New laws to govern wheel clampers !

[Big Boss Man]

Just a quick heads up as to whats happening in my area regarding the infamous clampers !

 

New laws to govern wheel clampers

[gwc1000]

I consider this bad news. At the moment whilst wheel clampers operate many times out of the law and the whole concept is a grey area, if anything it allows the motorist a few get out of jail cards. Such as cutting the clamp, sitting in their car, or claiming against the landowner. But, if the industry is legitamised with the backing of parliament, then if anything, it will work against us. If the warning signs carry the information required by any new law, when you are clamped, you will have to pay up, it will not be possible to take action against the landowner as it will all be legitimate. Cutting the clamp will not be an option either. It will only be in the case where the clamper has not followed procedure will it be possible to take some form of recovery action.

Another problem I forsee is that if parliament decide that warning signs in carparks describing actions that a PPC may take against you if you infringe their T&Cs are indeed enforceable, all "fines" imposed by the likes of perky will have a much higher chance of success if CC action is sought. Ignoring will not work.

[Al27]

On the flip side, capped prices, an end to the tow truck cancellation [problem], clearer signage and an independent appeals process.

 

Just think of the massive loss of revenue and the time and effort these companies will have to put into formulating defence appeals. Councils are usually good at defending TPT cases because they generally have qualified people. Imagine a cowboy clamping outfit struggling to formulate a legal defence.

 

At the moment you can only take action against the landowner if the clampers have scammed you. You still can't win a small claims case if the clampers are SIA registered, the signs are clear and the amount is reasonable.

 

As for PPC warning signs, I don't think this Act supercedes contract law laid out nearly 100 years ago. Contract T&Cs are a different kettle of fish than the clamping consent/remedy to trespass area.

[gwc1000]

As for PPC warning signs, I don't think this Act supercedes contract law laid out nearly 100 years ago. Contract T&Cs are a different kettle of fish than the clamping consent/remedy to trespass area.

You may be right, Al, I don't know. However if parking on a clamper's land after this act is passed you automatically enter into a contract agreeing that your vehicle may be clamped as long as the signage is correct, how can it be argued that a sign stating a parking charge of £60 applies if breached, does not enter you into a contract? If anything, I forsee more clamping and less parking tickets.

[green_and_mean]

The consultation process gave several options the govt is most likely to go with their prefered option which is...

 

Compulsory membership of a Business licensing Scheme for VI businesses.

This would involve development of a business licensing scheme which

requires VI businesses to provide the SIA with specific information by way of registration, plus compliance with a compulsor y code of practice through an accredited third party.

The scheme would prohibit employees or representatives of the business from engaging in unacceptable practices, and make them more accountable to the public by requiring a transparent internal business appeals system. The proposed scheme would include both general and sector specific licence conditions, which businesses would have to abide by in order to obtain and retain their business licence.

Accreditation and Monitoring

It is proposed that a third party accrediting body (or bodies) would be contracted by the SIA to decide whether each business which applied for a licence met the scheme’s requirements. under this approach, the SIA would remain as the regulator. The

accrediting body would decide whether each business that applied for a licence met the requirements for qualification and also be responsible for continuing to monitor all licensed businesses to check that they are complying with the terms of the licence. It is proposed that businesses would have to directly pay the accrediting body for this service.

Businesses would fir st have to join the accredited body, and then membership of the appropriate scheme would be available to businesses which met the criteria. In becoming a member of the accrediting body’s scheme the business would have to comply with the body’s code of conduct. The model proposed is similar to the dV l A’s "Accredited Trade Association (ATA)" scheme.

estimated figures for the costs of accreditation and monitoring by a third party are included in the Impact Assessment. However, as an example, the costs of yearly member ship of the British Parking Association are under stood to be £535 (for a "standard" business: it can be less or more for smaller or larger businesses) and minimum yearly member ship of their Approved o perator Scheme to be £1000. In addition there could be one-of f costs to the industr y for items such as replacing equipment and training estimated at £474,000 to £950,000 for 100-200 businesses.

Compliance and enforcement

The accredited third party would provide a set of licence conditions agreed by the SIA for vehicle immobilisation businesses, a framework for considering applications referred to them by the SIA for member ship of their scheme and ensuring compliance with their standards, and ensure that ef fective arrangements were in place for considering complaints and securing redress.

The SIA would be the regulator with responsibility for administration of the scheme, with specific functions of receiving and processing licence applications and fees, approving applications, approving accredited third parties and taking or initiating compliance enforcement action. The SIA’s role in compliance and enforcement will be to ensure that businesses are licensed (that is, that they comply with the law in this respect), and to initiate enforcement action where a business fails to comply with the terms of the licence.

The SIA would have power s of enforcement similar to those which they have now in relation to individual licences, including revocation or suspension of a licence and/or prosecution. It should be added, however, that the SIA would follow its existing policy with regard to enforcement of seeking to take proportionate action with a view to securing compliance.

Prosecution

The current court imposed penalties for supplying unlicensed staff, not possessing a licence when so required, or breaking licence conditions are set out in the section on current of fences and sanctions. We would expect penalties for new business licences to reflect current levels of penalties.

[lamma]

third party = buck passing. the BPA has an 'accreditation' and is just a cover up operation. I agree with AL27, they can't overturn reams of contract and common law.

[green_and_mean]

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-2009-vehicle-immobilisation/vehicle-immobilisation-cons1.pdf?view=Binary

 

The documument is here if anyone has not read it.

[Al27]

However if parking on a clamper's land after this act is passed you automatically enter into a contract agreeing that your vehicle may be clamped as long as the signage is correct, how can it be argued that a sign stating a parking charge of £60 applies if breached, does not enter you into a contract?

 

But then you get back to who was the driver when they only have the keeper's address details.

[lamma]

exactly.

[gwc1000]

True. But if you are the driver, ignoring any paperwork may be more risky?

[Al27]

What kind of risk? Court is economically unviable. You can't run a business where income relies on collecting CCJs - unless you're a bailiff.

[pin1onu]

Why give a cloak of a legitimacy to these muggers in any way, shape or form? Thats the problem with the PSI Act. It tried to create some rules to legislate clamping and we ended up with the toothless dog known as the SIA and the situation even murkier than before. All it created was an air of legitimacy to what amounts to legalised extortion.

 

Do we really want an accredited trade body such as the BPA overseeing clamping. (Might as well ask the hyenas to distribute the meat at feeding time, if you catch my drift). Everybody knows how transparent and independent they are.

 

Simple solution: Outlaw clamping in the rest of the United Kingdom. Scotland saw fit to do it via the courts; if it takes legislation to acheive the same thing then I'm all for it.

[Big Boss Man]

Another quick update on this subject . . .

 

Tories promise new rules on clamping

[green_and_mean]

Another quick update on this subject . . .

 

Tories promise new rules on clamping

 

 

"The Tories have gone one step further though and announced that if cowboy firms do not stick to the new rules, clamping on private land could be banned entirely."

 

Surely if they stick to the rules they won't be 'cowboy firms'? That is like saying we will ban the use of mobiles in cars but if some motorists don't adhere to the rules we will ban driving all together, lol.

[pin1onu]

"The Tories have gone one step further though and announced that if cowboy firms do not stick to the new rules, clamping on private land could be banned entirely."

 

Surely if they stick to the rules they won't be 'cowboy firms'? That is like saying we will ban the use of mobiles in cars but if some motorists don't adhere to the rules we will ban driving all together, lol.

Careful G&M that sounds like the sort of mad policy this present government would try. Don't go giving them ideas.

[Al27]

Seems easy to me. Clamping bans work - look at Scotland.

 

Ban clamping, look popular, pick up votes for the May election. Easy.

[pin1onu]

Seems easy to me. Clamping bans work - look at Scotland.

 

Ban clamping, look popular, pick up votes for the May election. Easy.

Agree with that 100%

[green_and_mean]

Seems easy to me. Clamping bans work - look at Scotland.

 

Ban clamping, look popular, pick up votes for the May election. Easy.

 

Just out of interest what happens in private car parks etc then? If you cannot clamp or invoice surely people just park anywhere or do they have more manners up north? Can they still tow away?

[Al27]

I think I disagree with the notion that people just park anywhere they feel like. In fact, I think there is usually little need to 'control' a car park or impose draconian rules.

 

Clear lines, notices telling people who can use disabled spots etc. are all that are needed. Sure there will always be the odd idiot who parks where is inconsiderate, but I really don't think it's the end of the world.

 

Of course, parking companies love to ramble on about control and the need for enforcement, but they're pitching for business.

 

It's all about money at the end of the day. Once upon a time supermarkets just had car parks that worked smoothly (how hard can it be for the public to park in between white lines?). But then they realised noticed people were parking and then nipping into town and they could make more money by limiting parking to x hours etc.

 

Once upon a time you'd park up, walk around town and do your shopping. Of course supermarkets would never want to take away a town's business and make shoppers only shop in their store and be out quick so their next sale could be racked up.

 

There's another easy way though - keep clamping, make the max release fee £30 and ban towing.

 

But no money in that eh?

Edited October 7, 2009 by Al27

[green_and_mean]

I think I disagree with the notion that people just park anywhere they feel like.

 

I can tell you from personal experience that people do park anywhere, I have known on numerous occasions of people actually parking in peoples front gardens and drives and that is not just in controlled areas sometimes it has been due to no kerb space on street. I think it is unfair to expect shops etc to provide and pay for customer parking only to have it used by others who don't even shop there. I was in Croydon the other day and noticed that even in the early morning all the retail parks car parking was full despite the shops being deserted which I assume was due to the tram stop nearby. People just park free all day and go into Croydon or London by Tram for 90p and avoid paying for parking. I don't think businesses should have to tollerate it. Low penalties along with the chance of not getting caught does not deter people and would not be cost effective. If a clamper clamped 4 or 5 cars a day at £30 it would barely cover his wages let alone other costs. Clamping fees should be inline with Council penalties in the £60-£100 range and regulated properly with clear signage etc.

[Al27]

So why don't they clamp on the retail park? Surely the businesses don't mind, or else they'd be clamping away.

 

There are idiots out there and people do park anywhere. But how many people in the grand scheme of things? Who are the people who tend to get clamped? Mums 7 minutes over time, delivery people making drop offs, people parking on private car parks not doing any real harm.

[pin1onu]

I can tell you from personal experience that people do park anywhere, I have known on numerous occasions of people actually parking in peoples front gardens and drives and that is not just in controlled areas sometimes it has been due to no kerb space on street. I think it is unfair to expect shops etc to provide and pay for customer parking only to have it used by others who don't even shop there.

Cost of doing business surely.

 

I was in Croydon the other day and noticed that even in the early morning all the retail parks car parking was full despite the shops being deserted which I assume was due to the tram stop nearby. People just park free all day and go into Croydon or London by Tram for 90p and avoid paying for parking.

Surely that's the idea of publice transport. Unfortunately the idiots that planned the trams (Merton council, Croydon Council, TfL etc) forget that for people to access the trams it may involve a car journey. Why wasn't car parking provided? They certainly didn't make any provisions for it when they put the link in. There was not a lot of consultation with the residents and their objections were largely ignored (I live in Merton at the time). I like the logic of park and ride schemes - it gets people out of their cars and provides them with somewhere to park as well.

 

I don't think businesses should have to tollerate it. Low penalties along with the chance of not getting caught does not deter people and would not be cost effective. If a clamper clamped 4 or 5 cars a day at £30 it would barely cover his wages let alone other costs. Clamping fees should be inline with Council penalties in the £60-£100 range and regulated properly with clear signage etc.

And of course we all know how fair and independent they would be. They wouldn't play games of brinkmanship, like certain councils do (in the hope that people will fold) or hold on to money that they've taken in error or illegally (and we know that the councils are squeaky clean on that issue). And we all know that clampers pay attention to CCJ's.

 

They cannot and will not be independent. There is no appeal process they want their dosh and they're prepared to extort money to get it. So lets outlaw the practice and have done with it.

 

There are other solutions other than clamping that can be used.

[Big Boss Man]

UPDATE - and theres more ....

 

UK parking summit to hear cowboy clampers will be forced out of business

[Conned Sumer]

Interesting with the ASBO's but aren't they the kind of people who would collect ASBO's as trophies? Like those kids do? (referring to the comments in the above article)

 

as for inconsiderate parking, even with "enforcement" in place you still see plenty of people getting away with it, and as for street/driveway parking, that just needs a little community spirit

when our neighbours have guests they are told they are welcome to use any space we have available in front of our property on on our driveway, common courtesy I guess.

[the_freedom_trail]

The answer: ban private parking firms and let LA's provide their services. The LA's could charge for this and would operate a much fairer system. It would be a good way for the council to raise revenue (often much needed). There is already an independent appeals process in place. Why not bolster the resources that are already there? We could even have uniform regulations across the country. I must say, my experience of council CEO's has been very fair.

 

One time, I was parked on a single yellow in a restricted area. My car developed a battery fault and I couldn't move it before the restriction time arrived. Rather than give me a ticket, the CEO helped me sort the issue out.

On another occasion, I had a car accident and the Police recovered my badly damaged car to a LA car park. In total, 7 PCN's were issued but the LA cancelled them all, sent me a nice letter and wished me a speedy recovery.

One time, I parked on double yellows to drop someone off. The CEO arrived and told me I had 2 mins to get away - could have done me there and then.

Could you imagine a PPC doing any of this? LA CEO's often get a rough press. However, I find LA signs are often clear and easy to understand, penalties are reasonable, particularly in the discount period and there is an appeals process should I desire to use it. I also find LA's tend more to explain the process if you don't pay, rather than resort to fraud and lies to make you cough up asap!

 

TFT