National Clamps - we care (not)

UsagiYojimbo

budgetboy wrote: »

I'm sorry, didn't realise this was a 'lets all slate National Clamps' thread.

What happened to 'freedom of speech'?

The way I saw the thread it was more to do with discussions regarding National Clamps. Not a National Clamps abuse thread... was I wrong?

What kind of thread did you think this was when the title is "National Clamps - we care (not)"?

I think budgetboy is just enjoying trying to wind people up. Must be linked to National Clamps somehow though or wouldn't be sticking up for them like this.

Coupon-mad

budgetboy wrote: »

First result on Google for clamping legislation: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/tmaportal/tmafeatures/tmapart6/secparkingfactsheets/parkclampremoval
A government web site?

This links to another government web site: http://www.sia.homeoffice.gov.uk/Pages/home.aspx
This web site welcomes you to search for your clampers name and you can see if they can legally clamp you.

Your point being? You think because someone has an SIA licence to clamp that means that any clamp they carry out is legal, regardless of other illegalities?:rotfl:

Most clamping cases reported on pepipoo do have an SIA licence on the paperwork. But ALL of the cases I have read have been illegal/unfair contracts in other aspects, making it perfectly possible for law-abiding citizens to claim their money back in Court, as they are entitled to do.

Here's a more relevant and current link to extracts from Hansard concerning the Crime and Security Bill under discussion this year. The BPA spokesman, Patrick Troy, put his point very badly indeed and dug some huge holes for himself and the industry. Many MPs have already sussed that private clamping and private penalty charges are extortion:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=48644

HTH

HO87

budgetboy wrote: »

Or another idea for you, stop whining about somebodys company over the internet and vote for somebody who opposes clamping.

My remarks here are general and are not aimed at National Clamps.

I think you might just be missing the point bb. There are few politicians who is prepared to put their weight behind the issues here. They see the legalities as complicated and are not prepared to invest the time and effort into researching what - to them - is a flea bite on the back of an elephant.

What is worse, statutory bodies such as Trading Standards and even voluntary bodies are giving out erroneous, or at least, misleading advice and, as far as TS are concerned are very reluctant to pursue companies who flagrantly flout the law. It's easy to understand why though, because a crucial part of the business plan of many of these companies is to fold the moment there is a sniff of something or somebody on their tail and phoenix the following day.

There is also reason to believe that some companies are merely "fronted" by the named directors who would take the fall should the company catch a serious cold or find its offices invaded by gentlemen armed with a search warrant.

There are many areas of the business that it would be flattering to describe as "murky" and the everyday issue of the innocent motorist being hoodwinked into believing they have committed an offence (as opposed to a civil wrong) and are being "fined" by someone in authority is just a small part of it.

One seriously has to question what contribution PPC's as a whole actually make to increased accessibility in car parks. At a large store I know of the manager has just dispensed with the services of a PPC because he wasn't actually seeing any improvement in terms of spaces being freed up more quickly. In fairness he'd admit that wasn't his primary motiviation when accepting the PPC's pitch as he was really interested in the £7.50 payment his store received for each ticket issued.

It took him nearly six months to realise that the PPC were coining it - particularly at weekends (£1000+ worth of tickets a day was not unusual) and their impact in the car park was minimal at best. Although the store saw a rake-off he had to deal with the sometimes extremely irate customers and felt that the PPC were only interested in issuing tickets not actually managing the car park.

Ultimately the PPC and clamping business is simply about cash. There are undoubtedly some reputable companies who regard themselves as being in for the longhaul but there are an awful lot who are simply out to grab as much cash as they can as quickly as they can and it is this latter category - which is far from insubtantial - we need to concern ourselves with.

The nature of the clamping world is that it tends to be peopled by those who, to a greater or lesser extent, may be described as doers rather than thinkers but in order to bring the business in have to portray an image of being in the latter category rather than the former. All too often their efforts fall flat and as a bit of consumer payback taking the mickey out of what they produce is fair game in my book. If the companies can't deal with that then, in my opinion, they should take their websites down or employ someone who is rather more literate, better versed in the law, and honest - depending on the specific problem.

As for the freedom of speech argument, these companies have had untrammeled freedom of speech for a number of years and are now reaping the whirlwind, to an extent, because the game has been rumbled and groups of consumers are on their case. Not once has a representative of a PPC attempted to come on here, for example, and genuinely engage. There have, however, been many abusive trolls.

And why are the consumers on their case? Simply because none of the statutory bodies are seemingly interested.

UsagiYojimbo wrote: »

I think budgetboy is just enjoying trying to wind people up. Must be linked to National Clamps somehow though or wouldn't be sticking up for them like this.

In which case we should perhaps say hello to Trevor and hope he is enjoying the sun in Malaga.