from it, complain of it as a wrong."

by parking a prohibited vehicle on private land you may be found to have assented to the advertised penalty

[Al27]

Landowners can exclude who they wish, but practically there's not much they can do if they're intent on only excluding certain visitors. You can't just clamp somebody indefinitely even if they're on your land.

 

Note how the examples mention actual loss and self help. If a car was on your property without permission and was damaging a verge or something, you could then possibly tow it.

 

A car just sitting there wouldn't be causing loss and you couldn't use self help. If the car was being obstructive and affecting your business then you'd be suffering, but I'm struggling to see how a car with out of tax disc would be harmful. Unless it had been there for a while and had been dumped.

[flyingdoc]

A car on your land is causing you the loss of the use of that land. whether or not it is causing damage or obstruction, it is taking up space to which it is not entitled.

Even if the driver pays and displays, the contract would not be valid as the sineage specifically excludes untaxed vehicles.

 

I am not suggesting an indefinate clamping (I hate clampers - did I mention that) but I still maintain that it would be legal to clamp and charge a release fee. (also being the vindictive SOB that I am I would have the police attend the unclamping so they could seize the car the minute it left the carpark and went onto the public highway)

[pin1onu]

Landowners can exclude who they wish, but practically there's not much they can do if they're intent on only excluding certain visitors. You can't just clamp somebody indefinitely even if they're on your land.

 

Note how the examples mention actual loss and self help. If a car was on your property without permission and was damaging a verge or something, you could then possibly tow it.

 

A car just sitting there wouldn't be causing loss and you couldn't use self help. If the car was being obstructive and affecting your business then you'd be suffering, but I'm struggling to see how a car with out of tax disc would be harmful. Unless it had been there for a while and had been dumped.

Funnily enough I've just updated the clamping guide to include a bit more on the trespass tort.

 

"Trespass is part of the legal system of torts. Under tort, damages are sought to restore a party to original position as best they can before commission of the tort. They are therefore punitive in nature. "

 

I agree that it would be up to a landowner to demonstrate how such a vehicle is causing damage to his land or property. However if this is a space that is leased as part of a rental agreement then his damages it could be argued are nil.

 

It's also worth bearing in mind that such action can only be taken on behalf of the landlord and that damages paid must go to the landlord and not into the coffers of a third party.

 

However under the system of distress feasant I believe you could potentially clamp someone's vehicle indefinitely. The case law says that release must occur when offer to pay is made. It therefore follows that if no offer is made the goods continue to be distrained. In some case the vehicle may be worth less than the release fee and it maybe a convienent way to get somebody else to dispose of it.

[Al27]

but I still maintain that it would be legal to clamp and charge a release fee.

 

Possibly - if the sign was spot on and fair. I still think consent would be very problematic though if you're relying on a tax disc.

 

However under the system of distress feasant I believe you could potentially clamp someone's vehicle indefinitely. The case law says that release must occur when offer to pay is made. It therefore follows that if no offer is made the goods continue to be distrained. In some case the vehicle may be worth less than the release fee and it maybe a convienent way to get somebody else to dispose of it.

 

Offer to pay what though? I seriously doubt you can clamp and then negotiate a release fee.

 

It's true that you could dump a car on private land, but you'd have to be criminally minded - removing VIN plates and such.

Edited March 6, 2009 by Al27

[the_freedom_trail]

I scrapped a car a few months ago and got £100 for it - why dump it?

 

TFT

[pin1onu]

I scrapped a car a few months ago and got £100 for it - why dump it?

 

TFT

In some places it costs to have a car removed. It depends on the state of the vehicle/make/model. I had a vauxhall astra a few years back which several wreckers wanted me to pay them £30 to dispose of. I eventually gave it to some friends whose motor had died. I guess some people can't be bothered with the hassle.

 

It is a very real problem - it costs the councils a fair bit every year. No doubt private landlords will want to discourage this sort of thing as well.

[lamma]

How on earth can clamping an abandoned vehicle which by definition no one is coming back for reduce the problem or deter someone from abandoning a vehicle in ANY way ? Landowner clamps vehicle and won't release clamp until someone pays. No one pays so vehicle now the landowners problem. Abandonment done AND vehicle 'tranferred' to someone else who has taken control of it. Job done better than leaving it on the street. And the landowner then has to deal with getting rid of the vehicle - not having a V5 for it ! Sorry but I find the argument that PPCs want to clamp for no tax as being a measure to stop people dumping cars completely and obviously fallacious. The only reason for clamping cars is to get money out of people.

[the_freedom_trail]

How on earth can clamping an abandoned vehicle which by definition no one is coming back for reduce the problem or deter someone from abandoning a vehicle in ANY way ? Landowner clamps vehicle and won't release clamp until someone pays. No one pays so vehicle now the landowners problem. Abandonment done AND vehicle 'tranferred' to someone else who has taken control of it. Job done better than leaving it on the street. And the landowner then has to deal with getting rid of the vehicle - not having a V5 for it ! Sorry but I find the argument that PPCs want to clamp for no tax as being a measure to stop people dumping cars completely and obviously fallacious. The only reason for clamping cars is to get money out of people.

 

It's a very good point - why go to the lengths of trying to keep on your land something that you do not want there in the first place? PPC's will exploit every possible angle to make money. Add to this, if a £50,000 Merc was parked on private land without tax would it still be considered to be abandoned - I think you will find that it is only the cars PPC's know people will come back for that they will clamp - therefore not wanting to really bother with the traditional abandoned car such as a late 80's hatchback.

 

TFT

[jasmin2008]

I used to goad the local PPC with an old H reg micra, borderline MOT failure 2 months left on the tax. They never clamped it once despite parking in a clamping hotspot. On day they clamped all the cars around it and left the micra alone.

 

Go figure.

[lamma]

We have it figured. Clamping has nothing to do with trespass or parking control or 'abandoned vehicles', its to do with money.

[Al27]

If they fixed the problem they were supposed to solve, they wouldn't make any money.

[lamma]

Exactly !! Same with PPCs. This fundamental and undeniable fact reveals all that is needed.

[crem]

If they fixed the problem they were supposed to solve, they wouldn't make any money.

 

Basically the same for councils though with their camera enforcement of bus lanes etc. If they really made the signage unmissable and put road marking down that helped the motorist avoid entry, then their revenue would also go down and they'd have no-one left to pay for them putting more cameras in!

[the_freedom_trail]

I hate this camera enforcement business, you're left waiting for weeks wondering if you have been busted

 

TFT