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 
@Steve Dean
My answer to you about your licence is tough! Under Labour you clampers have operated unregulated and systematically ripped off the British public with your underhand tactics! May be not your company personally. I would suggest that you don’t renew your licence and sell your clamps early!
Steve
Mr Steve Wills
You’re right in that my company have never ripped off anyone, and have always tried to be as fair as possible, look at the size & frequency of the signs we erect on the photos on our website. So, as we agree on that point, its interesting that you support a ‘freedom bill’ that you know is penalising individuals for something that they have had no part in.
Regulation was the governments job, it’s why the SIA was set up. As I have said before, regulation was such an easy thing to do I’m still puzzled how they got it so wrong.
It makes me wonder what type of society we are creating when everyone has to pay the price for the wrongs of some. Lets hope that whatever industry you are in, none of your colleagues ever step out of line or you just might all get the sack.
Regards
Steve Dean
@ Steve Dean
What is your company?
Steve great comments, totally agree with you, I have asked, why can we not be put in a room, or on a live TV debate about the pro’s and con’s of wheelclamping. highlight the victims who have been clamped (not) – or highlight the real victim(s) the landowner, the housing association, the doctors surgery, the petrol forcourt, the small business.
Most people only have an issue because they have been caught, despite reading the signs, taking a chance because its easier!!!!!!!!!!
Lets ask the victims and the honourable MP what they actually do know about the Private Security Industry Act !!!
Why is it that councils may still be allowed to clamp vehicles??? Oh the reality is is that the monies received all go into the same fund!!! The Government.
We own and manage blocks of properties with a private roadway for use of residents only. We cannot put up a barrier since this would impede fire engines, ambulances etc. and we share the road with a hotel and non-managed buildings.
Our residents never had room to park before we entered into an agreement with a clamping company and issued permits. This has resolved the cowboy parkers and protected the residents’ rights.
Regulation of the clamping companies is, in my opinion, the only way forward. Bad clamping companies need to be weeded out. To ban clamping companies would result in parking chaos.
@Glen Ford
Good call Glen, a live debate would be brilliant there are so many positives to clamping if done correctly, at the moment local autority clampers do not need an SIA license, if they are to operate on private land does that mean they will need a license?
Another possible flaw in the ridiculous private security industry act, which is the root cause of the current situation
Glen
My company is N4ORCE Ltd web page is http://www.n4orce.co.uk. we are a small company providing wheel clamping for a very localised area which ensures that we can keep our time responding to a release call down to a minimum and provide an efficient service to our clients.
One of the issues we have come across is that of large companies obtaining the contract based on their company profile and then sub contracting to an unknown individual who happens to have an immobilisors licence and is local to that car park or land.
We have tried to provide a professional, ethical service but despite that the government are insisting that all in the industry are the same. Based on that assumption, maybe the role of MP should be banned as there have been just as many, if not considerably more Rogue MP’s as there have been Clampers.
Steve
@Steve Dean
Your website says:
“What vehicle are exempt from being clamped?
It should be noted that disabled blue badge holders are NOT automatically exempt and should check with the vehicle management company prior to parking on private land.”
The SIA says: “It is illegal to clamp a car displaying a disabled badge. Clamping a car which displays a valid disabled badge breaks the conditions of holding an SIA licence, which is a criminal offence. Anyone clamped when displaying a valid disabled badge should call the police to have the clamp removed, then report the clamper to the SIA.”
So, as part of your “professional, ethical service” you are apparently according to your own website prepared to clamp a vehicle displaying a disabled badge, a criminal offence. You appear not to even know the conditions of your licence on such a fundamental point.
Another example of why this out-of-control industry could not continue in any form.
Again I re-iterate your comments in the column of the Ham & High is somewhat away from the entire truth?? you have stated that sucessive governments have tried to deal with Rogue Clampers??? when and where as labour had been in power for ages, Yes, we all agree the SIA licensed the individuals of which is a poor show as had they registered the companies forst then as I said live on Sky news last week “we may not have been in this situation if the companies were regulated” lets all remember it is the SIA that issued in excess of 10,000 licences to illegal immigrants, last week the national press stated that illegal immigrants were working as cleaners at The House of Commons, lets also not forget that The SIA is directed by the Home Office.
May I remind you all of the Home office paperwork consultation dated 30th April 2009 of which I have copies for all to read if so required:
it states the options by Alan Campbell MP
The Issues;concerns about the vehicle immobilisation industry
Option 1 – Status Quo – make no changes
Option 2 – A voluntary code of Practice like the BPA
Option 3 – Compulsory membership licensing scheme fo VI Businesses
Option 4 – Compulsory Approved Contractor Scheme
it then goes on to state para 47:
The government beleives that Option 3, a business licensing scheme (BLS), offers the most effective approach. This would make it mandatory for businesses to be licensed, to help to ensure they sign up to standards of conduct which will be enforced if they are not met. The remit of The BLS will extend to all partnerships, sole traders etc who provide VI Services, whether in house or under contract and will not be restricted to limited companies
No where does it state in the consutation does it state a complete ban
Why is is that the home office will not acknowledge the facts, so where as mentioned bt the honourable secretary does it confirm that as she syas “successive governments have tried to dela with rogue clampers” the consultation paper was sent out and appears to have been completely ignored, I WILL quite happily forward the consultation papers onto any person that is interested to read for themselves, it is of course on Home Office letterheaded paperwork.
Please any further infor would be greatly appreciated: localclampers@aol.com
obviously I will mention that any abuseive emails will dealt with in the appropriate manner and be reported to the relevent authorities
It looks like a one way street yet again and this time unfortunately by the colalition government
The present government isn’t bound by the consultation carried out by Labour, so get over it.
Furthermore, the consultation was flawed, since it didn’t offer the option of a total ban, even though this was the second most popular response.
@phil
Phil the general public also said the same about yellow lines, parking meters and traffic wardens but we still got them….!
The fact of the matter is that people will always vote against something that will cost them money, however wait until the ban comes into place and watch the carnage and crying to MP’s when people suddenly find out they have no recourse of action to someone parking on the drive of their house, their elderly grandparents house etc.
The problem is with this country is the attitude, “I’m alright Jack, Sod you!”
@simon says
Simon, you obviously do not know Glasgow or Edinburgh that well as they have banned clamping but NOT the right to tow away illegally parked vehicles and the average cost of recovery in those two SCOTTISH Cities is around £240 so more than the average clamp removal.
That they are so often used as an example of the planned scheme is a joke and an insult to anyone with half a brain who knows what REALLY happens in Glasgow and Edinburgh!
@MemberOfPublic
Just as well that towing is being outlawed as well then. Wouldn’t want to leave these shysters any loopholes, would we?
I live in Scotland and towing is rarely used.
Time to get over it. Clampers are going and good riddance!
can you block people in if they park on your drive or in your parking space? can you let the tyres down etc.etc. or is that criminal damage? can you close gates on illegally parked cars? Are there any other actions one can take other than just ticketing which is on the wrong side of useless.
@ Passerby
Take a look at the blue badge website http://www.bluebadgenetwork.org.uk/whatbluebadge.htm under the heading ‘where can’t I park’ and you will see that the blue badge is not exempt from private land parking conditions.
If this isn’t clear enough for you maybe you might like to take a look at http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople/MotoringAndTransport/Bluebadgescheme/DG_4001061?CID=DWP&TYPE=Sponsoredsearch&CRE=Bluebadgescheme the governments own web site on disabled motoring where you will also see that blue badge holders are not exempt on private land.
Now we have got to the facts you will see that the information given on our web page is correct and that you are wrong.
The information on our web page gives generic advice on parking on private land, and the rules are clear, it’s at the discretion of the land owners so the advice to contact the parking management company is the best advice that can be given.
In case you are interested, we at N4ORCE have never clamped anyone displaying a blue badge, so I stand by our claim to be ‘ethical’. Your claim that we are prepared to clamp a blue badge holder is completely unfounded and unjust and based on your own limited knowledge of the law.
Steve Dean
Sothere we have it, Steve Dean who claims he is the good face of clamping apparently has no idea that it is a criminal offence to clamp a vehicle displaying a valid disabled badge on private land. He appears not to know the conditions of his own licence which can be found here:
http://www.sia.homeoffice.gov.uk/Pages/licensing-conditions.aspx
In case he still cannot find it, halfway down the page is the following:
“For Vehicle Immobilisers
In addition to holding a valid SIA licence, vehicle immobilisers must observe the following requirements:
1.A vehicle must not be clamped / blocked / towed if:
a.a valid disabled badge is displayed on the vehicle.”
Steve Dean, being such a fine upstanding clamper seems to think that this condition does not apply to him and is perfectly able to clamp a vehicle displaying a disabled badge. Thereby breaching his own licence conditions and committing a criminal offence. He quotes from blue badge documents that have nothing to do with clamping but cover parking enforcement (pay and display) on private land.
Never was there a better argument for the outlawing of this thuggish practice. At least one clamper does not even know what he can and cannot do in relation to his existing licence and we are expected to believe that clampers would magically comply with tighter regulation and licensing.
Perhaps other clampers on here would care to convince Mr Dean of the serious error of his ways in relation to his belief that he is able to clamp vehicles displaying a valid disabled badge on private land?
Ah, Jeremiah such a wise old owl….. not.
To begin with the SIA conditions of licencing is exactly that, a condition, not a criminal offence, and I am very aware of exactly what those conditions are, hence the fact that I have never fallen foul of them. Do a quick google and you will find cases of clampers who have clamped blue badge holders and are still licenced, so far from being a crime, it’s not even something that the SIA feels should automatically result in revoking a licence.
So I suggest you go back to the link you have provided and take a look at the very top of the page where it states:
“SIA licences are issued subject to certain conditions. The licence can be revoked or suspended if the conditions are not met”
No mention of a criminal charge at all.
Moving on, I’ll try and make this easy on you seeing as you have had difficulty in understanding my previous post.
On the bluebadgenetwork.org website (there for the information of blue badge holders), it states quite clearly:
The scheme does NOT apply on private roads/off street parking or any private car parks. There may be provision for disabled people, but they are at the discretion of the owners, and will be signposted, please read signs carefully.
So Jeremiah, that’s Private Roads & Private Car Parks, now, a car park belonging to a block of flats would certainly be private, no mention though of ‘pay & display’, so that’s another bit you got wrong, never mind let’s look at the other link I provided, that belonging to the government at http://www.direct.gov.uk. Under the bit about disable drivers, it states:
Where the scheme does not apply
The Blue Badge Scheme does not apply to off-street car parks, private roads and at most airports.
So, that’s Private Roads & Off Street Car Parks (again), no mention of pay & display there either. It may come as a bit of a shock to you, but some of our clients have private roads, and they certainly have off street car parks, so, is the blue badge exempt from the conditions within those areas? Nope, not according to the government and the bluebadge people.
So is the statement on my web page correct? Absolutely.
Does this mean that I support clamping of blue badge holders? 100% NOT. It is there merely to ensure that anyone reading it who is the holder of a blue badge understands that they do not have an automatic right to park where they like and its good practice to check first.
You seem to have missed the point that if I was one of the rogue clampers then I wouldn’t be trying to point this out to people by warning them, I’d be letting them park then clamping them.
The problem is Jeremiah, that people like you can see no good in anyone involved in this industry, you are blinded by your inherent dislike of what we do, so no matter how hard myself & others like me try and be upfront, you and your ilk are always going to be putting us down.
I have no problem with that, you are after all entitled to your opinion (even if it isn’t particularly well informed) but before you put pen to paper (or finger to keyboard) in future, please make sure you know what you are talking about otherwise you’ll only make yourself look silly (again).
@Steve Dean
Jeez, you can’t help keeping digging can you?
s9(4) of the Private Security Act 2001, under which the Licence that you do not seem to know a major condition of, was granted, says:
“Any person who contravenes the conditions of any licence granted to him shall be guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.”
Now I gather from your previous responses that you may be a bit slow on the uptake. The above means if you breach the licence condition by clamping a vehicle displaying a valid disabled badge you commit a crime. Your reference to completely irrelevant bits of the blue badge scheme will not make it any less a crime.
Here’s the SIA on the subject:
“A spokeswoman from the Security Industry Authority, which manages the licensing of the private security industry, said it was illegal to clamp a car displaying a disabled badge.
She said: “Clamping a car which displays a valid disabled badge breaks the conditions of holding an SIA licence, which is a criminal offence.
“Anyone clamped when displaying a valid disabled badge should call the police to have the clamp removed, then report the clamper to the SIA.”
http://www.yourdover.co.uk/kent-news/Veteran-demands-refund-from-clamping-firm-newsinkent28336.aspx?news=local
Still think you’re right, Steve Dean? Bet you do. Which is why your industry is facing the axe. When clampers cannot even be bothered to comply with the conditions of their existing licences, with the ridiculous and toothless SIA looking on, why should anyone believe that tighter regulation would work?
A better argument for the total banning of clamping it would be harder to find.
Take a look at the bottom of the page at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2001/12/section/9
It states:
Commencement Information
I1S. 9 partly in force; s. 9 not in force at Royal Assent, see s. 26(2); s. 9(1)(2)(3) in force at 1.4.2003 for certain purposes by S.I. 2002/3125, art. 4(d)
As for the statement from the SIA I have no confidence in their ability to get anything right. Looking at your link to the case in Dover I can assure you that the clamping company referred to have neither been prosecuted or had their licence revoked.
If it was a criminal offence then there would have been a prosecution.
Despite the above, you (Lee) and Jeremiah still seem to be missing the point regarding the original criticism of my company and the statement on our web page. Rather than lay in wait & clamp anyone we can, we chose to inform visitors of what the government state is not included in the blue badge right to park, and that includes private roads & car parks.
The bottom line is that the anti clamp brigade will never accept anyone in the industry is anything other than a thug (your words).
On the other hand, those of us in the industry who are trying to behave in an ethical manner readily accept that the industry needs cleaning up and would like to see the back of the rogue companies.
@ Steve Dean
I’m not sure if you are trying to be deliberately inorant. It is clear that s9(3) of the Act came into force from 1 April, 2003. Thus it is clearly the case that clamping a vehicle displaying a valid disabled badge is a criminal offence. All you are doing by your wriggling is making yourself more and more ridiculous.
That you don’t know that clamping a vehicle with a disabled badge is a breach of your licence and further that this is an offence sums up the attitude of clampers to date. Indeed you believe that you are entitled to ignore the licence conditions and clamp in these circumstances. The contempt that you show for your basic legal obligations and the views of the regulator the SIA is absolutely indicative of the behaviour of the industry to date. It could never be controlled and therefore is rightly facing extinction.
Regards the failure of the SIA to prosecute illegal activity this is well documented. The fact that the clampers in question are still in business is hardly surprising to anyone who knows of its toothless approach. But because a crime has not been prosecuted does not mean it has not been committed.
We have now had two clampers on here telling us how different they were from the rogues who had ruined everything. The first, who clearly ran a very large operation, went very quiet when someone pointed out that his company had a well documented history of extremely questionable clamping. And then you Steve pop up to tell us how ethical you are and then ruin it by saying you are entitled to clamp on private land when it is cearly an offence to do so.
If Lynne is watching the debate on here I hope she can see from this example how useless the existing regime is and how tighter regulation and enforcement would never have worked, given the hardened attitudes of the clamping fraternity such as yourself. Therefore she was absolutely right that an outright ban was not just the best option but the only option that would work.
Bystander states “I’m not sure if you are trying to be deliberately inorant. It is clear that s9(3) of the Act came into force from 1 April, 2003”
I didn’t say that it didn’t, in fact I posted as follows
Commencement Information
I1S. 9 partly in force; s. 9 not in force at Royal Assent, see s. 26(2); s. 9(1)(2)(3) in force at 1.4.2003 for certain purposes by S.I. 2002/3125, art. 4(d)
However we are talking about S9(4) so I dont undertand your point.
I have been reading this exchange with growing disbelief. Less than 2 weeks after the ban on clamping was announced a clamper is arguing that he is entitled to clamp disabled drivers displaying a blue badge, despite it being clear in his Licence conditions that he can do no such thing.
And clampers wonder why they are about to be an extinct species? You couldn’t make it up.
Pat
What I have been endevouring to do is point out that, as reported in the press, blue badge holders do get clamped, that there has been no criminal prosecutions, no sanctioning by the SIA and that the rules relating to blue badge use do not allow for parking on private land, therefore anyone holding a blue badge would be well advised to contact the traffic management company before parking on private land.
At no time have I ever intimated that I believe it is OK or acceptable to clamp a blue badge holder and as previously stated, no one in my company have ever done so or will.
I believe it is better to make the public aware than to do as the rogue companies do which is to give no information and then pounce.
@Steve Dean
I can see why you are uncomfortable with this issue but what you have said above is not what your web site actually says. This is:
“What vehicle are exempt from being clamped?
It should be noted that disabled blue badge holders are NOT automatically exempt and should check with the vehicle management company prior to parking on private land.”
This reads to me that YOU reserve the right to clamp vehicles displaying a disabled badge. Your slipping and sliding when challenged above makes clear that you do hold that view, despite it being clear in your licence that this is absolutely not allowed. This is your website and apparently your words.
You seem to believe that it is OK to breach your licence terms as no action will be taken as aresult. As long as you can get away with it, you are able to clamp disabled drivers, irrespective of what your licence says. Furthermore others are doing it , so it must be OK.
You call yourself ethical and professional, yet most people would be shocked that you show such lack of respect for your legal obligations and indeed for the current regulator.
You are a good case study for why clamping is now facing its final months, regulation having totally failed because clampers have shown themselves to be out of any reasonable control.
Pat
It’s clear that whatever I say, you are only going to see in me what you want to see. The fact that I have never clamped anyone with a blue badge, that my signs are way above the norm in terms of size & visibility, that we have unclamped people (such as the lady who placed her permit in the windscreen back to front) without charge as well as others who we felt had a genuine grievance, despite those things you are determined to put me in the classification of ‘rogue clamper’ simply because I choose to warn blue badge holders that it is in their interest to contact the traffic management company before parking on private land, and whatever you may say, blue badge holders do not have the right to park on private property.
OK mate, I’ll accept the criticism, while you my friend can feel pleased that you have managed to isolate someone within the industry who has done their very best to rise above the behaviour of the scumbags who have tainted it by their disgusting behaviour.
Its people like you that actually promote the bad guys by your refusal to accept that there can be any good in anyone involved in the wheel clamping business, we may all just as well adopt the bad guys attitude because whatever happens you and the anti-brigade are going to tar everyone with the same brush.
The bottom line is that there are blue badge holders being clamped by clamping companies – can we at least agree on this?
If we can agree on this point, isn’t it better that disabled drivers are warned that a brief phone call will possibly prevent them from falling foul of those clampers who will & do clamp blue badge holders? Because neither the police nor the SIA will step in and help them and they do not have a right under the blue badge scheme to park on private property.
If I had clamped a blue badge holder then I could accept the critical attitude that you adopt, but I haven’t. In fact I will guarantee that no matter how hard you search you will not find any bad publicity that is linked to either me or my company.
I genuinely believe that we are one of the ‘good guys’, If I didn’t hold an honest held belief that was the case I wouldn’t be on this forum / blog under my own name with a link to my website in the first place, but I’ll never convince you of that so I’m not going to try. You’re posts however have citied me and my company as a good reason why clamping should be banned.
Well I don’t agree that it should be banned, but I do agree wholeheartedly that clamping companies who have small, hidden signs, lurk in wait for motorists to leave their vehicles for a few seconds, refuse to accept genuine causes for leniency, charge exorbitant fees and use the old cancelled tow truck ploy to bolster up their fees should be driven out of the industry.
I look forward to your next post.
Pat
I have always been someone willing to try and see things from someone else’s point of view. I have taken on board your comments & accept that the purpose of my warning to the blue badge holders may not have appeared as clear as it could have been, and so for that reason I have hopefully made it clearer (you may need to refresh your browser to see the changes).
Although you hold the view that by placing the advice to blue badge holders to call the management company on my website indicates that I reserved the right to clamp a blue badge holder, I can assure you that you are completely wrong on that point. I have said it in previous posts and I will say it once more, I do not hold that view. I can’t make it any plainer than that.
As to my ethics, well I’m happy to leave the judgement of that to those who know me but I would like to show by example why I feel we are one of the ethical companies:
Car clamped on private land, Cobden Place Canterbury, no permit displayed. Driver returns to vehicle, has no argument and offers to pay. Second person arrives, states they are there to view a property . Decision – released without fee
Car clamped on private land, Stuart Court, Canterbury. No permit visible on vehicle. Owner calls and demonstrates that she has a permit, only it’s upside down & back to front (so looks like a blank disc) but even then it’s behind a sun visor. Decision – released without fee.
Car clamped on private land, Canterbury, driver argues that part of his car was on land not contracted to us for traffic management. Decision – benefit of the doubt given – released with no fee.
There are others, all of which represent a common sense approach to clamping. I very much doubt that the rogues would have adopted such an attitude, so despite what those against clampers may care to think, we are not all the same and there are those of us who operate in an ethical manner.
Fact disable people not allowed on private property without the owners permission and may have to display a permit or what ever are the rules of the estate are, this is in the terms and conditions of the blue badge scheme, blue badge not valid on private property.
Fact cannot clamp if displaying blue badge but can inforce a civil penalty notice (PCN), also can tow under certain condition (mainly access and if blocking) and then in this case of relocation of car.
Failure to clamp a disable badged car is a fine of upto £5000, and risk of imprisionment.
MemberOfPublic: “Phil the general public also said the same about yellow lines, parking meters and traffic wardens but we still got them….!”
Maybe they did, but you are conflating enforcement by local authorities or the police, which is subject to a whole raft of statute which as a rule is respected by those involved , and private enforcement which is run by people out for a fast buck; the law and business ethics be damned.
For example, I could get towed unfairly by my local authority, and assuming I had a case, I would have a clear route of appeal to my local council, NPAS, and ultimately to the high court. If I won my case, I would get my money back plus costs.
If on the other hand I was unfairly towed by a private firm, which is an altogether more likely proposition, I would have to spend time trying to penetrate the web of PO boxes they are hiding behind, then write asking for my money back, then issue court proceedings (for which I would be able to claim very little of my actual costs), then with a court judgment in my hand would then no doubt have to spend further time trying to enforce it, with no guarantee that it would ever be satisfied, the clamping company concerned more likely than not “phoenixing” regularly anyway.
Now you could treat this as an argument for increased regulation for the private clampers; but in my view, whatever the regulatory framework, most of these outfits could never be trusted not to bend the rules, obfuscate, dissemble and just plain lie (like they do now) in their pursuit of their profits. Better just to do away with the whole sorry bunch.
Lynne
It is more than probable that if someone parked in your driveway you would call the Police and be treated more favourable than others.
I do not believe for one minute that you would be happy to keep running around and putting notes on vehicles or having to install an unsightly and cumbersome retractable post at your home or work place and even if I am wrong how long would it be before you become fed up with having to get out of your nice dry car in the rain to carry out this remedial task.
Have you been clamped? or are you one of the people who would like to see clamping and towing banned because you have your own secure parking and therefor have nothing to lose but all to gain people.
@Phil
[quote]Maybe they did, but you are conflating enforcement by local authorities or the police, which is subject to a whole raft of statute which as a rule is respected by those involved , and private enforcement which is run by people out for a fast buck; the law and business ethics be damned.[/quote]
Sorry Phil I have to disagree with that whole statement, successive Governments have manipulated the law in order to FLEECE motorists at any given opportunity in relation to motoring and parking offences, if you think some of the rogue clampers are bad, you should see some of the PRIVATE companies acting for Councils and Local Authorities.. like the SPY cars that do NOT comply with the Data Protection Act in relation to OVERT use of CCTV Cameras in that that LAW requires NOTICES to be in place in every vicinity they are in operation stating who is operating them and contact details, yet this would mean to ensure compliance with the Data Protection Act, then every road these cars are to be used in should have clear and easy to read notices advising motorists of their possible use – do they? No, because that means they would not be able to raise revenue…
I know Rogue Clampers are an issue, but lets deal with the issue and not allow another Government to ride roughshod over the General Public and their inherited RIGHT to use reasonable force/deterents in order to protect their land and their property.
Margaret Hodge got clamped during and election campaign, she and her supporters wanting to Canvas a number of Houses in Barking, pulled up and parked across four (4) parking bays in a Private Development of Flats – as she drove in their was a LARGE SIGN compliant with normal street name signs stating the name of the development and the fact it was PRIVATE PROPERTY with a CONTROLLED PARKING SCHEME and one of the cars parked directly in front of a sign stating illegally parked vehicles would be CLAMPED OR TOWED AWAY… she choose to ignore it.
The residents who operated their own scheme clamped BOTH CARS as they were NOT even going to Canvas the Flats – obviously because people that live in flats never want to hear from their local Labour MP…!!!
When she contacted the person to release the clamps, she shouted at him, swore at him all because they demanded, in line with the notices, a £60 fee per vehicle to remove the clamps – she demanded a receipt which was sent to her offices and no doubt she claimed them on her ‘Campaign’ expenses….
This is a PRIME example of WHY private land owners such as leaseholders need to be protected or to have an EXEMPTION from this badly thought out legislation, because if the local MP cannot be bothered to take any notice of signs she passes and parks in front of, then the general public certainly won’t.
I did not vote for the Coalition last time but you know what after this decision I might change my mind. The failure to take on the thuggish practice of clamping was a hallmark of how the previous government had become far removed from the concerns of real people. Real people that were being fleeced daily by a bunch of out-of-control goons who extorted and bullied on all sides.
So congratulations Lynne for a far reaching and principled decision. Take no notice of the strange group of clampophiles and apologists who seem to hang around here hoping to persuade you otherwise by a combination of insults, hyped nonsense about parking chaos and threats to park on your drive. The clampers among them will have to find a new occupation, maybe something like bailiff or bouncer would suit. The landowners will have to get real and take steps to secure their land if there is a real as opposed to a deliberately hyped problem.
Many people have had to purchase their parking entitlement as without doing so they would have no legitimate parking rights of their own. Is the Government going to allow the people who have been illegally deprived of their parking entitlement a concession to park illegally on the highways or provide alternative free parking for them near their home if clamping and towing is banned.
The quality of life of law-abiding citizens in Scotland has been drastically affected since the introduction and banning of clamping.
In London the Police are conspiring with bailiffs using number plate – reading technology originally developed to track terrorists to pull over motorists and make them settle parking debts. Officers have been running joint operations with debt collectors who use unmarked vans fitted with automatic number plate recognition [ANPR] cameras to check whether passing vehicles have any unpaid Council tickets.
A Metropolitan police operation has helped catch nearly 250 drivers in one London borough alone. The bailiffs are cross-referencing licensing records with Council databases of outstanding parking fines and when they discover a match the debt collectors alert Police at a road block a few hundred yards further on. The motorist is stopped without suspecting they have committed an offence, the Police do their normal vehicle checks and then pass the driver onto another team of bailiffs who demand payment by credit card for the unpaid parking charges, in some cases if the driver refuses, or is unable to pay the vehicle may be impounded. The Met deny that its involvement in such operations was “inappropriate”.
Lynne
I would like to know if the government condones the above form of collection as to unpaid tickets and that of the concise method(s) and protocol(s) that should be used in collecting unpaid tickets in the name of the Council. Please also clarify the same as to unpaid tickets issued in the name of the private parking enforcement companies and what redress with a real prospect of success is open to the private companies if methods and protocols differ.
For: Jiminy Cricket
You cannot vote for a coalition and many clamping companies have good working practices to which it is noteworthy that the Government has plenty of statute on its books to deal with “rogue” clampers.
Clamping and towing provides a last resort to landowners, who are faced with persistent offenders and ticket evaders and the Government must be accountable for protecting landowners’ interests.
…………………………………………
If clamping is banned on private land in England and Wales parking will become a free for all to which I would ask that Ms Featherstone describe how the Government will provide cost effective 24/7 protection as to the following:
Please Note: ticketing has failed to resolve the problems and it is not possible to gate, barrier or install retractable posts for the following reasons;
a. The landowners have no funding
b. The development is gated but people keep letting their friends and family in. The turnover of tenants makes it impossible to keep changing the gates key fob frequency and/or gate code
c. Where do I park whilst the illegally parked vehicle is in my space
d. There is no tangible way to install gate(s), barrier(s) or parking posts
e. In order to fit a gate(s) barrier(s) the landowner needs planning permission which has been refused on the grounds that the application would cause an obstruction to the highways as vehicles would have to stop in the road and wait for the gate or barrier to open
f. The area is a right-of-way and others have access over it and as such gates and barriers are prohibited, retractable posts cannot be fitted as parking is not allocated
g. Retractable posts are extremely prone to vandalism making them impractical, they are also cumbersome and not user friendly to the disabled – people have also tripped over them leading to personal injury claims against the landowner, motorists are also renowned for driving into the posts making them inoperable and a liability
1. A small block of flats each with its own allocated parking space, there is no additional parking for residents or visitors. The flats are situated across the road from a busy sandwich shop and other businesses which attract trade from passing vehicles. The shops have no customer parking facilities of their own and parking in the road is insufficient to cope with parking demand, motorists are therefore parking in the residents bays as to its proximity to the shops. The flats’ parking bays are clearly marked along with large signs stating that illegally parked vehicles will be ticketed but this does nothing to help the residents as when one vehicle pulls off another one pulls in and even if you could ticket every vehicle and it paid this would not solve the residents dilemma … they need their parking space.
2. A large residential development in the heart of a city next to the local shopping centre and businesses premises. There are also adjacent properties and restaurants that have no parking facilities at all. Those who have an entitlement to park are issued with permits. The development cannot accommodate unauthorised vehicles and as such vehicles not complying with the parking schemes policies are clamped and/or removed for example if they are parked indiscriminately, dangerously and/or depriving a permit holder from parking. Where do the residents park whilst ticketed vehicles are in situ, these residents often have young children with them and/or heavy shopping to carry, these spaces are their private driveways.
3. The Government has approved the construction of a block of flats; the problem is that there are far more flats than parking spaces with some residents having more than one car in the household. All of the spaces have been rented and allocated on a first come basis to which the entitled occupants are complaining about their space being taken by other residents and unknown vehicles that keep appearing, the non authorised parkers are ignoring the parking tickets as there is no lawful way of enforcing the tickets as this is private land and not highways and even if you could enforce the tickets how does this help the bonafide parker who requires their parking space. The visitors and disabled bays are also being abused, vehicles are also double parking and causing damage by parking on the grass verges.
4. Without free patron parking a business is unable to proficiently trade. The issue of a parking charge notice does not remedy matters as the business requires the parking spaces for its customers and livelihood.
1. I fail to see how it can be said that a ban has worked in Scotland
1. Clamping may be banned in Scotland but is a great leap to say it has
worked
2. Towing away isn’t banned and is used instead
3. How many Scottish landowners would introduce clamping if they could?
4. They may have great problems but no other legal remedy
5. Perhaps a survey of landowners in Scotland would reveal a desire for
clamping services
2. Featherstone keeps mentioning one nurse who was clamped when visiting a patient
1. She omits to recognise that the nurse was trespassing on land and
there against the owners wishes
2. Why should she assume consent just because she is a nurse
3. She is doing no more than carrying out her daily work
4. A nurse does not attend life or death situations in an emergency
5. That nurse parking may have prevented another genuine person
getting access to HIS/HER property
3. The Home Office glibly say that a landowner will have to erect gates, barriers or ticket vehicles
1. How does the Home Office suggest you fit a gate, barrier or
retractable posts when it is physically impossible to do so
2. How does the householder find the driver of a car and pursue
him or her through the Courts
3. Why should the victim of the crime have to pay to attempt to get
justice; I thought Government policy was to shift the balance in
favour of the victim!
4. Parking tickets issued on private land are not legal penalty fines
and even if they were; where do you park whilst the trespassing
vehicle is taking away your space
Illegal parking on private land is not victimless and the proposed changes in the law will affect businesses, the elderly and young financially poor single people or couples who have struggled onto the property ladder to buy their first home.
It is important that you register your complaint with your local Member of Parliament as these proposed changes in legislation take away your parking rights.
Please also copy the contents of this missive and e-mail it on to others. If you are already using a clamping company get your friends and others to write letters and support a professional, dependable private security industry that helps protect people, property, assets and operations as the Government alone cannot always attain and maintain the sense of security that society and business expect these days. That is why it is so vital that Government bodies, the police, the security industry and security users work in collaboration to help build a vibrant, professional and reliable private security industry.
@MemberOfPublic/Dr Simm/Whoever
If local authorities are acting in breach of the DPA in using CCTV in that fashion then the tickets can be struck out – for example as in this case. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8184162.stm
So my point stands. I am a lot happier with the government and local authorities enforcing this type of thing despite their imperfections. You think a private company would have cancelled the tickets in similar circumstances? No, they would have tried it on for as long as they could then folded the company before action could be taken.
I found your rant about Margaret Hodge amusing however. If the residents concerned were operating their own clamping scheme, I suspect the £60 release fees had absolutely no relation to any loss suffered by them as a consequence of the incident. It is also ironic that she had to demand a reciept, since providing one is a legal requirement, and to clamp/tow without providing one is an offence. Sounds like these “residents” were a bunch of cowboys as well, if your telling of the story is accurate.
Also, campaign expenses are not publicly funded, so who cares?
Phil
Clamping Companies want an Independent Appeal Tribunal. That’s what they a calling for at the VI Network meetings …..
Lynne
Please can you answer the questions.
1 September 2010 at 10:40 pm
2 September 2010 at 10:53 am
To – living in the real world.
You have said it all in such a concise and practical way – well done.
Unfortunately your common sense will probably be brushed aside in favour of the offenders, as is the case so often nowadays.
I just hope that someone in the tory side of the coalition government clamps down on this ill conceived idea (no pun intended) and backs the innocent victims of illegal parking.
The threat of clamping is the only deterrant that works.
If rogue clampers are the problem, deal with them not the victims.
Have local authorities licence private land and offer the service of clamping, this would be self financing and fair; and the threat of clamping works.
Parking facilities are an important commodity which needs managing. What would happen if landowners and other pulled together and funded an alliance where irresponsibly parked vehicles were placed in the entrances of Council Pay and Display Car Parks and Offices making it impossible for Government Departments to function as to the loss of business revenue and parking entitlement.
The fund would pay the parking fine at the reduced rate.
@Phil
You don’t get it do you? By parking their two cars across four private spaces it meant that the leaseholders who OWNED those spaces had nowhere to park as there is no ON STREET PARKING (courtesy of M. Hodge and her cohorts at Barking & Dagenham Council).
This happened BEFORE the SIA Regulations, when they came into effect the leaseholders contracted LICENCED clampers who charged £100 and all leaseholders were issued with Parking Permits – still people parked there… the new legislation is BADLY THOUGHT OUT and deprives owners of such developments of protecting themselves from every tom dick and harry that want somewhere to park free of charge… its selfish, mindless and inconsiderate, but what do you expect in this country these days, I cant wait to retire and leave before I am forced to convert to another religion, sexual orientation and walk two places behind women….!
MemberOfPublic
There were times in this country when you could leave your backdoor open and still come home to find your TV in your property – now you cannot even more you car without the fear of someone stealing your parking space.
If you ask a burglar why you are in prison, the answer is; “I’m in here for something that I did not do, I forgot to wear gloves”. If you don’t want to pay the fine or do the time don’t do the crime
@MemberofPublic.
I get it only too well. They could have just asked Ms Hodge to move her car. After all, none of the inconvenienced residents could park in the spaces while the clamps were applied could they? No profit in that though is there? Furthermore, you admit it yourself, that clamping doesn’t work. To quote your own words “..leaseholders contracted LICENCED clampers who charged £100 and all leaseholders were issued with Parking Permits – still people parked there…”
Private clampers have zero interest in genuinely solving parking issues, because if they did, they wouldn’t make any money patrolling a site.
I’ve lost count of the number of people I’ve heard of who live in developments where clampers have been brought in, frequently by the management company with little or no consultation to ostensibly solve a parking problem, only for them to turn on the residents once revenues dry up. Clamping legitimate visitors and tradesmen, clamping people with expired permits when they know full well they are entitled to park there; clamping SORNed vehicles for expired tax disks when they have absolutely no power to do so by law etc etc.
What really makes me laugh though is the clampers and their sockpuppets on blogs like this one claiming they have been asking for increased regulation via the SIA VI Network, but when I read the publicly available minutes of these meetings, the attendee lists include some of the biggest cowboys in the industry. That indicates to me that the problem operators are firmly ensconced in the mainstream of the industry, and their calls for increased regulation in face of a potential ban is just a desperate attempt to protect the cash cow they’ve been furiously milking for years. Hopefully this is how the new government will read the situation as well.
The land is Private Property Ms Hodge has been told, [that what the signs are there for].
The Government must not confuse the different levels of parking quandary and methods of control that are required to combat parking abuse. The Government must also appreciate the fact that many people have had to purchase their parking entitlement as without doing so they would have no legitimate parking rights of their own.
IF NEED COMES TO SHOVE
All those in support of not banning the industry but supportive of sensible controls i.e. the Government [SIA] working alongside a VI Trade Organisation with good working practices – independent appeals tribunal should be organising demonstrations to highlight the severity and nuisance that those who park indiscriminately cause.
By indiscriminately parking our own vehicles at the entrances and exits of open and barrier controlled Car Parks and Government buildings making it impossible for others to park and/or remove their vehicle while we all go off shopping or visit our nearby friends will highlight and show that: gates, barriers, telescopic posts and ticketing are ineffective measures – it’s about protecting homeowners and landowners rights to their parking facilities.
If clamping companies have any old Jalopies in storage they should park them at their MP’s abode and constituency space(s). It should not take the MP more than six weeks to get the owner/registered keeper information from DVLA if they are lucky, but hold on you have to pay a £2,000 fee to a private company to become an “Accredited Trade Association Member” to obtain the DVLA data but don’t worry no qualifications or CRB check are necessary just basically the TWO GRAND MEMBERSHIP FEE. This is a Government backed scheme already in operation where your personal DVLA data is sold to people who may have criminal history. Wait there is more;
Unlike clampers you don’t have to have any competency skills, recognised qualifications in parking enforcement to ticket a vehicle; WHO’S PATROLLING YOUR PARKING FACILITIES – WHY ARE THEY UNLICENSED AND NOT INDEPENDENTLY CRB CHECKED BY GOVERNMENT – THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS YOU NEED TO ASK YOUR MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT.
Perhaps Ms Featherstone would be so kind to comment on the sale of DVLA data to those who pay two thousand pounds – No CRB checks – No Training – No Recognised Qualifications in Parking Enforcement – No frontline Sia or Non-Frontline licences required for those running the schemes or its members.
“Perhaps Ms Featherstone would be so kind to comment on the sale of DVLA data to those who pay two thousand pounds – No CRB checks – No Training – No Recognised Qualifications in Parking Enforcement – No frontline Sia or Non-Frontline licences required for those running the schemes or its members.”
Fat chance, living in the real world. The Rt Hon Ms Featherstone seems to have abandoned the wheel clamping threads to avoid answering awkward questions, for which, presumably, she has no answer, such as the oft asked, if the punishment is so disproportionate to the crime, why only private land?
Why only on Private Land? Here’s why.
Local authorities are only supposed to clamp and tow under specific circumstances. The question of proportionality is covered by statute, as are the safeguards.
On the other hand, as soon as you put any kind of enforcement in the hands of private operatives it becomes an exercise in how much money can be extracted from the victim; proportionality and safeguards are thrown to the wind.
Private companies should not be in the business of penalising the public for profit, and no regulatory framework is ever going to fully control the abuses endemic to the sector with such large revenues at stake.
There has already been outlined here a suitable means of controlling parking on private land where purely physical measures may not be appropriate. That is to allow local authorities to carry out enforcement on these areas, and keep the resulting revenues. I find it extremely telling that so little weight is being given to this option by certain posters on here who claim to be purely motivated by concern about land-owner rights…
The clampers are still whining I see, and Steve doesn’t even know the terms of his licence by the SIA, its ironic really, fancy a clamping company not complying to law, and then reserving the right to clamp on their website, but then of course most clamping firms all act ethically don’t they?
Clamping a nurse visiting a patient
Clamping an ambulance
Clamping a hearse with a coffin inside
Clamping people making a uturn in a car park in the middle of the night
Clamping a delivery van at a shop’s own parking place, then charging £1000 for 1 minute
Clamping vehicles without adequate signs
Clamping vehicles by hiding a sign by parking in front of it
Clamping vehicles by parking across exits
And plus many many many more incidents like the above, clamping is going, and its about time it is doing so!
The clamping apologists whine on and on, with their unique combination of threats to block in MPs, we’re not all the same (despite the two clampers who put their heads above the parapet being shown to be exactly the same), ridiculous claims about parking chaos and comparisons with local authority clamping. These people might be great big men strongarming a woman out of hundreds of pounds but in terms of how to run a campaign they haven’t a clue.
Have landowners made any objectipons to the plans? Not as far as I have heard, despite attempts by clampers to whip them up into a state of frenzy. All we get is the same old clamping bozos and assorted weirdo sidekicks on here totally in denial about what is happening and desperate to keep their ill gotten gains. Their desperation is plain to see and very, very sweet for the millions that these thuggish parasites intimidated over the years. They had become so used to being allowed to flout the law to extort and bully that they can’t accept their time is up, and not before time.
I suggest a Clampers Anonymous where these shaven headed, knuckle dragging throwbacks can get over the shock of the end of their little earner together.
For: Craig & Plain Talker
In summary; you see the wheelchair and not the person and every Asian being a terrorist and if you would read the treads you will see that landowners and homeowners are against the proposed banning.
Nevertheless; describe how you; “Craig” & “Plain Talker” will provide cost effective 24/7 protection as to the following or will you go to ground like; The Rt Hon Ms Featherstone when you are faced with questions that you find disagreeable.
Please Note: ticketing has failed to resolve the problems and it is not possible to gate, barrier or install retractable posts for the following reasons;
1. A small block of flats each with its own allocated parking space, there is no additional parking for residents or visitors. The flats are situated across the road from a busy sandwich shop and other businesses which attract trade from passing vehicles. The shops have no customer parking facilities of their own and parking in the road is insufficient to cope with parking demand, motorists are therefore parking in the residents bays as to its proximity to the shops. The flats’ parking bays are clearly marked along with large signs stating that illegally parked vehicles will be ticketed but this does nothing to help the residents as when one vehicle pulls off another one pulls in and even if you could ticket every vehicle and it paid this would not solve the residents dilemma … they need their parking space.
2. A large residential development in the heart of a city next to the local shopping centre and businesses premises. There are also adjacent properties and restaurants that have no parking facilities at all. Those who have an entitlement to park are issued with permits. The development cannot accommodate unauthorised vehicles and as such vehicles not complying with the parking schemes policies are clamped and/or removed for example if they are parked indiscriminately, dangerously and/or depriving a permit holder from parking. Where do the residents park whilst ticketed vehicles are in situ, these residents often have young children with them and/or heavy shopping to carry, these spaces are their private driveways.
3. The Government has approved the construction of a block of flats; the problem is that there are far more flats than parking spaces with some residents having more than one car in the household. All of the spaces have been rented and allocated on a first come basis to which the entitled occupants are complaining about their space being taken by other residents and unknown vehicles that keep appearing, the non authorised parkers are ignoring the parking tickets as there is no lawful way of enforcing the tickets as this is private land and not highways and even if you could enforce the tickets how does this help the bonafide parker who requires their parking space. The visitors and disabled bays are also being abused, vehicles are also double parking and causing damage by parking on the grass verges.
4. Without free patron parking a business is unable to proficiently trade. The issue of a parking charge notice does not remedy matters as the business requires the parking spaces for its customers and livelihood.