Parking on private land from October 2012 legislation

[ims21]

Two posts unapproved....Let's keep it civil please

[Old Snowy]

Hi Old Snowy

The reason the DVLA will continue to give information to the owner of land is they are not a PPC, and if the landowner were refused access to that informtion, the DVLA would no only be depriving the landowner from being able to have a remedy against interference of their land, the DVLA are edgy about litigation from powerful landowners who want to retain control over their land.

I'm sorry but where did I suggest that the DVLA would not supply information to the landowner?

 

Another interesting subject i wanted to discuss with you again is the issue of damage. Let me ask you your thoughts about this sinaro, if the landowner paid the PCC For their actions carried out against the trespasser, and the contract between the PCC and the landowner was clear the landowner would suffer a loss under this contract, if is was not a sham and the paper trail was clear, would this not be genuine quantifiable damage which could be recovered at Court ?.

Despite the fact that you have posed this question as "another interesting subject" it is in fact just a rehash of the same question you have put in various formats before and I refer you to the replies I gave before.

[Spec1]

Old Snowy

 

Ok it might be the same question in a round about way, however previously there was a slightly different slarnt on it if you remember, what is the answer ?. I think the Court will not be able to give the trespasser a layer of protection from a claim, if the damage to the landowner is real and quantifiable. This will also put a spanner in the works for all the soap box heros who think that damage for trespass is only nominal, shame, who needs to protect land by unenforciable penalty based contracts, issuing pointless (penalty) sorry parking charge notices, when tort is on your side hey.

 

I know you were not infering the DVLA would not supply the details to a landowner, I just wanted to bring up the issue of reasonable cause, which if the PPC is paid for the issue of notices or services to the landowner, it would not be the PPC making the enquiry for the loss, it would be the landowner for their damage via a civil claim against the trespasser. it will be very interesting to see if the DVLA and Courts will be able to stop landowners from protecting their land, I very much doubt it. By the way did you find out if Andy ever paid his charge, I think he must of when I visited Felixstowe last week to deliver a load I am sure I saw one of his trucks on the estate, he obviously did not take the advise and ignore ignore ignore.

[Spec1]

On the question of what is a genuine "pre-estimate of loss" , this was received by a poster on another forum:-

 

"The OFT expressed the view to the BPA that when claiming liquidated damages, they must meet the requirement of being a genuine pre-estimate of loss. If back office functions are claimed, these must be directly caused by the breaches of contract. The OFT's view was that, if you have an office anyway and have to pay rent, rates, insurance, etc. this cannot be attributed to the breach and claimed as costs, as these are costs of running a parking management company. To be recoverable, all costs, whether in contract or tort, must be caused by the breach."

 

So in reality most PPCs would be stuffed as there wouldn't be enough money from "parking charge notices" to make a profit, especially as they usually offer their services for free to the landowner.

The answer is charge the landowner for the services and issue of the notices, this would create a damage to the landowner this would stuff the trespasser as they would have no alternative other than to pay the charge and place the landowners in the same position before the tort occurred, simple rearly.

[afcwben]

The answer is charge the landowner for the services and issue of the notices, this would create a damage to the landowner this would stuff the trespasser as they would have no alternative other than to pay the charge and place the landowners in the same position before the tort occurred, simple rearly.

So it would be the land owner who has a cost to recover? I think trying to demonstrate real losses against contrived losses or going to be very difficult and expensive to orive

[Spec1]

Two posts unapproved....Let's keep it civil please

 

Sorry

[Spec1]

So it would be the land owner who has a cost to recover? I think trying to demonstrate real losses against contrived losses or going to be very difficult and expensive to orive

 

The loss would not be contrived, if the landowner was invoiced for the service, it is a real loss, not a sham, if the landowner takes his responsibilities for his land seriously, they would be prepared to protect against the trespass and a simple claim for trespass, would be a nessessary slight inconvenience, for serious people.

[laynaxxx]

Thank you sillywizard for understanding my problem

[Surfer01]

The answer is charge the landowner for the services and issue of the notices, this would create a damage to the landowner this would stuff the trespasser as they would have no alternative other than to pay the charge and place the landowners in the same position before the tort occurred, simple rearly.

One slight problem is that the PPC is basically an "employee" of the landowner. Any landowner who agrees to any of the above would have brains the size of a pimple!

[greasmonkey]

So you charge the landowner for your service and no one parkes there

you have done your job but the landowner would be out of pocket

you wont make a living out of that unless you are overcharging the landowner

[diskmandave]

I have a question....

Would "blocking in" and seeking a release fee constitute immobilisation without lawful authority ?

 

Doesn't seem to have been discussed anywhere..

Edited October 11, 2012 by diskmandave

[Michael Browne]

Offence of immobilising etc. vehicles

 

(1)A person commits an offence who, without lawful authority—

 

(a)immobilises a motor vehicle by the attachment to the vehicle, or a part of it, of an immobilising device, or

 

(b)moves, or restricts the movement of, such a vehicle by any means,

 

intending to prevent or inhibit the removal of the vehicle by a person otherwise entitled to remove it.

[Michael Browne]

***

[Spec1]

Offence of immobilising etc. vehicles

 

(1)A person commits an offence who, without lawful authority—

 

(a)immobilises a motor vehicle by the attachment to the vehicle, or a part of it, of an immobilising device, or

 

(b)moves, or restricts the movement of, such a vehicle by any means,

 

intending to prevent or inhibit the removal of the vehicle by a person otherwise entitled to remove it.

 

Removing a vehicle is still available using distress damage feasant. The vehicle should be causing damage, however as trespass is actionable without the need to prove damage, this option is still available to a landowner.

 

Distress damage feasant is a medieval remedy which as it is no longer available for use against animals, it can now only be open inanimate objects.

 

Although the remedy use is no longer a basis to clamp, it's use to stop damage is lawfull.

[Spec1]

I have a question....

Would "blocking in" and seeking a release fee constitute immobilisation without lawful authority ?

 

Doesn't seem to have been discussed anywhere..

Blocking in to demand a payment is unlawful, however blocking in and going on Holliday, would prove more difficult for the police to charge you with an offence, as if the land was in your possession, what would the charge be, it's ludercrious.

[diskmandave]

Offence of immobilising etc. vehicles

 

(1)A person commits an offence who, without lawful authority—

 

(a)immobilises a motor vehicle by the attachment to the vehicle, or a part of it, of an immobilising device, or

 

(b)moves, or restricts the movement of, such a vehicle by any means,

 

intending to prevent or inhibit the removal of the vehicle by a person otherwise entitled to remove it.

Thank you Michael, that's exactly the answer I was looking for.

[sameagle]

I notice that one of my local car parks, Madford Park, in Stafford, [serves "Wickes" and "Lidl", I think], now has a little man from Town and Country Parking wandering around, with his ticketing machine.

 

This car park used to have a "one man band" in there, a local firm.

 

It was quite laughable, I watched him clamp somebody once, a few years ago, then when the car owner rang up, the same chap appeared, to collect the cash, and unlock.

 

Then I heard him say, in an attempt to ingratiate himself, and divert blame, "Oh, he clamped you for just ten minutes did he? He doesn't usually, for such a short time"

 

Still, I suppose the change of ownership has given some poor soul a crack at the chance to get some minimum wage - and to get his head bashed in, perhaps, by the local yobbo's!

 

Sam

[diskmandave]

Doing a bit of reading.....

 

54 Offence of immobilising etc. vehicles(1)A person commits an offence who, without lawful authority—

(a)immobilises a motor vehicle by the attachment to the vehicle, or a part of it, of an immobilising device, or

(b)moves, or restricts the movement of, such a vehicle by any means,

intending to prevent or inhibit the removal of the vehicle by a person otherwise entitled to remove it.

(2)The express or implied consent (whether or not legally binding) of a person otherwise entitled to remove the vehicle to the immobilisation, movement or restriction concerned is not lawful authority for the purposes of subsection (1).

(3)But, where the restriction of the movement of the vehicle is by means of a fixed barrier and the barrier was present (whether or not lowered into place or otherwise restricting movement) when the vehicle was parked, any express or implied consent (whether or not legally binding) of the driver of the vehicle to the restriction is, for the purposes of subsection (1), lawful authority for the restriction.

(4)A person who is entitled to remove a vehicle cannot commit an offence under this section in relation to that vehicle.

(5)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a)on conviction on indictment, to a fine,

(b)on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.

(6)In this section “motor vehicle” means a mechanically propelled vehicle or a vehicle designed or adapted for towing by a mechanically propelled vehicle.

Am I right in thinking that what I've highlighted in red, means that illegal clamps

could be badly damaged/destroyed without any comeback whatsoever???

 

Also, if a vehicle was being prevented from being moved by a person/s standing

in front/behind of the vehicle subsection 4 removes any offence of assault or bodily

harm arising out of the 3rd party being struck or run over by the person entitled to

remove the vehicle..?

 

Seems harsh, but questions that need to be answered..

Edited October 20, 2012 by diskmandave

[Michael Browne]

 

Am I right in thinking that what I've highlighted in red, means that illegal clamps

could be badly damaged/destroyed without any comeback whatsoever???

Yes, but presumably with the minimum damage necessary to remove the clamp

 

Also, if a vehicle was being prevented from being moved by a person/s standing

in front/behind of the vehicle subsection 4 removes any offence of assault or bodily

harm arising out of the 3rd party being struck or run over by the person entitled to

remove the vehicle..?

 

No

[diskmandave]

54(4) could relate to the RK by simple definition Michael... If he/she cannot commit an offence...

It's wide open to mis-interpretation.. Because the RK/Owner/Driver is entitled to remove the vehicle..

The RK/Owner/Driver - Has Lawful Authority to remove their own vehicle..

 

If the DRIVER arrives at the vehicle to find a clamp being applied, 'he/she' can apparently as per Ss4

assault the clamper to prevent a clamp being applied, or remove the clamp causing damage to prevent such an action...??

 

Please explain why you believe this not to be the case...

[Michael Browne]

Please explain why you believe this not to be the case...

Err, common sense, possibly?

[dpick]

Could you not just call the police clamping is now against the law on private land is it not.

 

dpick

[Surfer01]

If a parking company obtain your details from the DVLA, do they have any right to retain or store those details as you have not given them permission to do so? Basically you have not committed a criminal offence and there is not a debt involved as it has not gone to court.

[Nev Met]

I've got some DVLA/BPA minutes somewhere where there is an actual requirement for them to retain the data for a set period of time. The question was raised because the DVLA required them to dispose of the data after x amount of time whereas the ICO was insisting that the data was retained for longer. The data has to be retained purely for auditing purposes and cannot be recycled for further private parking allegations. This means that each fresh allegation is a fresh request to the DVLA.

 

If you want me to try and dig the minutes out I can but it might take me a while. Failing that look up my public FOI requests to the DVLA on whatdotheyknow.com and they are probably under one of those.

[firstclassx]

Clamping on private land is not banned, just very heavily restricted. The DVLA, Railways, Ports etc all retain authority to clamp a vehicle when necessary.

 

It would be unwise to remove clamps unless you are 100% sure that it is illegally placed there. You could face criminal damage charges.

 

The best cause of action, is to contact the police non-emergency line (101), if you have some doubt as to the legality of the clamp.