dvla\ncp clamping in scotland

[tam9933]

yesterday for the second time in 6 months ncp clamped a car at my garage premises (in private yard), i expained to the clamping crew that the vehicle has vt30 and is exempt from foad tax just now , reply was dont care take it up with the clamping controller in glasgow , this time i want to make a police complaint and have them charged with somthing , like breech of my peace or somthing , any ideas ? , a small tip to all , if car gets clamped remove a wheel for some kind of urgent repair , they are not able to lift the car with street lifter truck

[buzby]

The High Court in Scotland has already outlawd private clamping and you would be fully justified in removing the clamp and sending THEM the bill for its removal.

[Conniff]

As it was private land, you might also consider a civil suite for trespass. If you have has to pay to have the clamp removed, then you could have a case.

All you need to be successful in court is to prove financial loss as the result of trespass.

Worth keeping in mind.

[buzby]

There's no tresspass in Scotland (just MoD & Crown) which was why the 'Right To Roam' was such nonsense. Whe HAD the rightanyway, and out access was limitedwith the arrival of this new 'act'. There's no Tresspass in Scotland, as there are no established 'Righs Of Way' as there are in E&W).

[tam9933]

well,on friday afternoon the clater of chains was heard and off went my astra to the dog pound, complete with vt30 tax exemption in place , driver said dont care , call the pound and pay up.

[ClampingKing]

And how did they manage that with the wheel removed then?

[buzby]

You need a Solicitor to sue them - you cannot use Small Claims for this. Should be fun, especially if you didn;t give them permission to enter your land. (Not tresspass, but but in not seeking the landowners permission to ente)r.

[nehpets]

Surely if they come onto private land then there is a serious risk for them or, in particular, their vehicle? What is to stop you from blocking their exit from your yard (in terms of their vehicle but not the occupants)? Provided that the vehicle that you use to block them is still on your land then there is not an aweful lot that they can do to make you move it. Ultimately they'd probably call the police but again, once the police arrived, all the police could do is ensure that you weren't causing any harm to the occupants.

 

 

N.

[patdavies]

What is to stop you from blocking their exit from your yard (in terms of their vehicle but not the occupants)? Provided that the vehicle that you use to block them is still on your land then there is not an aweful lot that they can do to make you move it. Ultimately they'd probably call the police but again, once the police arrived, all the police could do is ensure that you weren't causing any harm to the occupants.

 

Blocking a vehicle in on private land is also 'immobilisation' and requires an SIA front-line licence.

[buzby]

Surely if they come onto private land then there is a serious risk for them or, in particular, their vehicle? What is to stop you from blocking their exit from your yard (in terms of their vehicle but not the occupants)? Provided that the vehicle that you use to block them is still on your land then there is not an aweful lot that they can do to make you move it. Ultimately they'd probably call the police but again, once the police arrived, all the police could do is ensure that you weren't causing any harm to the occupants.

 

 

N.

 

this is a two-way street. In Scotland, not only can they not legally clamp you (immobiliese) YOU could not do the same to them, either. This still is a civil matter and the police would only act to prevent a breach of the peace. Then, as the work gets underway to remove the immobilising device, should damage to the property arise, then the complication of deciding who is culpible.

 

As Pat notes, blocking/immobilisation is simply responding to an illegal act with another.

[nehpets]

this is a two-way street. In Scotland, not only can they not legally clamp you (immobiliese) YOU could not do the same to them, either. This still is a civil matter and the police would only act to prevent a breach of the peace. Then, as the work gets underway to remove the immobilising device, should damage to the property arise, then the complication of deciding who is culpible.

 

As Pat notes, blocking/immobilisation is simply responding to an illegal act with another.

 

 

I'm no expert on Scottish law so I might be wee'ing into the wind with this but....

 

The word 'immobilisation' is highly subjective. For example, in the case outlined so far, what if the access to this chaps private land is by way of a drive way which passes between two immovable objects like between two houses? What is to stop the guy parking a two tonne transit van in his own drive way? In a sense they are not 'immobilised' as such since their vehcile is still free to move about the yard.

 

Secondly, as Pat points out, if its a case of one law breaking act following an earlier law breaking act (and the fact that they are civil matters) then it's a case of tit for tat? The first party can hardly bring a claim against the second party if the second party can equally claim against the first but for the second offence? As a result a stand off would occur with the people with the low-loader unable to leave the yard until they agreed to unload the chaps car.

 

It stands to reason that the people with the low loader attach a far greater importance to their piece of 'equipment' (since it is effectively a source of income) than the chap does to his car (since the car is effectively off the road). With the police able to do anything it could take the low loader owners quite some time to recover their equipment if they have to go through all the proper channels. As a result common sense dictates that they'd just release the car and then leave.

 

 

N.

[buzby]

For a declared outcome, only the Sheriff could decide what was correct - and even then, a different Sheriff would decide a contrary action. Once it decends into kid-like tit for tat, all reason goes out the window, so it's always best not to decend to the same level, as this can often work against you if you are attemting to gain the sympathy of the court.

 

Lets assume, your land your property and a car parks there 'illegally' (or in proper parlance, without your permission). Now, your contractor arrives to build that 8 foot brick wall and the errant vehicle is now trapped. This wouldn;t be seen as immobilsation, but if it fow requires a crane to get the vehicle out of the compound, then the costs for this would fall squarely on the parker. There may be a side issue of being there without paying a fee, but without signage warning of the fact, then this may fail. You would not have to put up a sign warning that the entrance was to be blocked off it the area was not normally used for parking.

[nehpets]

For a declared outcome, only the Sheriff could decide what was correct - and even then, a different Sheriff would decide a contrary action. Once it decends into kid-like tit for tat, all reason goes out the window, so it's always best not to decend to the same level, as this can often work against you if you are attemting to gain the sympathy of the court.

 

Lets assume, your land your property and a car parks there 'illegally' (or in proper parlance, without your permission). Now, your contractor arrives to build that 8 foot brick wall and the errant vehicle is now trapped. This wouldn;t be seen as immobilsation, but if it fow requires a crane to get the vehicle out of the compound, then the costs for this would fall squarely on the parker. There may be a side issue of being there without paying a fee, but without signage warning of the fact, then this may fail. You would not have to put up a sign warning that the entrance was to be blocked off it the area was not normally used for parking.

 

 

It’s certainly an interesting area of law in Scotland. Things seem a bit more straight forward down here in England. We do have a few issues with ‘cowboy clappers’ but that tends to be more about people overstaying parking time limits in various car parks. A nice side line for them is people who park outside of marked bays during busy times. Picture a busy car park at an out of town shopping complex in the month or so leading up to Christmas. Quite often, once all the official bays fill up, people start to park (without causing an obstruction or blocking anyone else in) on the short sections of road which connect the various car parks together un-aware that these roads legally constitute part of the car park rather than being public highways. The result is that clamper teams move in and ticket dozens of cars at a time for £40 each.

 

Another thing becoming more common is these big sheds like B&Q and Comet putting up steel barriers and locking their car parks. Normally it’s just a small sign which says “This car park is locked at 8pm”. How would Scottish law handle that if it was obvious that someone was still parked up at locking up time? Tricky area perhaps.

 

I wonder how much force the tow-away driver can use to access a property? Does he have the right to open a gate for example? In theory a sign saying “Keep Out – Private Property” is as good as a gate.

 

 

N.

[buzby]

What you describe is not uncommon - but the issue is not parking related, they whole point of the activity is security, not revenue generation. You'll find that B&Q and the like are not party to this, simply being a tenant like all the others. It is the property management firm/developers who control the wider remit of the site and its access roads (along with cleaning, lighting, gardening and the rest, charging the likes of B&Q the appropriate fee for the services rendered.

 

If, 30 minutes after the store closes, a vehicle is locked in - then, unless the motorist was able to fnd an alternative exit, he would just have to leave the vehicle there and pick up his car in the morning. There would certainly have to be signage stating the hours of the car park, and also warning of the possibility of a lock-in, but that would be as far as it does, as the motorist would have to lump it. It's a different ball game if his egress is being prevented because he didn't pay a fee for some imagined slight.

 

I have to say I Like the Scottish system, because the rogue clamping industry died overnight, and we only get the begging letters - which ended the highway robbery currently going on in E & W!

[tam9933]

sorry been busy, to reply to clamping king i thought in might get interesting if the car went to pound , so i left wheels on , i realy want to take ncp dvla on

[tam9933]

ncp claim that they have the right to enter a private yard , clamp and remove untaxed vehicles , and quote some goverment finance act gives them permision , with the exception of garage premises or house driveway , but clamping crews seem to thing if it is more that two inches from the premises it can be clamped

 

my whole issue here is that

[tam9933]

i intend to make the phone call to clamping pound in the morning , i will remind them of vt30 rules tax exemtion and all that , and that they have taken my car against law , check that they are treating my car ok , i will get them to fax me a copy of sheet quoting goverment act that they fly with , and will post detals on site

[patdavies]

The legislation is the Finance Act 2008 which amended the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994.

 

This allows them to enter private premises and clamp/remove vehicles that are neither taxed nor on SORN.

 

My understanding that the VT30 provides the exemption for a vehicle to be driven on the public highway to/from a place of repair or a further pre-booked MoT test. Other than that, it must be kept off road and SORN declared. An exempt vehicle must have VED or SORN.

 

But I confess that I have no idea how this can legally be done by a trader - who doesn't actually become the RK. Although, in practice, you could use the V5 details to SORN on-line and nobody would know any different.

[buzby]

Here's DVLA's spin on it:

 

More targeted enforcement against car tax evaders

[crem]

What about item 3 on the "Notes to editors" bit then:-

 

Expanded powers will not extend to private driveways or areas associated with private dwellings. In addition, untaxed vehicles stored on the premises of motor traders or testing stations will be exempt from enforcement

tam9933 clearly states the car was clamped in his private garage yard which is specifically exempted in the new guidelines.

[nehpets]

What about item 3 on the "Notes to editors" bit then:-

 

 

tam9933 clearly states the car was clamped in his private garage yard which is specifically exempted in the new guidelines.

 

 

I think tam9933 needs to clarify this aspect of 'private yard'. In this instance 'private' my refer to a domestic dwelling rather than any private property.

 

N.

[rickyd]

Section 3 clearly states:-

 

1. Expanded powers will not extend to private driveways or areas associated with private dwellings. In addition, untaxed vehicles stored on the premises of motor traders or testing stations will be exempt from enforcement.
   

As far as I can see, this is a clear case of theft as they had no statutory legal power to clamp or remove the vehicle.

 

IIRC unclaimed vehicles are crushed after seven days so you need to make contact pronto.

[nehpets]

Section 3 clearly states:-

 

1. Expanded powers will not extend to private driveways or areas associated with private dwellings. In addition, untaxed vehicles stored on the premises of motor traders or testing stations will be exempt from enforcement.
   

As far as I can see, this is a clear case of theft as they had no statutory legal power to clamp or remove the vehicle.

 

IIRC unclaimed vehicles are crushed after seven days so you need to make contact pronto.

 

If this is the case then report the car stolen.

 

N.