Wheel clamping on private land (and towing away) is to be banned by the coalition government. We had a commitment to tackle rogue wheel clampers in the coalition agreement – and now we are able to take this forward.
It falls in my portfolio at the Home Office. Immobilisation has always had a track record of grief and misery. There cannot be an MP in the land who has not had constituents come to them who have been clamped ‘unfairly’. The complaints that have come in to the Home Office are tales of exorbitant fees, abusive behaviour, signage being invisible and so on.
In a recent adjournment debate I recall that examples were given of a disabled motorist being frog marched to a cash point in the middle of a freezing night to get cash to pay the release fee.
Of course, landowners have a right to stop people parking on their land – but no longer by clamping. In Scotland – where clamping was banned nearly twenty years ago (very successfully) landowners either protect their land by barrier methods or introduce ticketing.
Over time, everyone has tried to make this system work – but it just hasn’t. Individuals have had to be licensed – but that hasn’t stopped sharp practise. The latest thinking (before the ban) was to introduce an independent appeals authority – so that aggrieved motorist could appeal the fee etc. But that would cost £2million to set up and thereafter have to be funded by the public through the fees and just perpetuating a flawed system.
Cars that are parked dangerously on private land – for example – blocking the entrance to a hospital or such like will be towed by the police. However, the police powers are for exceptional circumstances only.
This does need legislation and so it will be brought in as part of the Freedom Bill in November hopefully – and then come into force as soon after the passage of the Bill as possible.
Lynne Featherstone 
A perfect example of a political figure grabing a headline idea to get in the media without a clue of the impact it will have. I have never had a single issue with clampers, neither has anyone in my immediate family. Our secret? We don’t assume we can park anywhere we want – we look for real car parks! The rouge clamping companies are a disgrace and should be fined out of existence, but to ban all clamping will just make matters worse for those who have private parking where parking is limited.
Please add me to the list of people “Strongly in support of clampers” – they are a REQUIRED deterrent and should be regulated properly. Please regulate them properly!
This is beyond parody. it took the last Tory Govt several years to work up to the banality of the cones hotline. This govt gets to a similar stage in a mere 100 days. Meanwhile nurses and teachers are losing their jobs. Legal aid is about to be decimated. Silence from our MP on the issues that matter.
I’m betting Lynne Featherstone will ignore all the genuine difficulties and cases of hardship reported in these comments and press ahead with the bill without any attempt to solve people’s problems.
Pingback: Ian Shires » Blog Archive » Goodbye to rogue wheel clampers – another Lib Dem policy to become law
Lynne, how come, given all of the comments already registered against this blog item, that the ban works in Scotland?
It should be noted that ticketing on private land is next to near impossible to enforce and in most cases you will need planning permission to erect barriers or gates to prevent cars from entering your property. With regards to the comments about this short sighted law bringing us in line with Scotland, I am not sure I can see the logic in this. Why do we need to be brought in line with Scotland?
MP’s should do their jobs and introduce tough regulations on the clampers, we can all agree they are the problem. Of course any regulation would have to include enforcement of those regulations. They should not prevent land owners from the right to protect their property, as long as the land is properly sign posted there should be no issues. This country is developing a reputation for penalising those who have done well in life and all in the name of fairness.
I know a disabled old lady who has been fleeced by unscrupulous money-lenders who don’t make their charges clear, and set ridiculous rates of interest.
When is the Coalition going to ban all banks?
Thanks everyone for comments – some very informative and helpful – others somewhat less so. I would suggest that everyone who wants their views taken into consideration by the government to help inform the legislation as it is prepared – repeat their comments as above – but written to me (can be by email or post) at the Home Office.
Whilst I read the views posted here when I can obviously – officials need to have this sort of information (the sensible stuff) directly.
It is important to protect landowners rights – albeit the government does not believe that clamping is the right response. On a personal note – I just think that for a parking offence – clamping is not a proportionate response to the ‘crime’. To be clamped and fined life-changing amounts of money for a parking offence is over the top. However, parking has always been an emotive subject – but as this has worked in Scotland where landowners protect their land with barriers or use ticketing – there clearly is a sensible way forward.
1. Then why have a blog that has comments if you ask us to repeat the comments to a different destination?
2. It is well documented why parking tickets on private land do not work. A simple google of ‘pay parking ticket private land’ will reveal all the loopholes.
3. “The government does not believe that clamping is the right response”. The government and you as an elected representative does not appear to be listening, or want to listen. I would love to be proven wrong in this assumption.
“life changing amounts” is pushing it a bit Lynne. I don’t know if you own a car, but if a clamp release fee is a life-changing amount, then so is a couple of tanks of petrol. Anybody who can afford to run a car in 2010 can afford a clamp release fee.
On the other hand, you are right about clamping tending to be a disproportionate response to a parking offence. But then so is an £80 parking ticket for being one minute late back to a parked car, or for stopping for five minutes in a roadside residents bay while you drop your kids off at nursery.
Lynne, can you advise please WHY you decided to announce this WOULD BECOME legislation with NO CONSULTATION of the people most likely to be affected?
I deal with 1,000’s of leaseholders who would be physically and financially affected by this ban and your comments on TV that we can just erect barriers and ticket people is wrong on a number of counts for the following reasons.
1. In order to erect a barrier, you will need planning consent from the local authorities, this is NOT GRANTED on most residential developments because of the likelihood of the barrier causing an obstruction to the highway as vehicles will have to stop in the road and wait for it to open etc.
2. Even if the Leaseholders on a development can get planning permission, these barriers to be effective need to be electronic, the cheapest quote we could get on one development was £10K as the car park needs to be dug up to get power to the gate and to bury the motors into the ground – where are 12 leaseholders supposed to find £10K???
3. Putting tickets on a car on Private Land is NOT COVERED by any current legislation, it is effectively giving someone an invoice for parking. It is nigh impossible to get into County Court on such matters or to win your case as Magistrates regretably seem to class leaseholders of private developments as Mega Rich Land Owners who shouldn’t mind people parking on their land.
4. There is plenty of current legislation on the statute books to deal with ROGUE Clampers and I and my clients LOOK to the Government in such matters to take action against such Companies. The Current Legislation of Registration can simply be extended to Register the COMPANIES that undertake clamping and the contractors I use would WELCOME this. The sub-contractors they use for the clamping also welcome changes to the present system as it will HIGHLIGHT who is legit and abiding by the laid down Code of Conduct and those outside of the law. Furthermore, the system be brought into line with the powers of the Local Authorities, so if someone appeals against a clamp and their representations are not upheld by the Company, they can take it to Arbitration in the same way.
I could write a book on this subject and find 100 reasons why controlled and licenced clamping is a benefit to the ‘BIG SOCIETY’ and not a burden. If this Coalition wants people to be involved in their Communities and wants Government to STOP DICTATING to us how we live our lives, then this is one part of COMMUNITY ACTION that should be decided by the people that OWN THEIR LAND and not Goverment.
I will be writing a report on this matter to your offices, my MP and the Home Office and I will include details of the issues that exist in Scotland whereby it DOES NOT WORK and Property Owners in Scotland are left with huge legal bills in dealing with illegal parking on their property.
And can you please stop using the term ‘Land Owners’ because the 100’s of 1,000’s of people that live in Blocks of Flats that will be most affected by the change in the law are NOT land owners, they are often young, financially poor single people or couples that have struggled onto the property ladder to buy their first home – and in ENGLAND ‘Their Home is their Castle’ and the LAW permits them to use REASONABLE force/deterrents to protect their property and this change in law will destroy that basic principle.
I totally agree with the comments above by DR SIMM. Really well said!
Dr Simm. The decision came off the back of a consultation.
I wonder if you could clarify one point to me, however, both the Dr Simm comments and the Demon comments have the same provenance. Demon’s views are that anyone who parks on his/her drive should be shot. I hope that Dr Simm and Demon are not the same person – can you clarify?
Kemlyn – I agree with you. When I was Chair of Transport on the London Assembly for five years I carried out an investigation in public into parking enforcement in London. I can’t go into the whole thing here – but to me there is a world of difference from someone being a minute or two late back to their meter – as opposed to parking on yellow lines etc. I conducted that investigation because, just like now with the clamping, there was an overwhelming sense that good guys were being treated like criminals. I totally support parking regulations, etc but have always believed that if we want people to comply – they have to fair. They have to be about safety and traffic flow – and not about revenue raising.
“Demon’s views are that anyone who parks on his/her drive should be shot”
Lynne – If I leave my car on your driveway for a week, what would your reaction be and how would you remedy this?
We’re singing from the same hymn sheet then Lynne. Perhaps a “liberalisation” of all parking rules can be arranged? Increased penalties for parking on yellow lines, causing an obstruction etc, but more leeway for short stops in empty residents bays or over-staying by the odd minute on a meter. Would be a big vote-winner in some parts of North London….
My concern is headline-grabbing, crowd-pleasing sweeping legislation when a more balanced approach is called for. In the case of private clamping – why hasn’t it been possible to regulate it? Surely as a final deterrent it has some merit, with a simple framework calling for a maximum fine of say £200, and a minimum release time of say 60 minutes after being called? I don’t see why that would be so difficult to implement. And a licensing system surely pays for itself in revenue?
Lynne – you say that this type of legislation has been successful in Scotland, may I ask what data set you are basing the success of the legislation in Scotland on?
Can you clarify that ticketing will be enforceable and what percentage of private parking tickets are appealed successfully or paid in full for that matter?
A final point is can you tell people what they should do if it is determined that ticketing is not enforceable and they cannot get planning approval to install gates/barriers?
Lynne we sit on a shared Internet Access and one of my colleagues in the office made the comment, however this is a point you and the Government need to take account of….
People take the INVASION of their property very seriously, to the person that made the comment, they see someone parking on their drive as no better than a burglar sitting in their lounge when they come home from work and to an extent I can understand their point of view…. over many years I have seen disputes over parking result in Assaults against the Person and Criminal Damage against property. In the worse case, a knife was used on the cars tyres and then the driver was threatened with having their throat cut…!!! This is the type of incident that will ‘flourish’ should people not be able to protect their property in a fair and reasonable manner.
In addition in response to your comment to KEMLYN, let me quote you from a letter dated 13 August 2010 from the Dept of Transport at Marsham Street.
“I should clarity that the level of penalty charges in London are set by the Mayor of London with approval from the Secretary of State. They are set at a level that will achieve a high level of compliance with parking controls and accepted and understood by the motorists. The charges are determined on the basis that the LOWER the level of the penalty charge, the less effective it is likely to be in securing compliance”
On that basis, having to pay up to £150 to have a clamp removed is even MORE EFFECTIVE in securing compliance as evidence on our developments has proven.
The letter continues;
“Differential charges were introduced in London in July 2007 and outside London on 31 March 2008 as a means of introducing a fairer system of penalty charging” (Fairer to whom? The Local Authorities?) The Secretary of State and the Mayor of London agreed that the authorities in England must set two levels of charges for parking contraventions in accordance with SI 2007 No. 3487. The higher level of charges apply to the more serious contraventions such as parking places where it is always prohibited (eg; Red Routes, Double Yellow Lines) and the lower level of charge to the less serious contraventions such as overstaying where parking is permitted (eg; in a place space)”
Now, in theory it seems fair but when you are held up and get back to your car and you have missed your time by 5 mins and find a ticket for £80-£100 not only is it daylight robbery, it is an insult to every person that pays Road Fund Licence to be on the Road in a addition to the Tax Levy on Petrol, plus the VAT that you then have to pay on that levy and the petrol. (this is illegal under European Legislation as you are NOT permitted to chage VAT on a Tax) and the VAT should only be charged on the goods which is the Petrol.
But let us get back to private car parks at blocks of flats.. these illegally parked vehicles often park in a manner that creates an obstruction of a Fire Exit or Fire Exit Route, which under the Regulatory Reforms (Fire Safety) Act 2005 it is MY LEGAL DUTY OF CARE to remove that obstruction so that the Leaseholder have unobstructed access to leave the premises and that the Emergency Services have unhindred access… so what law will take priority in such matters or did no one think about these issues?
Currently Leasehold Legislation is a mess, it is covered by The Law of Property Act 1981, the Housing Act, the CLRA 2002, Civil Tort and a host of other legislation such as the Land Registration Act 2002, the Health & Safety at Work Act etc etc… this is just another piece of Legislation that will create misery for leaseholders, create financial problems for their RTM Companies, Residents Associations Etc.
If the local authorities have a right to tow away my vehicle on Public Roads that I have PAID TO BE ON, then it should be my right to Tow Away Vehicles parked illegally on my property or my clients property that they have NOT paid to park on or to enforce a sensible, managed, and legally structered deterent such as clamping.
I am a former Conservative Chairman of an Association, Phillip Hammond is known to me as is Mrs Bray, I have held fund raising events for the former Home Secretary Mr. Howard and had dinner with Michael Portillo and Mrs. Thatcher…. I am not some raving lunatic, but on a matter that will cause misery for my clients, I will stand by them to the bitter end on this issue, you have no idea of the problems it will cause, it is simply a charter for the selfish, ignorant people that do not want to pay to park in a car park and will find somewhere else to park for free regardless.
Dr Simm,
You are so well informed and accurate with what you say.
Please keep up the good work for all of us innocent ‘land owners’.
Many many thanks
Thank you for clarification Dr Simm. I do suggest seriously that you send in all of your comments. Legislation is better for good information from those parties who have experience.
Lee H – If someone parked in the single off street parking space that I have – like anyone I would be very cross. I would first put a note on the windscreen asking them not to do it again. THereafter – if others did same – I would put up a collapsible post and protect my space if I had to. IF I don’t want people coming into my house – I lock the door and put in burglar prevention. If I don’t want people parking in that space – ultimately I would have to protect it. But I wouldn’t do it for the very occasional inconveniences that do occur. So – I guess it would depend on the level of abuse.
Lynne I will be preparing a full and detailed report to send in on this matter, meanwhile, can you please treat this as a Freedom of Information Request.
1. How many people have reported incidents of ‘rogue’ clamping to any authority in the past 2 years that have resulted in monies being refunded or the clampers prosecuted in England?
2. How much money is owed to your local authority in unpaid parking charges?
3. How much money is owed to Councils in the UK in unpaid Parking Charges?
Thank you.
Dr Simm is right and it’s not just leaseholders. It applies to many hundreds of social housing tenants who are in converted street properties with only a few parking spaces. Small housing associations simply do not have the budget to put in a barrier to safeguard the parking rights of the 4 tenanted properties which means discriminating against some of the poorest people in the country.
“Thanks everyone for comments – some very informative and helpful – others somewhat less so. I would suggest that everyone who wants their views taken into consideration by the government to help inform the legislation as it is prepared – repeat their comments as above – but written to me (can be by email or post) at the Home Office.”
CAN YOU PLEASE CONFIRM THE FULL ADDRESS & EMAIL DETAILS TO CONTACT YOU AT THE HOME OFFICE TO FORWARD OUR COMMENTS
Lynne, I notice you have deleted my comment about taking on private bailiff firms next; who just like private clampers charge “life changing amounts” or put anyway disproportionate fees. I assume the Government is happy with their rogue antics?
Lynne, I notice you have deleted my comment about taking on private bailiff firms next; who just like private clampers charge “life changing amounts” or put another way, disproportionate fees. I assume the Government is happy with their rogue antics?
Hi Lynne,
I live on a private development and we are having huge problems with a handful of residents at the moment who are not abiding by the terms of their lease in regards to parking.
Our lease stipulates that we are not allowed to park commercial vehicles in the car park but several residents are ignoring this. We have tried to place notes on their vehicles (including stickers on their windscreens), have sent letters with the section of the lease highlighted and all to no use.
The commercial vehicles are massively over-sized for our small car park, are causing access issues for other residents and make our development look untidy which will no doubt have a knock on effect on our property prices.
We were in the process of looking into clamping companies but this now seems pointless,
You suggest solutions such as barriers but cost issues aside, this would not work in our situation as the owners of the vehicles would have access to the barriers,
As such, how would you suggest we proceed?
Dr Simm – no – I cannot treat a blog comment as a freedom of information request. A freedom of information request has to be properly written and sent to Home Office with your postal address, name etc.
Please send all written requests, comments etc to: Lynne Featherstone, Wheel Clamping c/o Home Office. 2 Marsham Street, Loodn SW1P 4DF
L Hutton – if it is a matter of residents breaking their lease – then that is a private legal matter to be resolved through whatever the consequence of breaking their lease is.
David L George – I haven’t deleted anything whatsoever. Check whether it is in earlier comments. As comments increase – the early ones are not automatically displayed. Apologies accepted.
Helena – every situation will be different. Presumably such spaces would be defined and could be ticketed if they are privately owned – albeit in the form you describe. In Scotland there was a switch from clamping to ticketing.
Most social housing is public land and local authorities police parking in these circumstances. Wheel clamping is meant to be a last resort (even on public land) and local authorities will still be able to clamp and tow.
OK – will not be back at the blog any more today.
@ L Hutton, if you call me on 0844 576 3237 I can advise you on how to enforce this.
I know you will not be back today Lynne but in relation to the last comment about clamping being a last resort I advise as follows.
Disabled Driver goes to visit friend in East Ham, parks in what appears to be off-street parking at the side of the road, no notices, no signs etc. Car gets vandalised and therefore cannot be moved. Mechanic advises parts have to be ordered, owner cannot afford fees of £130 to tow the car back to Romford so leaves the car where it is until Mechanic can get parts.
Local Authority towed the car away, never contacted the owner, after three weeks in storage, tax ran out, owner had submitted a SORN, local council destroys car….
There is clearly no standardisation within England about how Authorities Act, a Disabled Person with limited income had their car destroyed, has no money to replace it and so is now stuck indoors all day… all thanks to our wonderful, caring community called the London Borough of Newham……!!!!
“On a personal note – I just think that for a parking offence – clamping is not a proportionate response to the ‘crime’.”
If you genuinely believe that, Lynne, then logically clamping should be banned on public land as well as private land. If not, what is your justification for treating the two differently?
I live in a large private development in London SE1-with a large number of parking spaces allocated to flat owners. Entry is through electronic gates and each owner has a ‘blipper’ to open the gates-so secure in theory. But we do have a regular amount of ‘rogue’ parking and abandoned cars. At present we can deal with this through DVLA enquiries and pursue the registered keepers and tow the cars away if they do not respond and the car appears to be abandoned. However as I understand the proposals this remedy will disappear and I fear the problem will get worse if drivers feel there is no come back if they park on someone else’s land. We have residents who cannot use the parking space they have purchased because someone has abandoned a car in it. What will they do?
Press Statement from The VIA:
A statement from the Vehicle Immobilisers Association (VIA), a newly established Trade Association for Vehicle Immobilisers
A new trade association for the Vehicle Immobilising industry was established by a meeting of representatives of 26 companies on April 20, 2010. The companies present represented all areas of England and Wales. Representatives from all five of the companies, including two of the largest in the sector, were elected to form an executive committee to be responsible for establishing the Association. Michael Charman, who has been operating a parking control and clamping service in London and the South East for nearly 20 years, was elected as Chairman.
The Executive has written its Constitution which has been issued to all interested companies in the sector. They are in the process of completing the Vehicle Immobilisers Compliance Scheme, which gives a detailed and precise code of practise.
Michael Charman said –
“For the past 3 years the SIA have been organising 2 or 3 meetings a year which have acted as forums for the VI Sector. Although they were well attended, there seemed to be a lack of desire to take things any further. At the last meeting on March 16, there was a distinct change in attitude, probably as a result of being informed of the impending business licensing legislation. It was proposed that we should form our own association to properly represent the industry and help in the task of changing the image of the industry. I was invited to head the new association and a date was set for the first meeting a month later.
The meeting on April 20 was so well attended that we had to arrange for additional seating. Those present felt that although the Government and the BPA had tried to regulate the industry, it was not working as neither seemed to fully understand parking control on private land. It was agreed that the time had come to sort out the “rogue” elements by forming an association with a compliance scheme that would include a code of practise that would hopefully form part of the requirements for the intended business licensing. If any company was found to be in breach of the code, not only would they be required to leave the Association, but they would also forfeit their license to operate. The proposed code would be made available to the SIA, DVLA, BPA, RAC, AA and landowners for comment before it was finalised.
The announcement by Ms Featherstone has come as complete surprise. It would seem that one person has decided to make a decision in an attempt to commit the Government to a very controversial course of action, without consultation with private land owners or local councils. She has obviously not given any real thought to the mayhem such a ban would cause to housing estates, industrial estates, doctors surgeries and other areas of private land where the clamping of vehicles parked by people who have no consideration for the rights of the landowner has been a very necessary service for thousands of residents and tenants.
Everyone is in agreement that the current control of clamping and removal of vehicles on private land is inadequate, but the majority of companies have good working practices and are not “cowboys”. The fact that some companies have been charging such large amounts of money is because they could. Yes, it is immoral, but is that not indicative of society as a whole? People should also be reminded that the clamping companies have to pay 17.5% VAT on any revenue they receive.
The Association will continue to work to achieve its objectives. We are advising our members and landowners to lobby their MP’s to try and ensure that this proposal is not made statute or, at the very least, not before proper consultation is made with the people it will affect most, the private landowner, residents and the companies who carry out a genuine service for these people.”
Michael Charman can be contacted by email or through his company on 020 8331 0932
I think this is very good news indeed. A few years back, my estate (which is run by a management company), introduced a ‘permit to park’ policy; anyone without a valid permit had their car removed and sent to a pound in Enfield. Our car taken on two occassions, despite having a clearly displayed permit. There was no right to appeal and we hade to pay out, in total, £600. The people they employed were thugs. Thank goodness somebody is doing something in government to stop these companies.
Lynne,
I ran a large clamping company for many years and fought hard to improve the image of the industry, I tried unsuccesfully to recomend to anyone who would listen that the SIA was not the answer the industry needed its own regulatory body. Banning clamping will lead to residents facing violent confrontations and I have no doubt that we will see a parking dispute murder.
There is an answer, I have produced a document showing the soloutions which I presented to the home office as part of its consultation on clamping sadly once again this has fallen on deaf ears, I am no longer in the industry but I ask you to reconsider a blanket ban is not the answer.
@Justin If you employed a Management Company you have the right to appeal to them and the clamping Company.
I run such a Management Company and we looked at and tried various solutions over the years, the only one that worked effectively was Clamping. Before putting anything in place, we researched the Companies Offering the Service and went with a Company that had clear and precise Terms of Contract and an Appeals Procedure and used by three local authorities to remove abandoned vehicles and a major retailer to protect their customer parking sites.
It is a shame you have fallen victim to a Rogue Company permitted by your management company – whom you employ!
Lynne you are quoting as saying: “Reports of motorists being marched to cash points or left stranded after their car has been towed are simply unacceptable,”.
This is what private bailiff firms do! Are you going to sort them out too?
If you think ticketing is an “adequate punishment” for a parking offense, will you be stopping bailiffs and councils from clamping vehicles for unpaid PCNs?
Hi Lynne
I am currently preparing a tender document to send out to prospective companies to be our preferred estate parking enforcement company but the recent developments have stopped me in my tracks. In order that I may move on or alter the documents please can you answer the following questions and concerns
1 Is Council Housing estate land classed as private land or will our local authority still be able to clamp vehicles under new legislation? If we can still clamp please disregard rest of post thanks.
2 If a car is given a penaly notice instead of being clamped and eventually towed away, won’t this take up valuable parking space for our residents?
3 A clamp release fee has to be paid, a penalty notice can be ripped off the screen and not paid. More cases will end up before the courts therefore passing on costs to our parking contractors and ultimately the councils.
4 In my experience all local authorities use well vetted, competed and professional wheel clampers to keep our housing estates clear of offending, abandoned and dangerous vehicles. The problem it seems in the industry is for rogue clampers who operate in private car parks, why should these few cause problems for the rest of us. Why not introduce legislation where there is a maximum release fee and a notice period before vehicles can be removed instead of using the proverbial huge mallet to crack the nut?
Thanks for your time in reading this and look forward to your guidance.
Banning clamping on private land would be a disaster. We manage commercial and residential estates near town centres and clamping is the only means of control otherwise we would be overrun. It is not practical to put up barriers and issue access cards to all residents – how do you deal with visitors and deliveries. Does the ban on clamping mean that anyone can park in your private drive? The suggestion of issuing tickets shows a complete lack of understanding of everyday life and the inadequacies of the legal system to enforce them. The bad clamping firms need to be got rid of but otherwise leave things as they are. Which ivory tower do these politicians live in because I’m going to use their drive and see what they say?
We have 90 car spaces for 150 residents in an extremely expensive set of apartments. Most people respect each others parking space but that was only after clamping was started and enforced. People will take any opportunity to not be responsible. Please do a consultation on more effective ways but all people should have a right to protect their property[ which includes their parking space]. I guess you will waste a huge amount of time on a blanket ban whereas any sensible person[s] would just try to find a happy medium. Why should the onus be on private land owners to erect barriers and spend their own money. You cannot compare it to a door at a house. Hopelessly dissapointed
For the first time a straight talking minister.
Dear Lynne,
I saw two ‘clampers’ manhandle a pregnent lady to a cash point. They also call out the Police who have better things to do. These people opperate in Winchcombe Street in Cheltenham. Martin Horwood and his staff are well aware of what these people are doing. One of them even has fake SIA ID. As shown here on Pistonheads.com
http://www.pistonheads.com/xforums/topic.asp?h=0&f=10&t=866253&mid=207235&i=0&nmt=Wheel%20Clamper%20caught%20on%20camera!&mid=207235
regards
David Smith
Yet again, another example of a decision being made without the implecations being properly considered.
I have run a parking enforcement company for 18 years, never once have I been in court, never once have I had the name of my company in a newspaper. The release fee charged is less than a council parking ticket WITHIN the 14 day period, not everyone is ripping off the public.
Don’t DARE tarnish all companys with the same brush. Regulation is the way forward, not elimination of the service we provide to our customers.
By eliminating vehicle immobilisation and towing you are removing one of the most effective ways in which landlords can manage their own property.
Barriers aside from being costly, are not possible on all sites whether it be that they impede the flow of traffic on the public highway, or that the design of the property simply doesn’t allow for them.
I work on a number of large university campuses, and having broken the news that we will have to withdraw our services should the ban come into force. They are extremely alarmed. The costs for barriers and cards will run into tens of thousands of pounds. At this time of limited budgets, this is just not feasible. On one site alone, 6500 people are eligable for a parking permit.
The reason we were asked to provide the service we do, was to act as a deterrent to the people who insisted on parking whereever they feel like, such as fire access routes, and disabled parking spaces along with all manner of other places outside of the designated car parks on site. Without the parking enforcement available to them, the university will see a return to the previous issues. Indeed it was a threat of an improvement notice from a chief fire officer, that prompted them to get in touch.
Ticketing, is frankly a waste of time and pretty much unenforcable. So to say that that is an option, shows how little proper thought has gone into this decision. What happens now? Everytime someone parks incorrectly, the university phone the council, or the police to remove it? Really?
Where I do agree is that the fees charged by some companies, is out of all proportion to the offence. However, the legislation to regulate the private clamping companys is already is place, as was being discussed at the SIA VI network meeting I was present at. What happened to those proposals? It strikes me, that you couldn’t decide on a coherent system, so decided to go this route instead.
What I find really offensive, is that I have run a perfect LEGAL, sensible operation for 18 years, and yet find myself in the position of having to close up without recompence.
And I’m ashamed to say, that I voted your party in as I thought it would make a change from the micromanagement of people, as demonstrated by the last lot in power.
I can safely say, I will NEVER, EVER, vote for either CONDEMS again. Powermad, the lot of you.
Unbelievable.
Lynne, it is clear from reading the comments above that the clamping industry are making a determined attempt to pretend that there is a need for clamping to continue. Do not be fooled. It is merely greed and self interest on their part. For years they have menaced and extorted on all sides while hiding behind a veneer of parking enforcement. But it is only a veneer. How can clamping resolve a parking management problem when it actually immobilises the vehicle which is supposed to be causing the problem? Rather it is an issue artificially generated by the clamping interest to justify borderline criminal behaviour and the extraction of large amounts of money on spurious grounds. This behaviour runs right through the industry from top to bottom, despite what the pro-clamping spokespeople on here would have you believe. So please do remember that many of the comments on here from the pro-clamping plants are not representative of public opinion. Your courageous and principled decision to end the scourge of clamping is warmly welcomed by the vast majority of people who hope that your will to end this racket will not waver.
I think its been a long time coming, the clamping industry has been given the chance to clean up their act, they have been told time and again its not acceptable to clamp people like nurses doing their job in said housing association car parks.
These companies are now complaining and whining that they are being forced out of business, well they deserve to go out of business, its illegal for private companies to issue penalties on people, the clamp release fee and all the other inflated fees around clamoing is a penalty!
Clamping is been banned in Scotland for 20 years, they seem to cope very well up there with parking, clamping is a problem looking for a solution, the solution for a vast majority of car parks is to have a barrier, a landowner needs now to protect their car park if abuse happens there, they have done the cheap option of having licensed thugs to extort money out of people.
Posts to protect your parking spot can be bought for about £50, manual barriers to protect a car park for about £500, auto barriers for about £1200, now there are options for all people there!
The end of cowboy clampers is nigh , YAY!
Scotland has much generally less pressure on parking. Most of England’s urban areas are heavily controlled and on street parking is often impossible or very expensive. Barriers are often removed / damaged where people think they can get away with it. Rogue parkers and rogue clampers both need to be brought under control. Abolishing clamping will lead to more rogue parking- and worse.Touch wood I have never been clamped – but then as far as I know I have never parked on someone else’s land without their consent, signs or no signs.
I disagree with you, places like Glasgow or Edinburgh are as urbanised as other cities in England or Wales, really they have found solutions to parking rogues, the exact same principle can be used in other parts of Britain.
As for damaged damaged barriers and posts, there is recourse available through courts for criminal damage, abolishing clamping is a good thing for motorists because a vast majority of the clamping companies are abusing their rights to clamp, they lie in wait waiting for the unexpected to attempt to turn around in a car park with no signs and block the exit, then demand £hundreds to release the clamp, they are a blight, and offer nothing but grief and quite possibly hardship by demanding money with menaces.
Is it any wonder that some clampers are serving time for doing the above?
Taffy may be right – my memory of Glasgow and Edinburgh is that there is less parking pressure in the areas next to the main urban centres. This just shows the need for research into where and why the problems arise and developing tools that address those problems. This blog shows that this is a topic with a lot of strong feelings – both ways – and a lot of complex social and legal issues, so it’s not a matter to be resolved by simple unresearched announcements. Recourse to the courts depends on evidence of a very high standard – this is criminal not civil law.