Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I've inserted their poc re:your.. 1 ..they did send 2 paploc's  3. neither the agreement nor default is mentioned in their 2.        
    • Hi Guys, i read a fair few threads and saw a lot of similar templates being used. i liked this one below and although i could elaborate on certain things (they ignored my CCA and sent 2 PAPs etc etc) , am i right in that at this stage keep it short? If thats the case i cant see what i need to add/change about this one   1)   the defendant entered into a consumer credit act 1974 regulated agreements vanquis under account reference xxxxxxx 2)   The defendant failed to maintain the required payment, arrears began to accrue 3)   The agreement was later assigned to the claimant on 29 September 2017 and notice given to the defendant 4)   Despite repeated requests for payment, the sum of 2247.91 remains due outstanding And the claimant claims a)The said sum of £2247.91 b)The interest pursuant to S 69 county courts act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of issue, accruing at a daily rate of £xxxx, but limited to one year,  being £xxxx c)Costs   Defence:   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim vague and are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   1. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC ( Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.   2. The Claimant claims £2247.91 is owed under a regulated consumer credit account under reference xxxxxxx. I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant and the claimants solicitor by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request who are yet to fully comply.   3. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unable to recall the precise details of the alleged agreement or any default notice served in breach of any defaulted payments. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied.The Defendant contends that no notice of assignment pursuant to s.136 of the Law of Property Act & s.82 A of the CCA1974 has ever been served by the Claimant as alleged or at all.   5. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence any cause of action and service of a Default Notice or termination notice; and © show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   6. After receiving this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 78 request for copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants' particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date they have failed to comply to my CPR 31.14 request and also my section 78 request and remain in default with regards to this request.   7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974.   9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.  
    • i understand. Just be aware I am prepared to take some risks 😉
    • Thanks Tnook,   Bear with us while we discuss this behind the scenes - we want you to win just as much as you do but we want to find the right balance between maximising your claim without risking too much in court fees, and in possible court costs awarded to the defendant bank.
    • Tell your son and think on this. He can pay the £160  and have no further worries from them. If he read POFA  Scedule 4 he would find out that if he went to Court and lost which is unlikely on two counts at least [1] they don't do Court and 2] they know they would lose in Court] the most he would be liable to pay them is £100 or whatever the amount on the sign says. He is not liable for the admin charges as that only applies to the driver-perhaps.If he kept his nerve, he would find out that he does not owe them a penny and that applies to the driver as well. But we do need to see the signage at the entrance to the car park and around the car park as well as any T&Cs on the payment meter if there is one. He alone has to work out whether it is worth taking a few photographs to help avoid paying a single penny to these crooks as well as receiving letters threatening him with Court , bailiffs  etc trying to scare him into paying money he does not owe. They know they cannot take him to Court. They know he does not owe them a penny. But they are hoping he does not know so he pays them. If he does decide to pay, tell him to wait as eventually as a last throw of the dice they play Mister Nice Guy and offer a reduction. Great. Whatever he pays them it will be far more than he owes as their original PCN is worthless. Read other threads where our members have been ticketed for not having a permit. [We know so little about the situation that we do not know if he has a permit and forgot to display it. ]
  • Our picks

clampless

A practical means to end Wheel Clamping on Private Land. Your help and input needed. Please.

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3850 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

I can end Wheel clamping on Private Land!

:confused:

This post was initially put in 'Parking Issues in the Media', sorry. Amended, and pasted here.

 

I have developed a car park management system that will provide an ethical and effective method by which landlords can deter people from parking on their property, which is all honest landowner wants clamping to do. :eek:

 

 

The clampers, of course want people to trespass so they can clamp; if there was no trespass, the clampers wouldn't earn. This is the essential "Paradox of the Clamp", a conumdrum I am certain I have solved.

The system has to have a name, so I call it 'Parking Reserve.'

Since 2001, I have been asking the Government and a number of Local Authorities to examine the system. If they agree it will do what it claims they can operate it in their area. However, it appears no-one is really interested. There is a lot of hot air talked about the evil that is clamping, but my experience is that hot air is the totality! Certainly, no-one in Authority has been interested enough to evaluate Parking Reserve.

 

There challenge for you in this post is to suggest a way in which I can induce/persuade/ blackmail/ threaten Central or Local Goverment to evaluate the system.

If the Consumer Action Group believes it has the influence to have Parking Reserve evaluated by an appropriate body, I am willing to meet with a team member and explain precisely how Parking Reserve works. The only condition is that the methodology will be considered as confidential and will not be revealed on this forum or anywhere else. However this should provide you with acceptable confirmation of the claims I make in this post.

 

Parking Reserve will effectively transfer all the money the clampers make to the public purse (that is currently, nationally, in the rough order of £250 million p.a)! But for a number of reasons, it should make considerably more.

 

It requires no new legislation, it operates within both the letter and spirit of existing law!.

It costs virtually nothing to run, and not having any physical parts, no Capital expenditure.

It can operate effectively in car parks of all sizes, even single parking bays.

Its sole function is to deter trespass.

It is transparent in operation.

It will even provide an effective and socially acceptable means for supermarkets to deter inappropriate parking in their reserved ‘disabled’ and ‘parent and child’ bays. The current, ludicrous situation is they are legally required to provide a certain number of disabled parking spaces but have no means of preserving them for their designated use.

It will not outlaw Private Wheel Clamping, but will provide a cheaper, more effective and wholly ethical alternative to Landowners who need to protect their property from trespass; without compounding their problem by having vehicles trapped on their land.

Thus it should function as a systemic on the practice of private wheel clamping.

 

It achieves all the aspirations set out in the Home Office Consultation Paper "Wheel Clamping on Private Land (1993) and every paper they have produced on the issue since then.

 

Since 2001, I have been asking the Government to evaluate my work. I have also approached various Local Authorities. If they approve of the system, if they believe my claims are correct, it can be trialled or run out full scale. But it appears that no-one has any genuine interest in dealing with the problem of Wheel Clamping on Private Land. No-one will even look at it!

 

The Home Affairs subcommitee was looking at Wheel Clamping on Private Land late last year; and taking evidence. I emailed both Keith Vaz (Commitee Chairman) and the Clerk of the Commitee (with whom I discussed my evidence by phone prior to submission), but got no interest. Nor response, or even an acknowledgement! Prior to that I have wasted time writing to Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Charles Clark, Paul Boteng, Uncle Tom Cobley and all! God knows how many faceless names in Queen Annes Gate (the Home Office) felt it was somebody elses department.

 

The S.I.A. (responsible for licencing Clamping Firms) similarly couldn't be bothered.

 

I wrote to many of the MPs who signed the Early Day Motion 2532 in Parliament 19.11.2008

 

"WHEEL CLAMPING AND PARKING CONTROL FIRMS"

"That this House notes that some wheel clamping and parking control firms use strongarm tactics to take money from motorists; notes that these tactics include representatives of such firms presenting themselves as solicitors and debt collectors and does not think that these practises are fair or appropriate; further notes that car registration information is provided to these firms by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA); calls on the DVLA to maintain a list of approved firms who can have access to car registration information; and further calls on the DVLA to strike off firms who use these strongarm tactics".

 

but with no response except for Lynne Jones who told me (paraphrasing)she didn't think she'd be qualified to have an opinion! Sorry Lynne, you were wrong.

If any Goverment, (Wales, Scotland or the United Kingdom) genuinely wants a solution to the problem of clamping, it is awaiting your consideration. If the Scottish Assembly would be interested in providing a means for Scottish Landowners to deter trespass, that possibility exists! You ended clamping, but barriers can't solve every problem.

If there is any Local Authority that would could benefit from my work, ditto.

(Except for Birmingham, Brent, Croydon, Westminster who need not apply)!

 

If anyone out there knows of a Council that might be interested in ending this scourge, feel free to forward this to them. Or contact me with a name. Who knows, maybe you'll be the person who this saves from being clamped.

 

I would hope that if a Council felt this was beneficial in their area, they would also consider taking responsibility for Licencing it outside their locale, ensuring appropriate standards and taking a licence fee.

 

Parking Reserve has been independantly examinined by the Inventor-in -Residence at the British Library Business and IP Centre, the Birmingham Inventors Group, and a number of qualified Lawyers. Not one person who has examined it has been able to find a problem with it, either with its theoretical effectiveness or its ethical basis.

 

Because there is no clamp, no equivalent device; nothing Physical , I cannot patent my work. I intend to protect my Intellectual Property Rights, so explanation of how the system works will only be provided under a suitable confidentiality agreement. Hopefully before I die of old age!

 

Don't misunderstand. Parking Reserve isn't 'fun'. Its intention is to to deter people from parking their cars on the property of people who have expressly refused you/him/me permission to park there. The repercussions of trespassing will not be to give the trespasser a packet of sweets and a handshake. But it not put the trespasser at the mercy of the extortion racket that is clamping and towing away.

 

I emailed Earl Attlee (Shadow Transport Secretary, House of Lords) who spoke in a debate last week on Wheel clamping, offering to meet and explain how Parking Reserve can end the Grief caused by Clamping, also the Parliamentary undersecretary of state, Alan Campbell MP who seems to be speaking for the Government on this subject (did you see him on'Watchdog'). I'll post it here if I get a reply. Any reply!

 

Sorry to go on for so long. Anyone got any good ideas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that seems to have been a very long post with nothing exciting to read at the end (or middle or start for that matter :( )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you will find that unless you say what the idea is there are no takers. People will obviously be sceptical otherwise. I could for example say that I have found a way to end inconsiderate parking (putting up a large sign that tyres of cars will be let down and then doing just that) but it would be unethical and probably unlawful. Unless you tell us what it entails we have no idea whether your scheme is of the same crackpot level or a brilliant system as you claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume you don't want to divulge it yet because you envisage that there is money to be made by having exclusive ownership of the idea?

 

If I were you I would see a solicitor and discuss the best way to protect your idea.

 

As there is no technology involved I doubt you could obtain a patent, but speak to an expert. Once it's legally protected, you can present your ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you want us on the strength of your post, without telling us anything about your novel idea except your assurance that it is legit and a solution to the problem, to advise on how best to get yourself heard by the powers that be.

 

Sorry to be the one to break it to you, but if you are that cagey with them, then it's little wonder they are ignoring you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well that seems to have been a very long post with nothing exciting to read at the end (or middle or start for that matter :( )

 

Of course you can alway remove them and store them in the boot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it requires no change to the law, then you don't need government approval.

 

Local authorities do not need to approve it as they can enforce their car park rules through statutory means.

 

If you want to make it possible for supermarket carparks to force customers who park, by their definition "wrongly", to pay money even to the public purse, you are unlikely to get support here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much as I hate clamping firms there are remedies if people are armed with the correct knowledge. I don't necessarily have a problem with clamping per se,. The problem lies with an inconsistent approach. Most of the posters we see here are complaining about either non-existent, ambiguous or insufficient signage.

 

You haven't revealed any details of your scheme. How can any of us determine whether we are interested in it or whether it would work. I infer from your post that you want to make some money from your idea. That statement alone sets my alarm bells ringing.

 

I wrote the clamping guide, posted in the stickies section, so that anyone wanting information on the subject could view it and it wouldn't cost them a penny. I could easily have posted it on a pay per view website and made some dosh on it. However IMV that defeats what this forum is all about: helping consumers to be fully informed of their rights, to empower them to take appropriate action.

 

If your idea is such a good one then why don't you let it stand or fall on its own merits and not worry about intellectual property rights.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This does not constitute legal advice and is not represented as a substitute for legal advice from an appropriately qualified person or firm.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't necessarily have a problem with clamping per se,.

 

I do, it is a totally unjustified means of traffic control.

 

Senario - Your at the checkout, next in line, 15 mins of time to go before your ticket (or time) expires, plenty of time to finish your business and get back to your car.

The person in front/behind you takes a tumble/falls off her high heels/crickes her back while lifting her shopping/faints/has a fit/drops her baby/drops dead, (any one of a million things), you're not going to get through the checkout quick enough now because your lending a hand or the till operator is out of her seat assisting.

Even if they closed that checkout and let you jump the que at the next one, you still have to wait because the belt is full of shopping from the customer already there.

 

Just one of a million legitimate reasons for being late back to your clamped/removed (gonna cost you £300), car.

 

You can't be causing an obstruction or the clamper will have added to that obstruction by disabling the car.

The phone rings while you are making your way back to your car. It's your husband, your elderly mum/school kid has been knocked down, you need to get to the hospital asap, you can't, clamped car. Mum/child dies while your waiting for the company to come and unclamp, (he will be there as soon as he as finished his coffee/meat pie).

 

As said before, I can see 'no' justifiable reason to clamp a car.

Edited by Conniff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Conniff with the picture he paints regarding a public access car park, no clamping should ever be allowed in these car parks.

 

However, I can also agree with pin1onu that there are cases where clamping could be an acceptable action if properly indicated, i.e. clear NO TRESPASSING signs meaning NOBODY is allowed to park a car on the specified land, to do so would be clear uninvited trespassing and the driver therefore unambiguously informed the car may be clamped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As with Connif. I also have a problem with Clamping. It is a Sledgehammer solution to crack a nut. I would love to see it banned.

All I have tried to do is to find a more reasonable solution than clamping. It was scarcely an unreasonable aspiration to make clamping go away. I know what I’ve got isn’t perfect, but is a massive improvement on what we have. I feel like I’m being shot down for trying!

Yes, I intend to make a return on my work, I have invested 5 years effort in finding a solution to the problem, and have consulted Solicitors (and a Barrister) to check the legality of what I propose, not cheap! I’ve also had good people examine the ethics. Like so many others, I expect to be out of work soon, I won’t apologise for not giving this Government my potentially most valuable asset whilst I’m applying for the dole.

 

I’m not asking anyone to invest money, or even your time. I am only asking for ideas to help me present my work to either Central or Local Government. If you feel that is unreasonable, feel free to ignore me. Unfortunately, Clamping isn’t going to go away just because you and I detest it.

Option 1. I am an idiot, a practical joker or just misguided. If you think one of these is the case, I apologise for having wasted your time and would suggest you waste no more of it on this thread.

Option 2. I am on the level. If you think this a possibility, and consider that my objectives are reasonable, I would be grateful for any suggestions.

Option 3. There are some very good brains, some very committed people out there. It seems that many of you also want to see the end of wheel clamping. Invest some time trying to develop a system that will make clamping redundant: If you like, PM me and I will send you the design parameters of Parking Reserve. I will be delighted to offer my support and congratulations to anyone who can come up with something better and I genuinely hope someone can and does!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clamping is tantamount to demading money with menaces & has been recognised as such in Scotland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with JonCris the solution to clamping is to ban it. Anyone concerned about the licensed Dick Turpins that operate in this area should take a few minutes to respond to the current consultation:

 

Licensing of wheel clamping businesses | Home Office

 

There is a clear effort to gerrymander the results, however I have responded that the ONLY way to ensure that clamping is lawful and appropriate is to outlaw it as happened in Scotland. IMHO no amount of regulation will deter these criminals.

 

Regards your idea clampless can you at least say how much it would costs the unfortunate motorist who escapes from clamping but is caught by your system? It is hardly a solution for clamping if it is out of the frying pan and into the fire. You mention revenue for the councils which makes me extremely dubious. Until people know what you are proposing then you cannot expect them to form a view as we are not soothsayers. That would include the councils you have approached. If you are this cagey with them it is no surprise that they haven't taken up the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dragons Den !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair question, GCR. The logic of the system would mean that the sum would normally be the same as a parking ticket in that area. But the point is, that it would be set by the Local Authority, who I trust to be 'reasonable' slightly more than I would trust Excel, UKPC and their ilk. And considerably more than I 'trust' the Clampers, and Tow-Away-and-impound-your-car merchants. As for them banning clamping, its only because they won't do it that I started this project. Dragons Den? No chance. I want to see Parking Control taken away from free enterprise, not give them another method of sc***ing us. Can you name me one 'Free Enterprise' off street Parking Control Company that is 'fair' in the way it 'does business' with us? I can't. Find me one, and I will apologise; in fact I'll grovel. Just look at the other threads in this section. Anyway, I don't need a grant to get this up and running, like I said, NO capital outlay. I just need some politicos capable of thinking outside of the box. Maybe there is one reading this thread right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until you pitch your idea we have nothing to respond to. To make vague statements is meaningless. Suggest you sell your idea to at least one landowner then publicize it on the back of that success

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end of the day you still want money of the motorist, so bog off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get this.

 

You say you don't want to see parking control run by "free enterprise" companies, but you also descibe your idea as a "valuable asset". So are you in fact interested in setting a private company up yourself to make money?

 

If not, and you just want to solve a problem, stop being cagey about the detail and give your idea in full to every local authority who might be interested.

 

If you want to make money out of it, you'd be better off approaching company start-up schemes and the like for advice, rather than enquiring on a forum like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The politicians won't read any proposals, unless you staple a copy to their expenses forms!

 

Sam


All of these are on behalf of a friend.. Cabot - [There's no CCA!]

CapQuest - [There's no CCA!]

Barclays - Zinc, [There's no CCA!]

Robinson Way - Written off!

NatWest - Written off!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clampless. As far as I can see, from the little imformation that you have divulged, there is a pretty big pitfall in your scheme.

 

You say that revenues will go to local authorities who will also set penalties.

 

1. Many local authorities are absolving themselves of the need to enforce parking issues by farming it out to the private companies. Why would they want to go back into the business, in what appears to be an even more complex way?

2. Why should local authorities get the revenue from a trespass on land which belongs to a private individual or business? Surely, it is the individual or business that was wronged who would be legitimately entitled to that money, not the government.

3. Who is going to do the enforcement? Most LA's have proved themselves little better than the PPC's when it comes to traffic enforcement. Judge yourself by the number of successes at the PATAS stage due to LA stubourness

4. If the local authorities are going to do the enforcement, then the budget for that comes out of the public purse, ie yours and my pocket. I'm not sure that I particularly want my taxes going to assist with the policing of parking on land which I do not necessarily have any benefit from myself, or is this supposed to be a profit making scheme for the LA's, in which case you're back to square one of entrapment.

5. Any scheme which allows local authorities to enforce on private land WILL require a change in the law.

 

You say that you have contacted a number of local authorities and MP's, none of which have shown any interest in the scheme. Have you considered that their lack of interest may be down to simply not believing that it as good an idea as you think. Certainly, your pitch for the idea on here has not been a great success, since we still have absolutely no idea what you are actually proposing.


MBNA - Agreed to refund £970 in full without conditions. Cheque received Sat 5th Aug.:D

Lloyds - Settled for an undisclosed sum.:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't get this.

 

You say you don't want to see parking control run by "free enterprise" companies, but you also descibe your idea as a "valuable asset". So are you in fact interested in setting a private company up yourself to make money?

 

If not, and you just want to solve a problem, stop being cagey about the detail and give your idea in full to every local authority who might be interested.

 

If you want to make money out of it, you'd be better off approaching company start-up schemes and the like for advice, rather than enquiring on a forum like this.

 

Well stated, I am in full agreement hence my 'dragons den' post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you think council PCNs work out any cheaper than PPC invoices? granted they do at the start when they offer you a £80 fine discounted to £40 say. But very quickly, if you don't get this PCN or are away or whatever, very quickly it goes up to over £100, a court order is issued, and bailiffs are involved with the cost now up to 3, 4 or 500 pound!!

 

If this is the "better route" you are advocating I don't see it myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from the obvious difficulties of the Council ticketing on private land, this seems to be substituting one injustice for another. From what very little we know of the system, it might be better than some wheelclampers but that does not make it right. It would just allow the Councils to get their hands on more of our hard earned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of fair points, well made. I’ll deal with them as best I can.

 

Mustang67, I too am a motorist. I have not set out to take money off the motorist. But I also do not believe that my being a motorist means God gives me right to park my car where it blocks delivery accesses, wheelchair ramps etc. As a motorist I can’t claim that is reasonable for me to park my car on somebody else’s property just because it is convenient for me. All I want the landowner to have a legitimate, and non-threatening means to persuade me not to trespass SO HE DOESN’T CLAMP MY CAR! I want any cr*p that he chooses to dump on me, if I dump my car where its not wanted to be proportionate and reasonable. I thought this forum expected contributors to demonstrate basic politeness………

M Jamberson, You say you don't want to see parking control run by "free enterprise" companies, but you also describe your idea as a "valuable asset". So are you in fact interested in setting a private company up yourself to make money?

Sorry that I created some confusion. To clarify, I don’t want to set up and run a free enterprise business. I want the Gov, or Local Authorities to run Parking Reserve, so it doesn’t get run like another clamping business or bordering-on-illegal PCC. I would like to earn a fee from licensing the Intellectual Property to them. Sameagle, I’d heard of a couple of Lords who might forward my work, but the price had too many zeros for my pocket.

RichardM. Many local authorities are absolving themselves of the need to enforce parking issues by farming it out to the private companies. They are not absolving themselves of the responsibility; they have only relatively recently taken it on, since they were given the right to decriminalise parking control. Most of them have outsourced/subcontracted the enforcement, but the responsibility and accountability still resides with the Local Authorities. Why would they want to go back into the business, in what appears to be an even more complex way? Because they make money out of it. ? Surely, it is the individual or business that was wronged who would be legitimately entitled to that money, not the government. I’m not so sure. This argument is the one that has been used to justify clamping ever since it arrived here. See pin1onu message on this thread:-some see some merit in this argument. Personally, I don’t. My intent in transferring any revenue away from the landowner is to remove the temptation for the landowner to bend the rules in his favour and just use his land to extort money from those who trespass. SEE 'The Paradox of the Clamp' at the beginning of this thread. BUT I am not 100% certain that I have the right answer to this question. PR could easily as direct revenue to Landowner as to the exchequer, I’m content not to play God, and will leave the ethicalists or the Home Office to decide. Who is going to do the enforcement? Most LA's have proved themselves little better than the PPC's when it comes to traffic enforcement. They aren’t good! But they are the best we’ve got. And I’d rather have PATAS to whom I can appeal, than rely on the integrity, goodwill and moral integrity of the PCC’s. If the local authorities are going to do the enforcement, then the budget for that comes out of the public purse, ie yours and my pocket……..or is this supposed to be a profit making scheme for the LA's, in which case you're back to square one of entrapment. Yes, it is intended to make them a profit. There are ‘rotten boroughs’ but I see no reason to assume that entrapment will be the norm. I've seen some obviously bloody minded practice from the L.A's, but I would be curious to know what proportion of tickets fall under that heading? Maybe a new thread in itself......The PATAS option is still there which doesn’t exist with the PCCs and the Clampers. Once again, I know it isn’t perfect, but its far better than what we have or anything else on the table. Any scheme which allows local authorities to enforce on private land WILL require a change in the law. If you say so. It’s a blessing that you know my work better than I do. And yes, I do know the law. You say that you have contacted a number of local authorities and MP's, none of which have shown any interest in the scheme. Have you considered that their lack of interest may be down to simply not believing that it as good an idea as you think. Yes, of course I have! Lots of you don’t believe I can do as I claim. Some of them feel the same. Many of them have no real interest in dealing with clampers. Some of them want me to tell them how it works without confidentiality so they can; (if the idea is any good), acquire it for their own profit! Certainly, your pitch for the idea on here has not been a great success, AGREED since we still have absolutely no idea what you are actually proposing. Unfair. You know WHAT I am proposing. When someone has asked me a question or requests clarification, I have tried to respond openly, even in the face of some fairly hostile attitudes. I have chosen not to place in the Public Domain HOW it works, and clearly explained why! I am sorry if you consider that insufficient.

Iamma, I hope I have adequately responded to your point earlier in this post. To add to it, I have been advised that NESTA would be happy to fund me if I needed finance for further product development, so why should I have interest in Dragons Den. I am not looking for finance, or business partners.

Crem Why do you think council PCNs work out any cheaper than PPC invoices? granted they do at the start when they offer you a £80 fine discounted to £40 say. But very quickly, if you don't get this PCN or are away or whatever, very quickly it goes up to over £100, a court order is issued, and bailiffs are involved with the cost now up to 3, 4 or 500 pound!! If this is the "better route" you are advocating I don't see it myself. I say again Councils are not good when it comes to Parking Control. But they are better than the PCC’s. They are better than the Clampers. They are better than the ***** who put your car on a low loader, cart it off and impound it. The appeal procedure is unsatisfactory, but its better than NONE. And NONE is the status quo I am trying to change. GCR Aside from the obvious difficulties of the Council ticketing on private land..... I was unaware that I had referred to Councils ticketing on Private Land. ...this seems to be substituting one injustice for another. From what very little we know of the system, it might be better than some wheelclampers but that does not make it right. It would just allow the Councils to get their hands on more of our hard earned.

Fair point, GCR. Lets tackle the question you raise here. Please, all of you who doubt what I am trying to do; don’t treat the question as purely rhetorical, it goes to the heart of the matter.What would be the most just way for the landowner to deter ME from parking MY car on his property; and what REASONABLE sanction SHOULD he be able to impose/ levy on ME if I choose to trespass. (Remember that you have already proved to the satisfaction of the Courts, and the extreme dissatisfaction of the PCC’s, assorted trolls in various disguises, and probably Perky too (even if he won’t admit it) that PPC invoices aren‘t the answer)!

People, thank you for not treating me as a troll, although I am starting to feel like a duck on a fairground shooting range. I am doing my best to end wheel clamping on Private Land. I have asked if anyone could offer some guidance to help me, and am responded to in the main as if I’m trying to infect you with some strange disease. On this site many of you have worked hard, (and I hoped got satisfaction) from contesting illegal, malicious and generally bad practice from L.A's and dubious businesses.. You have provided people with the ammunition to fight those who would try and clamp or con them. I am trying to take away their clamps!

 

Option 1. I am an idiot, a practical joker or just misguided. If you think one of these is the case, I apologise for having wasted your time and would suggest you waste no more of it on this thread.

Option 2. I am on the level. If you think this a possibility, and consider that my objectives are reasonable, I would be grateful for any suggestions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A practical means to end Wheel Clamping on Private Land. Your help and input needed.

I have chosen not to place in the Public Domain HOW it works,

 

Its very difficult to give any thoughts on something we don't know about, sorry.


 

 

HSBC WON three times!!!!! Read about my continuing battle (claim FOUR!) Link HERE

Capital One WON Link

HERE

GE capital (5 accounts) WON link HERE

Lloyds bank account WON second claim starting! link HERE

Budget insurance cough up WON link HERE

Principles WON link HERE

A&L (Mrs Crusher's account) claim link HERE

Barclays claim link HERE

 

Any advice given is on an informal basis only and without prejudice or liability. In in any doubt, consult a qualified lawyer.

IF YOU HAVE GOT YOUR MONEY BACK, PUT SOME BACK INTO THE SITE TO HELP KEEP IT OPEN!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...