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 
Dr Simm,
You say I hide behind an assumed name, but you are doing exactly the same thing, its my right to post under any name I want, there is no need to post my real name here, and even f I did it would make no difference.
As for asking for IP addresses from the website, you are sadly on to a hiding for nothing, IP addresses can be dynamic, and a persons IP address can change every time you reboot your router, also router’s can spoof IP addresses to do anything you want, my ip address is 127.0.0.1, now good luck with that, also I could use a proxy server in brazil for example to cover my true address, but my best wishes to you 😉
YAY clamping in private car parks is being outlawed 😉 and before you say no I have never been clamped in my life, I have respect for other people’s property, and pay to park when needed!
@Dr Simms – Thats exactly what is needed. The answers are very simple when you think about it and are easy to put in place and enforce. I’m assuming this will take the form of a report to Lynne featherstone? i’d be interested to follow it….
@ w taylor
The ban on tow away is wrong as well… sometimes if a car is parked in a space at a development, by clamping it the owner of the space cannot park anywhere, not much help, however by liaison with the police to first check its not a reported lost and stolen and advising them who is taking it away, they always advise it is our right to do so and then a report is created on their computer so that when the owner of the car calls the Police, usually because they assume its been stolen, they are given the information by the Police.
By operating in this way it means they clearly understand that they were in the wrong and that we acted in accordance with the law. Yes a tow away is a bit more expensive than clamping, but if people would ONLY READ the signs, it would not happen.
@Anne
I am sending the report when completed with evidence from Leaseholders etc to Lynne, to my own MP (Andrew Rosindale) and to the Dept of Transport.
Phillip Hammond who is the Minister for Transport used to visit my home during local elections as far back as 1994 and at the time I lived in a Flat, with controlled parking and he understood why he needed the visitors permit to stop him from being clamped when he called.
This particular site (in East Ham) is adjacent to a school and a garage, the garage told their clients to park in our car park when waiting for work and the parents and teachers also used our car park… no amount of letters, polite conversations etc changed the situation until the clamping and permit scheme was put in place – then it changed over night!
@joe public – dont worry about those questions, it is clear of your position after stumbling across your earlier post: …”Please also deal with the problem of bogus tickets issued by private parking companies. Many tickets are issued to mimic council tickets despite being virtually unenforcable, as part of an elaborate scam. Threats and intimidation are used to force motorists to pay up. This business will quickly become as out of control as clamping is now if onerous restrictions are not applied to the companies. Self regulation by the BPA is useless as the BPA is a trade association and has no inclination or interest to control their members..” you have no valid comment to make on this issue as you are clearly not open to discussion on the matter. I find this post by you rather ironic since you earlier stated that Lynne had given landowners other options, one of which you seem to not agree with either.
@ taffy
Dr Simm is my name, check the NUJ Registration 925903 or would you like a link for you to see a copy of my driving licence.
Sadly you are also uninformed about your IP Address and your identity, how do you think Paedophiles and Terrorists are caught, let me give you a brief lesson.
The IP address issued to your Broadband or Dial Up connection is from a DHCP Server owned by your service provider and it KNOWS which IP address was issued to which client each time you connect, so regardless of how many times you re-boot your server, you are wasting your own time.
Your IP address of 127.0.0.1 in the INTERNAL IP address of your computer, it is used for Loopback as is the rest of the 127 range, if you want to check this, go to the ‘RUN’ command in your start menu and type in CMD to open a DOS window and at the command prompt, type in IPCONFIG /ALL
It will give you your hostname (name of your computer):
Your primary DNS Suffix if being used:
Your Node Type:
Whether or not IP Routing is being used:
Wheter or not you are using WINS:
Your DNS Search List Name:
Then under the hardwire side of your computer it will list…
The type of connection hardware in use. (LAN OR WIRELESS):
The description of your hardware: (NIC)
The Physical Address: (Referred to as a MAC Address).
Whether DHCP is being used to communicate to your Router:
The IP Address your computer has:
The Subnet Mask your network is using:
The Default Gateway IP Address of your Router:
The IP Address of the DNS Server: In your case likely to be your Router.
Yes there is software that can in all sense and purpose mask your true IP Address, but with the worldwide legislation that is now in place, it is becoming harder and harder for IP Operators to hide information from the authorities that request it… and they can still track your movements from the Proxy Server to teh original source – your provider and they have to cough up your details on the production of a Court Order/Warrant.
Sorry, did I forget to mention that IT and secured IT Networks are my pet subject? I have worked in the IT arena long before a desktop was even considered, before Bill Gates came up with DOS and before Sir Tim Berners-Lee wrote his report in 1989 in reference to what we now call the Internet, but is really the World Wide Web, which sits on top of the Internet.
It is not banned yet and may not be banned….
@Phil, thank you for pointing out the info about companies house, I have sent them copies of the forms removing me from the register dated 2008 and they have said they will amend their records.
Regarding CCJs I was a non financial director and therfore was not privy to this knowledge as I have said if clamping is to continue with robust regualtion then that would include companies being transparent in all areas of their business in order for them to be granted a license under my proposals.
@Anne
Just because I disagree with you does not mean that I have no valid contribution to make. The point I made about private parking companies (PPC) ticketing being unenforceable is one admitted by the companies themselves, as is clear from earlier. I was merely urging Lynne to make sure that one type of unacceptable behaviour by parking companies was not exchanged for another. There are many examples all over the Internet of the bluff and bluster of PPC tickets and thousands are already ignoring them without any comeback.
The thought by the clamping sympathisers seems to be that the government owes landowners some kind of alternative to clamping. I do not accept this proposition. The position now is that a PPC operating on behalf of a landowner can take an “offending” driver to the county court but only a handful of cases have been taken and as I recall all lost by the PPC. If the PPC is able to demonstrate that it is acting validly in accordance with contract law it would take and win cases. The law is clear that one citizen cannot impose a disproportionate “penalty” on another, a concept most fair minded people would agree with.
It will ultimately be up to landowners to secure their land so that unauthorised parking is deterred. If they then choose not to do so any reasonable observer may conclude that the claimed parking problem is somewhat overhyped.
@ Joe Public. What would you do in the situation that I have outlined above? I look forward to your reasoned answer assuming you have one.
@ joe public. Yes you are right the pcn’s are only enforcable if the signage is clear and the ppc is able to identify the driver. There are several cases won by some ppc’s though i’m talking about only a handfull. It can be dubious as there are some ppc’s who issue a ticket just for dropping off etc, but what about private pay and display car parks???
I dont believe that the government ‘owes’ an alternative to clamping for the landowners, however since they have decided (rightly or wrongly) to withdraw one of the existing remedies that some landowners employed, surely if there are problems with the alternatives provided that the government should do something? They have effectivly limited what a person can do on their own property and if that is not itself in defiance of what the Freedom Bill stands for i dont know. The whole problem for the ban is that there are too many legitimate arguments for both sides, therefore the only solution is for compromise.
I’m just re-posting an earlier question that Lynne has not yet answered:
“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?
@Anne
Bravo Anne, compromise is the only way forward, everyone needs to realise that if a ban is overturned we would be looking at a totally new creature nothing like the current system but a system that only penalises those people that need to be penalised both companies and the public. The anti clamp brigade want clamping banned then so be it ban the current system and introduce a system that is fair to all.
It seems that whenever an answer is given something is wrong with it or it does not work. Lee H have you not said that your parking spaces are behind a barrier accessible only by a key fob. Why then would you have people parking in your space?
In most if not all cases there will be a solution to sort out the problem, whether it be a barrier, a chain or posts. Ticketing may deter some on the proviso that it will be difficult to follow through. One size will not fit all. People have become too accustomed to expecting someone else to sort out their issues for them. In this case landowners engaged clampers and turned a blind eye in many cases to the tales of horror that ensued. Now they will have to be more imaginative as to how they secure their land, as Scottish landowners did without any difficulty nearly two decades ago.
Oh and with regards to the ‘one citizen cannot impose another penalty on another’ line. This is not really relevant to private parking or contract law. If the land itself is clearly private property and there is sufficient signage which states that a pcn will be issued under whatever circumstances then yes the driver is rightly liable. It is the same principals that council roads and car parks work under. Just because it is a council car park say, does not mean that you have the right to do what you want on it without recourse. However the cases which are dealt with at county court can be subjective to the judges opinion and who basically presents the best case. There is very little/no precedent in private parking cases and the county court does not set a precedent!
You are right @joe public about people having to get used to sorting things out for themselves and looking at society today who knows how that may happen! But, on that note i would estimate that many people who after weeks/months/years of verbal and even physical abuse from people who continually park and sometimes block in vehicles took matters into their own hands and employed a clamping company thinking ‘well it serves you right’.Sometimes it really is the last resort. No one can argue that clamping is not an effective enforcement method..If you have been clamped, i bet you never parked there again lol
@ Joe Public. Please re-read my scenario. My parking spaces are behind a barrier. Local planning and TFL regulations mean that the barrier has to open automatically to allow vehicles into the area in which the spaces are located. Exit is only available with a keyfob. Signs are put up to this effect.
I would have people parking in this scenario either because they do not read the highly visible and well placed signs, do not care or do not respect the property and are prepared to force the gate mechanism to allow themselves to exit.
So, I look forward again to your considered answer in light of this.
I would be delighted to sort out my issues for myself. I am having a means of so-doing removed from me and you seem to advocate this. I would like a real answer to my situation from someone involved in this legislation or someone who is vocally anti-clamper. So far, no one can provide me with an answer and until they can, all I hear is noise and ill informed argument.
A recurring theme is that clamping release fees are disproportionate with the loss incurred by the landowner. I will present another scenario…
…if I lose the ability to park in my paid-for parking space, my alternative is to park on the street. I can search for a space in which to park at my inconvenience or I can park anywhere ignoring highway code parking restrictions, allowed parking times (I have no idea when someone will leave my space and why should someone else’s selfish actions impose a burden on me checking or moving my car to comply with public parking regulations?), residents bays, etc. If I disregard such regulations, I fully expect to be ticketed or clamped by the local authority. Is the penalty that I have received by contravening these public regulations not a proportionate one that I could justifiably impose **with enforcement** upon the person who has hijacked my space?
Please explain to me how and why the land that I have paid to use has any less value or rights of enforceability to public land that I am required to use in the event that someone else’s actions deprive me of the use of my land?
Both scenarios I have painted are real and I look forward to considered, reasoned and practical answers. Another answer is “You, Mr. Private Landowner, have less rights than the public sector in enjoying use of and enforcing deterrants upon the use of your land.” If that is the case, then I shall be delighted to relinquish all property ownership and income and utilise all of the facilities available to me from the state, and while at it, why not abuse other landowners now that I know they have such low rights.
@Anne
The fact that a remedy for a breach of contract cannot be a penalty is well establised contract law. By a penalty is meant any amount which is disproportionate to the breach. See the following case:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-542355/Judge-quashes-300-parking-fine–set-frighten-intimidate-driver.html
The other huge issue is proving who the driver is because only they can be liable.
Another obstacle faced in one case was that the judge said that the claimant should have sued in trespass and not contract.
But if you think this route of actually enforcing private parking tickets in court may be a goer by all means go for it. Personally I do not think a business could be sustained on this strategy and there is the danger of a court of record outlawing the process but no doubt some PPCs will want to have a go.
@Anne
“many people who after weeks/months/years of verbal and even physical abuse from people who continually park and sometimes block in vehicles took matters into their own hands”
Two wrongs do not make a right. I suspect you will find that very few support selfish parking. I certainly do not. However this does not make the activities of many of the clamping companies acceptable or right. It is they that have tarnished the image of their own industry to such an extent that the government is pulling the plug on the whole shooting match. More than once they were told they were supping in the last chance saloon and ignored it.
In the end the government was forced to conclude, rightly I believe, that the industry could never be satisfactorily controlled or regulated. As witness the examples only this week of a nurse clamped while attending to an elderly patient and the ridiculous stand off in north London. Both cases might have come after the decision was taken but they are starkly indicative of why the government felt that it had to act and act robustly.
@ Joe Public, That is one case which reinforces my point about proper signage and amounts. The company is clearly not reputable, i mean it blames the post office for losing the letters and has a clamping arm called ‘captain clampit’ (you gotta laugh), but a Parking Charge Notice issued correctly to a vehicle which is in line with the council fees imposed in that area for the same offence will be deemed as legitimate. The council have the exclusive use of the word penalty when it comes to clamping/PCN’s so as long as none of the letter or tickets or signage refers to the word ‘penalty’ it may be seen as a legitimate notice by the courts. Additionally, Contract Law is appropriate as long as the contract has been established with the offer and acceptance. This is most easily demonstarted in a pay and display car park, where the terms of parking are set, buying the p&d ticket is the acceptance and if you fail to adhere to the terms of that car park, then you “breach the contract” (basic contract law)…your reference to a judge that said that a claimant should sue for tresspass?? That would be an interesting one to look at if you have a reference?? I did already state the liability is with the driver and that a county court will not set a precedent, so the judgement can go either way depending on the best case…By the way i wouldn’t be taking anyone to court, i’m just interested in law and politics
Let me tell you now ticketing will not work, the sort of people who park with blatant disregard are all too often the type of people of drive cloned vehicles or who havent registered their vehicles with the DVLA, and when a ticket is unpaid and the baliffs are sent to recover the funds where are we? oh yes back with bullying thugs terrorising innocent people.
The answer is so simple: A regulatory body put in place, clamping companies must reach a certain predetermined criteria before the are allowed to enforce
things like signage, uniform, vehicle livery and fees must be uniform and a robust set of regulations which if breached nean the offending company loses its right to operate. this coupled with a period of public education can work.
@ joe public
…”More than once they were told they were supping in the last chance saloon and ignored it.
In the end the government was forced to conclude, rightly I believe, that the industry could never be satisfactorily controlled or regulated…”
Again i ask what were these warnings?? You seem to know a lot about this going by what you are saying.. I disagree with the second statement though, no government has put any legislation in place to address the main issues, just put thru somthing to make them look like they have done somthing. They have never given an actual effort to stop the cowboys. I bet if you listed all of your gripes with clamping there is an enforcable answer to each of them!!
@nick kenwood – I do fully agree with you, it will be almost impossible to follow up all the tickets issued and at a great cost to the landowner/company. I think that it’s safe to say that MOST of us have the democratic opinion that the landowner has certain rights and that a compromise must be found to enable fairness to all. I still say that NO government has addressed the issue fully; the crime and security bill legislation does not refer to limits of fees/circumstances of clamping or towing all of which were included as options in the consultation for the bill – Either the majority of people who completed the consultation were not bothered by these issues or the govt just ignored them and again swept it under the carpet – i mean if the industry is worth anywhere between £1M and £240M (courtesy The Sun and The Independant) how much does that equate to in VAT and Corp Tax????? But then again the coalition has just banned it so there goes that argument lol
@Anne
Here’s an example (even used the last chance saloon expression):
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1221758/Cowboy-clampers-rooted-shut-warns-Transport-Minister-Sadiq-Khan.html
There are others over the years. You’re not seriously telling me that the decision to ban came as a total shock. A couple of months ago Lynne herself in a Commons Debate clearly flagged that she was looking at options not considered by the previous government. You didn’t need to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out what that meant.
@joe public….I was shocked when i heard it as i knew about the crime and security bill so thought it would be dealt with by that, however No i am not suprised that it has been banned overall and can, as most of the ‘pro clampers’ i would imagine, see why it has been banned..again the few ruining it for the many (and by many i mean legit companies and general public who it would affect)
Ahh i see where you got the warnings reference, though the expressions would have been in relation to the crime and security bill and the proposed labour reforms rather than a ban:-
Home Office Minister Alan Campbell said: “We are currently looking to introduce a compulsory licensing scheme for all wheelclamping businesses.
‘We need to limit the size of penalties dished out by firms, regulate towing practices and put in place an effective and fair appeals process. Alongside this, we will also look at the issue of incentives given to clamping firms by land-owners.’
The Home Office is to publish of draft legislation in the Policing, Crime and Private Security Bill in the Queen’s ..”
The committe readings of that bill do make interesting reading if your that interested in clamping whether it’s for or against.
@joe public i missed that commons debate even though i’m researching a lot of the political side of this plus other stuff; I think it’s quite easy to miss some things..How many of you are aware of The National Service Bill 2010/11???? (title is worse than content)
I have been watching this thread with some amusement as I stand on the fence so to speak, I can wholely see the benefit of having Clamping as a Deterrent on Private Land, but I can also see the view of the motorist caught out by a Rogue Clamper.
Sitting on the middle of the fence it is interesting that the only person in this whole thread that is reacting on behalf of others is Dr Simm. His only concerns are;
(a) How are his clients going to be able to protect themselves from the persons whom wish to dump a car without anyone being able to take any action against them.
(b) How can his clients protect themselves against those whom have no regard for private property and will find anywhere to park as long as it is free.
Even with the revised Law of Tort in the UK under which ‘Trespass’ will occur, it is unlikely that any Magistrate will find in favour of a resident taking action against someone parking in their car parking space, despite the fact it is on private property and may be labelled as such.
At this time there is no provision in law to force the owner of a car to state whom was driving the same at the time the trespass occured, this means that the owners of the land have an exercise in futility in trying to issue ‘Penalty’ Notices on Vehicles.
As he rightly points out, the expense to an individual or management company or landlord trying to seek damages in the current legal system is prohibitive and has no guarantee of sucess and it is for this reason most of the Companies and Individuals that suffer from selfish behaviour and parking on their land resorted to fitting clamps because it was a form of instant justice, justice that meant the person or persons applying it got paid for doing so. This removed the Land Owner from the need to confront the culprits who in the main, as can be seen from TV Coverage on Traffic Wardens, can be threatening, agressive and in many cases resort to violence when they have been Clamped, Towed Away or even just had a ticket put on their windscreen.
Dr Simm is correct in stating that a simple common sense approach of the problems can be easily remedied with very minor changes to existing legislation.
If Legitimate Security Companies are prepared to spend money to comply with new regulations etc, then all sides get a result as the scheme can be self funding from the Annual Registration Fees, the Rogues are forced out of Business and will suffer extreme penalties and the public will learn that they will no longer will be able to scream ‘unfair’ when they are clamped for being on property clearly signed banning them from the same.
Lynne,
You may be interested to read some of the stories in local press up and down the country warmly welcoming your decision to ban clamping (there are many others but this is a fair selection):
http://www.burtonmail.co.uk/News/Private-land-clamping-ban-wheely-good-news.htm
http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/news/Victims-cheer-outlaw-clamping/article-2538125-detail/article.html
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/8338300.Motorists_welcome_wheel_clamping_ban/
http://www.thisislancashire.co.uk/news/8337564.Clamping_rules_are_welcomed/
http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/8336993.High_time_the_clampers_were_immobilised_/
http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/8336445.COMMENT_Good_to_see_end_of_road_for_clampers/
http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/news/Van-driver-staged-man-protest-says-people-power-led-clamping-ban/article-2539448-detail/article.html
http://thelincolnite.co.uk/2010/08/a-cure-for-wheel-clamping-in-lincoln/
http://www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk/news/City-welcomes-move-to-outlaw.6481635.jp
http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/8337061.Ban_on_rogue_car_clampers_welcomed_in_East_Lancashire/
http://www.birminghampost.net/news/west-midlands-news/2010/08/17/birmingham-s-trading-standards-boss-welcomes-car-clamping-ban-65233-27082801/
http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/8336396.EPPING_FOREST__Clamping_ban_welcomed_in_district/
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/2010/08/18/motorists-happy-with-wheel-clamping-ban-on-private-roads-92746-27086468/
http://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/news/article-17409-royal-borough-says-clamping-ban-is-major-breakthrough-/
Lynne, thought you might be interested to see some of the universal praise your decision to ban clamping has received in local papers up and down the country:
http://www.burtonmail.co.uk/News/Private-land-clamping-ban-wheely-good-news.htm
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/8338300.Motorists_welcome_wheel_clamping_ban/
http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/news/Victims-cheer-outlaw-clamping/article-2538125-detail/article.html
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/2010/08/18/motorists-happy-with-wheel-clamping-ban-on-private-roads-92746-27086468/
http://www.thisislancashire.co.uk/news/8337564.Clamping_rules_are_welcomed/
http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/8336993.High_time_the_clampers_were_immobilised_/
http://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/news/article-17409-royal-borough-says-clamping-ban-is-major-breakthrough-/
http://www.thisishampshire.net/news/8338300.Motorists_welcome_wheel_clamping_ban/
http://thelincolnite.co.uk/2010/08/a-cure-for-wheel-clamping-in-lincoln/
http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/news/Van-driver-staged-man-protest-says-people-power-led-clamping-ban/article-2539448-detail/article.html
I run a traffic management company that employs wheel clamping on private land for our clients. Just like every decent minded individual I despise those within the industry that charge exhorbitant release fees, use the ‘cancelled tow truck’ ploy to bolster already high charges and employ bullying and intimidating methods.
I believe that with 4 simple regulations the entire industry can be changed.
1. Maximum release fee in line with those imposed on public highways
2. Minimum sign sizes and distance between signs (our signs are 19″ x 30″)
3. All companies must accept credit / debit cards. Obtaining a merchant bank account is probably tougher than obtaining an SIA immobilisors licence.
4. Removal only permitted in cases where the vehicle is causing serious obstruction or danger & photographic evidence required to prove the need for removal
If these simple conditions were imposed on operators it would immediately eliminate most of the complaints of exhorbitant charges, car users required to walk miles to find a cash machine & unfair charges for the alleged tow truck call out.
In addition the SIA should structure a complaints system that has the power to remove licences from companies who fail to deal with the public in a fair & reasonable manner.
My main issue with the total ban is the unreasonableness of penalising all of us in the industry even though we run our business in an ethical manner because the government have failed to implement the required legislation to put the rogue clampers out of business.
I am a retired police officer of over 30 years exemplary service. In my time in the police other officers were found guilty of crimes ranging from murder, rape,robbery and general acts of corruption. At no point were those of us not involved in such acts punished for the behaviour of the bad apples, if anything we were applauded for maintaining our integrity.
I am therefore puzzled why I am now being penalised for something that I am not guilty off.
My company is N4ORCE Ltd at http://www.n4orce.co.uk. we do not hide behind the anonymity that the rogue clampers do because we are proud of the standards we have set. On reflection all my efforts seem to have been a waste of time and the only companies who have done really well from clamping are the bad guys who have made a fortune & haven’t invested in proper signs, obtained a merchant bank account etc. That seems somewhat perverse to me.
Welcome to the world of populist politics, Steve Dean. As, Lynne, points out in the next blog post, there is a poll showing that a majority want a clamping ban and that trumps the rights of private property owners and the valid concerns of legitimate businesses. In the fight for votes there will always be winners and losers, typically honest, hard working losers.
One can judge just how cynically populist this move is by the fact that it is only going to be on private land despite Lynne stating:
“On a personal note – I just think that for a parking offence – clamping is not a proportionate response to the ‘crime’.”
This is the government standing up for trespassers against private property owners and honest businesses.
Dr SIMM and Demonlee are the same person. His real name is Lee Simm but uses the name ‘Demon Lee Simm’. Lee used to run a property management company called WTH management Limited in Romford. He is also a photographer and lives in Romford.
A decent property management company would not use an outside clamping contractor.
Charles Taylor -“A decent property management company would not use an outside clamping contractor”
Not so Charles, some of our clients are reputable property management companies, are you suggesting that as opposed to ‘outside’ a decent company would have ‘internal’ facilities to clamp? I’m puzzled by your comment, can you expand on it for me.
Yes Charles he does seem to be the same person, really he said earlier in this blog about using their real name, and accusing everyone who is not a troll, well it seems he has been caught out, doing a simple google search on that name reveals who he is, though on that search there is no mention that he is a doctor, so that must means he’s a troll going by his reasoning!
Clamping has been banned in Scotland for 20 years, they are part of Britain, the world hasn’t ended with that ban up there, I have posted earlier in this blog about the expense of protecting your parking space, let me reiterate below again on a search on google.
Chain & 2 posts = £25
A parking post = £50
A Barrier = £600
An auto barrier = £1200
Also just repeating an earlier point below from someone else:
If a landowner has a public use car park that they want regulated and enforced or whether a private business wants to protect a car park for staff and clients use then this is possible as it can easily be achieved under current legislation if the owners liase with their local council. Section 33(4)(b) of the RTRA 1984 enables a local authority to regulate and enforce private land.
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&title=the+road+traffic+regulation+act+1984&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=2223862&ActiveTextDocId=2223916&filesize=3708
All that needs be done is that the landowner agrees terms with the council (similar to what they would with a PPC) and that the private land is then regulated by a traffic order. The landowner can then relax knowing that any parking contravention can be legally enforced while any motorist will know that they have access to an appeal system that includes access to an an independent adjudicator.
Such regulation on private land is very simple but not many landowners are aware of this option.
@Taffy
What you need to realise, is Scotland is on a much smaller scale, much of the private land in question are former council estates that have been transferred to private social landlords including some of the most socially deprived.
As I posted earlier a large majority of vehicles within these estates are not registered with the DVLA and many are cloned vehicles that can never be traced.
Clamping as we all know it needs to be banned of that there is no question, but it needs to be replaced with a new fair system Steve Dean is right a robustly managed system of clamping and/or removal needs to be put in place
Come on Nick you are tarnishing everyone with the same brush, a very small minority of cars in these estates are like that, what you are saying is that most people living in these places are breaking the law, and drive around as they see fit with cloned cars that have no insurance etc on them, that is frankly absurd!
And Scotland does have large urban areas just like other cities in the UK, they seem to manage fine under the no clamping rules! The government has no obligation to replace clamping with something else, they can’t legislate for every aspect of life, though the previous lot seemed to think it could.
What was needed from the start was clamping firms to act ethically, and to act lawfully and within guidelines of the SIA, most of them did not do that, perhaps some did, but you are talking the very small minority here, there are literally thousands of instances on the net where rogue clampers have asked many £hundreds to release a car.
They have only themselves to blame for legislation coming into force to ban them, if a large majority of them were acting within guidelines there would be no issue, as the government would not consider it now, they have no friends left and even the PPCs are salivating over the ashes of the clampers wanting their paper aeroplanes they send out to be enforceable, guess there is no honour between scammers 🙂
Taffy – you make the case that only a small minority of clamping companies behave ethically. I think you will find that in truth, the vast majority do and as is the case in many things, the minority of bad apples generate all of the publicity giving the appearance that we are all the same
When did you ever read a newspapaer article that said “I was clamped by a polite man who only charged me £95 and I accept it was my fault for parking under a sign that was large and easily readable”?
Obviously never because it isn’t newsworthy. But that doesn’t mean that it isn’t happening. Publicity is always going to be generated by items that pique the public interest and ethical wheel clampers don’t fit the bill, in exactly the same way that a corrupt police officer will make headlines while the thousand of honest ones will never see their name in print.
Regards
Steve Dean
I understand that Steve, but lets face it these incidents are not isolated cases from one part of the country, its happening all over the place, so its just bad few apples in the cart, its a problem generated by a large number of companies not concerned about parking but just money it generates for them.
Another point is this, a lot of these companies accept cash only, they don’t have adequate signage to say clamping is in force, they park vehicles in front of the signs, they block people in when they simply turning around, they clamp nurses visiting patients, almost all them have unsatisfied ccjs against them, and they set up phoenix companies to avoid courts and bailiffs.
So the industry doesn’t need legislation, it needs removal due to systematic abuse, clamping is going, landowners will have to find an alternative means to protect their car parks.
Taffy what is so interesting is that you are able to sum up the issues in so few words – and yet the government have failed to do so. As mentioned in a earlier post, there are 4 regulations that if made mandatory would end these rogue companies:
1. Maximum release fee in line with those imposed on public highways
2. Minimum sign sizes and distance between signs (our signs are 19? x 30?)
3. All companies must accept credit / debit cards. Obtaining a merchant bank account is probably tougher than obtaining an SIA immobilisors licence.
4. Removal only permitted in cases where the vehicle is causing serious obstruction or danger & photographic evidence required to prove the need for removal
An outright ban is really not the answer
Regards
Why are private property owners being thrown to the lions?
Private property owners are a vast percentage of the population, law abiding, innocent and ordinary i.e. not multi millionaires with thousands of acres of parking.
It is obvious that the ONLY way to stop the hard core OFFENDERS that are the problem, is clamping. So take that away and you leave us defenceless.
This is not about taking away the property owners only form of effective defence (notice i use the word defence), it is about tackling the cowboy/rogue clampers and enforcing fair legislation.
People who immediately agree with the abolishment of clamping are mainly those that have been unfairly clamped and fined; and after considering the issue further will nearly always agree that banning clamping will victimise many innocent owners of property, maybe including themselves. Just ordinary people who live in flats, houses etc or small businesses such as doctors surgeries, dentists and many more.
Tackle the legislation and wrongdoers, don’t throw in the towel and allow the hardcore offenders (who are a continual problem; deal with one and another takes its place) right of passage to carry on offending time and again. Please don’t tell me ticketing is the answer to this, it is well documented that it does NOT work with the very people who cause the offence and don’t give a damn.
Why not let local authorities give private property owners a licence to call them to deal with offenders, and enable them to put up signage to warn people parking patrols/clamping are in opperation by THE LOCAL AUTHORITY. Surely Lynne you trust the LOCAL AUTHORITIES don’t you? Simples! Everybody happy? Then just do it.
Next issue….
Just to reiterate Taffy as you are sure to post; here is a copy of my previous post to you.
Dear Taffy,
I have several jobs and non are even remotely linked to Parking/clamping. I am quite simply an owner (along with my mortgage company I might add) of private property and I do not want low life parking on it, with total disregard to me and any consequences I may suffer.
Let local authorities have the power to issue licences for the likes of me, to put up signs to say parking is monitored by them and ticketing and clamping is in opperation. Thats right Taffy THE LOCAL AUTHORITY, surely you believe they would opperate fairly and justly don’t you?
This should appease all parties concerned, and would allow the forgotten innocent victims of these OFFENDERS (the property owners) to get on with their lives in relative peace.
If you do not think this is a fair resolution you are beyond help/hope, and I must assume you only post here to get reaction and people’s backs up.
@Taffy
A small majority over hundreds of estates make quite a large minority, I have said all that needs to be said, Parking tickets will not work, gates posts & chains will not work and this I know ffrom experience. I apologise for the length of this post but this me saying what I believe to be the soloution:
Response to the home office consultation on wheel clamping on private land:
The consultation appears to be relying on a more stringent compulsory form of the current SIA approved contractor scheme, what needs to be made clear are:
• Who will be responsible for granting accreditation?
• What role will they play in the day to operational running of VI companies?
• How will the designated body monitor performance and potential breaches?
All existing VI company can present themselves as worthy of accreditation, as we have already seen many of the stakeholder complaints concern accredited companies, any third party appointed to oversee accreditation must have the ability to carry out regular ad hoc hands on inspections of any VI company being given full unfettered access to all aspects of the business including but not exclusive to:
• Personnel files
• Appeal records
• Documented evidence of enforcement action
• Payroll documentation
• Calibration of electronic equipment
In conjunction with these ad hoc visits to offices, all premises used in conjunction with the business should be inspected. Consideration to these premises being given to;
• Health and safety
• Overall ambience
• Location and ease of access
• Transport links
The location of an impound facility should be no more than 30 minutes travelling time by public transport from the place of removal.
The appointed body should also carry out regular `Test purchases` in businesses designated areas of operation. I also believe that any appointed body should have the facility to receive telephone calls from the public to offer advice and support; many stakeholders did not want to contact the VI Company directly or felt that once they had, the experience was not a pleasant one.
Licence to clamp:
The accreditation should take the form of a corporate licence to operate, to be granted when certain criteria have been met. Any VI company in breach of any new legislation could effectively have this licence revoked; they would then no longer be allowed to carry out licensable activity.
Stakeholder complaints:
The release/removal fee:
The most common complaints are with regard to the punitive charges levied by VI companies, this `de-clamp` fee should be set at £75.00, the fee for retrieving vehicles removed following a predetermined period should be £150.00, built into these charges should be a fee for `waiting time` when the behavior of a person or persons at the time of removal refuses payment or delays removal, this should be charged at £25.00 per hour or per part of that hour. A VI company should not increase the fee to include removal unless the removal vehicle is present and in the process of removal, the Police need to find some uniformity when dealing with clamping issues whilst it remains a civil offence private parking attendants should be afforded the same protection as Transport for London and Local authority attendants in such as Any person who intentionally obstructs any authorised officer acting in the exercise of his powers under this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. Any vehicle held in storage should be charged at £15.00 per day no charge should be incurred before midday of the following day. Stakeholders must accept that vehicles can be disposed after fourteen days; It is paramount that the public understand outstanding fees for removal and/or storage must be paid even if they wish to dispute the enforcement.
Consideration must also be given to people experiencing difficult financial circumstances, I would suggest that at the point of collection any person in such circumstances must show pre determined documentation asked to sign a declaration and be given the opportunity to pay in installments. Any declaration would need to be legally binding.
Signage:
Each VI Company uses different signage, the government must standardise the signs in both size font size and content. These signs should be available from a limited number of selected suppliers.
Speed of clamping/towing:
The only way to reduce incidents of stakeholder allegations of time passed since parking is by the aforementioned test purchasing, when complaints regarding this are received any appointed body should focus on this allegation i.e. “we visited the site four times in a three week period, on three occasions you breached the allotted timescale” the offending company should then be issued with an official warning, three warnings in any six month period should result in loss of accreditation. Any appellant should be involved in this process. If as per the above example a company is found to be in breach any outstanding appeals based on the grounds of the breach should be upheld, the gravity of probability being with the appellant.
Removals:
Any landlord wishing to employ clamping and/or removal on their land must be able to demonstrate good reason why such action is necessary, i.e. a social landlord whose residents quality of life is suffering as a result of regular offending by non residents should be allowed to employ enforcement, a landlord who has a small piece of waste land should be encouraged to seek other methods of securing his land. Enforcement should always be a last resort. Any appointed body should be available to advise Landlords considering enforcement. Consideration must be given to the need for removing an immobilised vehicle again a landlord must show good reason why removal is necessary, the length of time allotted before removal should be set at one hour from time of clamping, this must be shown in any displayed signage and in the event of a dispute should be supported by time dated evidence. In some cases there may be a requirement to employ instant removal any landlord wising to employ this must show good reason as to why , the reasons must be either that a breach of parking regulations could lead to loss of life or serious injury or could contravene health and safety laws. In this case clear unambiguous `INSTANT TOW AWAY `signage must be displayed. Removal crews should have both any requisite SIA licence but also the requisite licence for operating the removal vehicle. Removals should only be carried out using the HI-AB style of crane.
Payment methods:
All VI companies should have the facilities to take payments by both cash and credit/debit card unfortunately at the moment many banks refuse chip and pin facilities to any company declaring themselves to be in the business of Wheel clamping leaving them with no choice but to take cash only payments, this is unacceptable and the banks must change their present stance.
VI companies acting correctly still face problems with `chargebacks` whereby members of the public who have made a payment using chip and pin can claim a fraudulent transaction has taken place. VI companies acting correctly need protecting from this type of fraud which is commonly touted as the solution to clamping on many social forums.
Presently VI companies use a receipt of their own design if at all, as part of any new legislation a standard approved receipt book should be introduced available from a limited number of suppliers.
Appeal and complaints:
All VI companies must have a fully accountable standardised appeals procedure with pre determined time scales in place for both receipt of appeal and response(s). Time dated photographic evidence should be made available upon request, any appointed body should act as an independent appeal source once normal avenues have been exhausted the appointed body supersedes the VI companies if this becomes necessary Failure to meet pre determined timescales will result in a refund. Repeated failures will result in a formal warning.
Complaints should be directed to the appointed body who should respond within pre determined time scales all VI companies must co- operate fully with any complaint investigation any VI company receiving 6 or more upheld complaints in any six month period should receive a formal warning again 3 warnings and a VI company will lose its accreditation.
Wheel clamping is in my opinion necessary the only way VI companies will act responsibly is with close constant monitoring of all practices and procedures by an approved third party. The public the Police and the judiciary need to support companies acting responsibly if such things as signage & receipts are made uniform the public will have a clearer understanding of how clamping works this cannot happen without a sustained period of public education with blanket media coverage. Any punishment given to a VI company or operative acting outside of the legislation must be swift and firm. The public will only gain confidence if they see this happening. There also needs to be concession made for the VI companies acting correctly and who acquiesce to the changes, the Police and the judiciary will need to adjust their thinking and practices when dealing with clamping issues The media must accept that sometimes clamping is necessary and that if done correctly and certainly with a modicum of compassion and common sense should not be subject to sensationalistic journalism.
In conclusion:
• Hands on intrusive third party monitoring designed specifically for the VI industry
• A corporate licence to operate
• Reasonable fees standardised across the industry
• Uniform receipts and signage
• A period of public education
• A third party contact centre
• Transparent uniform appeals procedures
• Vociferous punitive measures for non compliance
• Changes in police and judiciary practices and procedures
Steve,
You don’t need legislation for that, that is what should have been happening in the first place, now who’s fault it wasn’t? Really these companies are only interested in getting vast sums of money off people, parking control had nothing to do with it, some people clamped were not even parked, they were just turning around in a car park, and they got blocked in!
Pete,
I cannot recall what that posts refers too, but if it was towards you being a clamper, I stand by my words as mentioned, until you have come and posted again, but as a landowner you need to find an alternative means to ensure that its not being abused, there are no easy answers, but clamping is not the answer, if it was there would be no abuse, as nobody would park there!
I own land myself and have had problems there due to travellers setting up camp, so i understand the frustration, it cost me a large sum to clean up after them, owning land has responsibilities, you must face yours now that the seemingly easy option of clampers are going to be removed.
Taffy,
The only problem with clamping is when it is applied unfairly by cowboy clampers; everybody here agrees with that.
So as I have just said let the local authority opperate it – end of storey.
By the by it would be self financing and easy peasy to do.
I have tried many alternatives and non have worked except the threat of clamping.
Also many people talk about the intimidation from cowboy clampers ( who I loathe by the way) but lets not forget those of us property owners who have had intimidation and physical violence from low life offenders simply for asking them to move, and we are innocent don’t forget.
Thanks for that Nick, I have never had any dealings with clampers directly as I have respect of people’s land, I own some so know the problems associated.
But all that can be done by a code of conduct from the SIA to clamping companies, there has been ample warning about the behaviour of the clampers in relation to acting ethically and to protect people’s land, you don’t need legislation to agree to act in accordance to a guideline set out.
Really I say this again, the clamping companies have only themselves to blame, some of them may be legitimate, but a lot are not, they refuse to be reigned in, that is why this happened
http://www.birminghammail.net/news/top-stories/2010/05/27/shard-end-clamping-firm-boss-jailed-97319-26532775/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7415331.stm
http://www.crewechronicle.co.uk/crewe-news/local-crewe-news/2009/10/28/car-clamper-iain-watson-faces-jail-after-conviction-for-working-without-a-licence-96135-25027992/
Taffy – The fault is with the government, it was their responsibility to ensure robust rules & regulations were in place, after all the SIA (government appointed body) have been happy to take the money paid to for clampers licences (which they charge the same price for annualy when other SIA licences are issued for 3 years).
It is ironic that the government failed to regulate and yet companies such as mine have to pay the price thanks to the government adopting an outright ban.
It begs the question if they can’t regulate something so simple as domestic wheel clamping, what hope do we have that they are capable of dealing effectivly with the more challenging political issues.
A ban is in my opinion nothing more than the government admitting that the problem is to difficult for them to cope with, and that is a very disturbing though.
Its very easy to blame the government, because they are the ones legislating now, but come on, who is ultimately to blame for this? its the companies going out there and charging sometimes £1k to clamp, tow, and return a vehicle
http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/8235569.BUCKHURST_HILL__Florist_charged_almost___1_000_to_free_clamped_van/
I don’t think legislation would work really in this case, because its open to abuse very easily, but you must have known this was on the wall because of so many abuses, sorry but its illegal for a private company to penalise a private individual, charging an obscene amount of money is a penalty, that is why PPCs ticket are unenforceable, they have been to court many times up and down the country and have lost every case that is defended.
I think the government is saying is that not they can’t try and fix the problems with clamping, its just they can’t be bothered frankly, its to much bother for them to waste resources whilst people are still being ripped off up and down the country.
You I am afraid will have to adapt your business model to something else, maybe being a PPC and press on getting those tickets enforceable, I hear they are privatising speed cameras, perhaps that?
Anyway, we will never agree would should be done, because I see it froma different perspective than you.
@ Steve Dean – so it’s the government’s fault the industry is rife with operators of less than questionable ethics? Give me a break, please. The VI industry could have imposed a code of practice of sufficient rigor years ago and driven the bad apples out to the fringes, but how can that happen when you have people like this chap actually organising the SIA VI Network meetings?
@ Taffy
“owning land has responsibilities, you must face yours now that the seemingly easy option of clampers are going to be removed.”
Please explain this inane nonsense, Taffy. What responsibilities do landowners have with respect to people who daily trespass upon their land, ignoring clearly posted signs that they may not do so? Why do some people, when big signs say that there is no parking and at that offenders may be clamped, get upset when drivers deliberately ignore these warnings and find their vehicles clamped? If people choose to disrespect the rights of property owners then they should live with the consequences.