Park Direct Ltd -

esmerobbo

chrisspectre wrote: »

There are too many cowboy clampers out there, i think i mentioned before that i am also against cowboy clampers. However, i also see a need for a private landowner to have a way of removing a wrongfully parked vehicle from their property. Admit it, you wouldn't like it if you came home to find a random vehicle parked in your front garden, but what could you do about it if private clamping companies didn't exist?
The real issue here should be that of regulation, which is what had been proposed before some bright spark in government decided otherwise. The governments real failure was in not regulating clamping at an early stage, which has allowed cowboy companies to flourish and has earned a bad reputation for all clamping companies.
Too many people rely on clampers to operate their land, including councils, hospitals and housing associations. What could they do if legitimate companies were banned? Cash strapped hospitals would have to rely on alternative expensive services which could not pay there way, housing associations and councils would pass the cost to their tenants.
As it stands, clamping and towing is a service which could work if it hadn't have been allowed to get so out of hand.
It's going to be intersting to see what happens if and when the ban does come in.

Totally agree I had two businesses which both suffered from trespassing/inconsiderate parking, if I lost money through someone parking where they should not have, I would have claimed against them to recover my loss's. Never had too, normally a quite word done the job. Never felt the need to employ a clamping company or a PPC to rip people off!

I think I need to advise you the the 14 days period is up for you to produce your County Court Judgements! Your £50 is now payable to a charity of your choice, [except Disabled Driving UK formally Mobilise] failure to pay will mean me passing your details to a debt collection company, who will send you loads of scary letters with threats and everything. They "may" threaten to take you to court and do nasty things to your credit history. Then if we win at court we will send the boys around to clamp your car or seize your cat!:p

SodG24

chrisspectre wrote: »

I can however emphasise again that each case is different and the outcome in court can never be predictable. This has led to many companies not defending themselves in court, it does not necessarily mean they acted illegally.

I'll repeat my question to you :

As it's the PPC that issues the court proceedings ( and initally pays the costs ) - why would they not defend a case THEY started ? It just strikes me as a very stupid and costly thing to do !

trisontana

SodG24 wrote: »

I'll repeat my question to you :

As it's the PPC that issues the court proceedings ( and initally pays the costs ) - why would they not defend a case THEY started ? It just strikes me as a very stupid and costly thing to do !

Scare tactics. Issue court papers and then hope that the motorist will pay up before the case gets to court. I image that little ploy works quite a few times.

Kite2010

chrisspectre wrote: »

There are too many cowboy clampers out there, i think i mentioned before that i am also against cowboy clampers. However, i also see a need for a private landowner to have a way of removing a wrongfully parked vehicle from their property. Admit it, you wouldn't like it if you came home to find a random vehicle parked in your front garden, but what could you do about it if private clamping companies didn't exist?
The real issue here should be that of regulation, which is what had been proposed before some bright spark in government decided otherwise. The governments real failure was in not regulating clamping at an early stage, which has allowed cowboy companies to flourish and has earned a bad reputation for all clamping companies.
Too many people rely on clampers to operate their land, including councils, hospitals and housing associations. What could they do if legitimate companies were banned? Cash strapped hospitals would have to rely on alternative expensive services which could not pay there way, housing associations and councils would pass the cost to their tenants.
As it stands, clamping and towing is a service which could work if it hadn't have been allowed to get so out of hand.
It's going to be intersting to see what happens if and when the ban does come in.

Hello Trevor

notts_phil

Whos trevor?

HO87

notts_phil wrote: »

Whos trevor?

Trevor Whitehouse. President of the Parking Enforcement Trade Association and founder of National Clamps.

chrisspectre

No, not trevor an not perky, told you before..nothing to do with ppc's, not directly anyway. Just popped back to say hello basically, saw all your venomous comments and just thought i'd let you know i'm still here!
I think someone confused my earlier comments about ppc's not defending in court and not showing up in court. Note the use of the word 'defending'. I can tell you with certainty how the county court system works. You may one day receive a claim against you, then submit a defence. Later you will need to fill in an allocation questionaire, then later again you'll receive a court date.
On many occasions, a company will receive a judgement against them for not responding to the claim form, without ever knowing a claim had been made. Basically, they never received the claim. On other occasions, they may receive the claim form then respond but never receive the allocation questionaire. On other occasions, they may receive a claim with no reference to the vehicle, receipt number, time or place of said incident, so you may request such info and eventually get nothing back but a judgement against you. It happens, frequently.
As for taking people to court, that's different. However the law is very much on the side of the clamper/ticketter who works within the law.

My biggest objection to these types of forums is not their willingness to help, but their unwillingness to see both sides of the coin. Many of you go on as if you really believe the Ppc has no idea about law and always acts illegaly. If you're not prepared to look at both arguements, then how can you best advise anyonehow to win?

Anyway....see you all soon..got stuff to do.

notts_phil

Back under your bridge:)

Sirdan

However the law is very much on the side of the clamper/ticketter who works within the law.

Hmm..you reckon...oh well if you say so ...

So following on from that ...

The vast majority of clampers must be operating outwith said law, otherwise why would HMG be passing legislation to outlaw the practice ?

As for the ticketers well .....

The accepted industry standard is the BPA code of practice..we must presume then that this is fully compliant with any and all of the laws to which you refer .
Odd then that Excel recently lost (badly) in court and yet the BPA were prepared to make an official statement afterwards that Excel had fully complied with the COP.
Odd that whilst allegedly on such firm legal ground the entire industry seems more than a little reluctant to issue claims.Why when on such firm ground does the industry persist in making ridiculous threats of NPOs and quoting extracts of the CPR that will not apply.
Not to mention my personal "favourite" piece of misleading drivel about the driver acting as an agent of the keeper and as such the doctrine of "agency" in contracts applies ...more utter bullpoo.

With so many operators who are professional and ethical and have as you say the law on their side ....could you explain why the only case quoted is from 2008 ....(Stephen Thomas) ??

So...

However the law is very much on the side of the clamper/ticketter who works within the law.

in your dreams !!

Coupon-mad

We've had 2 PPC trolls on here with he same spelling mistakes recently. Strange coincidence.