Clamping to be outlawed on private land

[cream70]

This was on the Today programme this morning too. An interview between a representative of the parking trade body and a chap from the RAC Foundation. TBH it sounded like a reasonable discussion. If you look for it on iPlayer it was on just before Thought for the Day, around 7.45. So about 1h 45m in.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00tc6mj/Today_17_08_2010/

 

Interesting, BPA chap accepts that the issuing of tickets is virtually unenforceable so in exchange

for the ban on clamping he wants the registered keeper to be responsible for tickets issued on private land.

[Al27]

Responsible for what? What BPA bloke wants is an complete rewriting of contract law, or the power of fining to be granted to private companies. RK liability for whatever, is way down on what he really wants on his Christmas list!

 

Btw, have a look at this! http://newsarse.com/2010/08/17/clampers-forced-to-return-to-previous-lives-of-kidnap-and-extortion/

[letshelp]

How nice to see all the shiny SIA badges on prominent display on the One Programme, just like in real life.

regards

[sully123]

On the news in the Central region, saying to be outlawed in November

 

 

Also this is on the site

 

http://www.itv.com/News/?intcmp=NAV_NEWS6

[DBC]

Clampers To Get New Jobs

[JonCris]

I'm afraid that I disagree with you on this point. The PPC model for the "management" of private car parks was devised by the PPC's themselves - not landowners. It is the PPC's who stand to gain most from it and it is they who continue to "sell" the idea of the reasonable (though small) rake off to the landowners who have to do absolutely nothing to get it whilst their PPC "contractor" makes a comparative fortune.

 

Had we been commenting on a recent phenomenon I would agree but this has been going on for years yet land owners have allowed it to escalate without making any attempt to curb their agents. I stand by what I said. The land owners are at the very least as guilty of bad practices as are their agents

[Old Snowy]

Had we been commenting on a recent phenomenon I would agree but this has been going on for years yet land owners have allowed it to escalate without making any attempt to curb their agents. I stand by what I said. The land owners are at the very least as guilty of bad practices as are their agents

I entirely agree. However, what you said originally was that the landowners had unleashed the PPC's when this was simply not the case. Landowners have, largely unwittingly and almost certainly naively, provided PPC's with the means to expand and make a lot of money but the drive has always come from the PPC's. Although landowners may have to bear a proportion of the moral responsibility for the situation we find ourselves in the fact remains that they have been exploited as much as the motoring public have by the PPC machine.

[JonCris]

I entirely agree. However, what you said originally was that the landowners had unleashed the PPC's when this was simply not the case. Landowners have, largely unwittingly and almost certainly naively, provided PPC's with the means to expand and make a lot of money but the drive has always come from the PPC's. Although landowners may have to bear a proportion of the moral responsibility for the situation we find ourselves in the fact remains that they have been exploited as much as the motoring public have by the PPC machine.

 

Land owners discovered very early on what was going on & did little or nothing to curb the PPC's To stop these practices has always been in the hands of land owners & they did nothing. You can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink

[buzby]

This is a chicken and egg scenario. It remains the PPCs as the driving force, the enabler if you will.

 

The fact that landowners, being offered the ability to have on-site security and management at no cost to them is attractive. I would doubt whether any wewre advised that 'we will issue trumped up tickets and pursue drivers on your land whether they transgressed or not'. If this was the case, I would agree with you they were complicit - but I doubt this happened. I am also sure that once they realised what was happening, the responsible ones arranged a break in the contract at the earliest opportunity, or turn a blind eye, to these outsourced 'experts'.

 

The PPCs are the problem of the first instance. the landowners are secondary.

[JonCris]

This is a chicken and egg scenario. It remains the PPCs as the driving force, the enabler if you will.

 

The fact that landowners, being offered the ability to have on-site security and management at no cost to them is attractive. I would doubt whether any wewre advised that 'we will issue trumped up tickets and pursue drivers on your land whether they transgressed or not'. If this was the case, I would agree with you they were complicit - but I doubt this happened. I am also sure that once they realised what was happening, the responsible ones arranged a break in the contract at the earliest opportunity, or turn a blind eye, to these outsourced 'experts'.

 

The PPCs are the problem of the first instance. the landowners are secondary.

 

Fortunately they law doesn't agree with you. An employer of a firm has a duty to ensure said firm is acting lawfully & failure to do so makes them at least equally liable AND they should have ensured their agreement included an undertaking that they act lawfully then monitored it

[buzby]

Oh please! Who says they weren't? The driver? And can they be trusted not to lie, in the same way you believe that the PPC will? The law agrees with whoever presents the best case. and it most certainly has nothing to do whetehr it agrees with me or not. Following your logic, the law would work against individuals where (say) a window cleaner fell from the upper floor windows becasue they had deficient safety equipment, but the householder is liable? Perhaps, if it was the householders equipment, but not if it was the window cleaner's own.

 

I thnik you're attempting to blame anyone connected with PPCs in the hope to discredit them. It's not bothered McDonalds and I've yet to hear of them ending their contracts with a PPC. Perhaps you should be warning them of their imminent doom?

[JonCris]

Do you really think you can employ an agent & have no responsibility for their actions. Its called vicarious liability & owner occupiers are liable even if they never visit. I can't discuss with someone who has no conception of how the law works. Even trespassers can sue an owner/occupier

[buzby]

Anyone can sue anyone they like. However the prospect of success is not assured. Do remember this in future. As for not understanding vicarious liablity... you seem to think of it as an absolute. It most certainly isn't. Additionally, if a third party does something reckless. the first party can not only indemnify themselves (should they wish) but pursue them for aby negligence they were ewxosed to. I just love your naivety in this matter.

[JonCris]

Though some have tried no one can indemnify themselves against a 3rd party for the unlawful or illegal acts of their agent. As for suing their own agents for an unlawful act against a 3rd party forget it they can't run with the hare & the hounds.

[buzby]

Of course they can, you just might not be aware of it. If their 'agent' is seen to have been acting illegally and/or defrauding them, they can indeed pursue this. As for losses incurred by their customers, I agree they'll not be interested in this, but there's no level playing field. Whoever has the most money, will get the representation they deserve.

[lamma]

Landowners are the Principals, they own the land, they carry the can.

they have had a LONG time to realise what is going on. they can always cancel the contract with the PPC.

the tail does not wag the dog.

[JonCris]

If the agent is acting to the benefit of the employer, in other words doing the job they have been employed for, and in the process are acting unlawfully then the employer/landowner/occupier is liable

[JonCris]

Landowners are the Principals, they own the land, they carry the can.

they have had a LONG time to realise what is going on. they can always cancel the contract with the PPC.

the tail does not wag the dog.

 

 

Quite

[buzby]

Employer? Perhaps you should refine your definition. A PPC may be employed by a landowner, but probably will not be the Employer of thew staff undertaking the work. As such, we will have valid responses that Health & Safety can be impacted and parking control is required, as an absence to provide it will be seen as an abrogation of their duties and untenable. (A case of dammed if they do and dammed if they don't). So, with the ability to argue either way, they're on pretty safe ground - something you fail to appreciate. Further, the number of court cases (from aggrieved motorists) would be considerably higher, but they're not. So this means we all treat PPCs with the contempt they deserve, or folk are paying up. You decide.

 

In yesterday's London Evenening Standard is a story of a person parking their car and being clamped when visiting a mosque. He sayed IN his car for 36 hours as the tickets/invoiuces value exceeded £3k. In the end, they removed it for £100. Which makes me wonder why the motorist saw this as a 'victory'. £100 to park?

 

Then there's the PPC firm in Worcester that has 5 of its staff charged with blackmail... you'll note the landowner wasn't charged. Perhaps you should enquire why?

[my-spirit-soars-free]

Well... from the other point of view... I live opposite a school. When someone decides to park their car on my drive there is nothing I can do about it. Even worse, I can't even sit outside my own drive and wait, as I would be blocking the road... I am supposed to go and find something else to do, and come back later.

 

It would be rather nice if there were some law against someone being able to do that, at the moment there is absolutely nothing, the person who is stopping me from getting into my own house has committed no offence - though apparently, if I block them in, to try and get into my own house, it is illegal as I should have notices displayed on my house saying I will do that. So, the law currently says that I need to display a notice to say I fancy using my own drive, and will attempt to use it even if you leave your car on it?

 

Forums like this have done a lot of good, in that many people have not been ripped off by the private car parking companies - but the other side of it is that a small minority of people now know that they can use private land as they want, that they can use blue badge spaces on private land as they like, etc - and it is not just private parking companies who want to have something changed.

[DBC]

We keep hearing about all those cars that are supposed to park on other people's driveways. has this ever actually happened.?

[Yorky2008]

Did anyone see 'Look North' last night?

 

Apparently the Haworth clampers at Changegate were going to be interviewed but I got distracted and missed it.

Did anyone see what they had to say?

 

Yorky

[pin1onu]

Just noticed on the BBC website that this change is to be enacted NEXT year! How half-assed is that? It could be achieved virtually overnight by the courts grating clamping as extortion (as they did up here), and the number of cases fell dramatically due to the High Court ruling being used as a precedent. From memory, only 3 further claming cases went to court and all stopped in 1992.

 

Why this period if doing nothing until 2011 seems to lack any finesse!

There is English case law that allows the practice that has to be overcome. AIUI they are planning to put the necessary legislation to overrule the case law for this in a bill going through the house in November.

 

With regard to the extortion, I beleive the grounds for ruling extortion are different under Scottish Law.

 

While the delay is regrettable I would prefer the government to get things right and put the necessary legislation in place and then hammer the b******ds

[DBC]

One thing that has to be sorted out is the way the government are saying that landowners/PPCs will be able to "penalise" motorists for breaking parking rules on private land. That goes against hundreds of years of civil law which states that one private citizen is not allowed to punish another private citizen.

[Al27]

I think it's just rhetoric to appease the 'landowners have a right to protect their land' brigade.

 

Clamping will be banned, ticketing will remain unenforceable.

 

It's looking good. Very good.