MSE News: Wheel clamping to be banned on private land

lucylucky

peter_the_piper wrote: »

I get the feeling that despite all the possible options offered the BT's problem will never be solved short of clamping.

In which case I guess it will never be solved.

TheBogsDollocks

If clamping is outlawed and BT can't find an alternative deterrent such as notices and barriers and inconsiderate parking continues to be so detrimental to business then BT's options would seem to be to move premises or become an online business (if possible and not already so).

It is unfortunate that there will be businesses that suffer if and when clamping is outlawed. Many businesses were happy for clampers to operate their car parks and did not care, so long as their customers could park, that the clampers were often extortionate and bordering on criminal. Therefore, the public will shed no tears on the fact that the tables are turned and business will now lose money. Sadly BT it seems you may suffer for the actions of others. This is not a perfect world and when a law changes there will always be those that benefit and those that don't.

One would hope that Govt come up with something sensible that appeases the public and helps such businesses. I believe they will.

bigturnip

Coupon-mad wrote: »

OK, let's see if there are any solutions because clamping isn't lawful (or won't be).

Do your actual parking spaces lead directly off the A Road (no driveway/entrance?). If so can 'individual space' small bollards be placed a couple of feet in from the front of the space (i.e. so that when they are let down they will be well under the car, let's say level with the front wheels?).

So your customer/staff member arrives, drives partially into a space so they are off the road then the bollard is unlocked and lowered by key to let them completely park.

If there's an entrance or even a car-sized small driveway then a customer pulls in off the road and beeps the horn to get the space freed (a notice could tell customers this)?

If none of these are going to work in your case then I guess put up a clear notice 'parking for customers of xxxxx only 24 hours a day, trespassers will face legal action' (even though they won't, most people don't know it) and an appropriate note plonked on any car that is seen to offend.

There's a pavement about 2 or 3 feet wide, but certainly not enough space for a car to stop and wait without blocking the main road.

We tried signs and notices when the problems started, just after the station car park was first shut, and while I agree most people do take notice, because we are only talking about 2 spaces, 6 in total in front of 3 shops, it only takes a few drivers to realise that there is nothing you can do and they will just carry on doing it. After the polite notices we tried sticky notices and parking charge notices, but finally resorted to calling in a clamping firm because the problem was causing such a drastic effect to our businesses.

These aren't people who park there for just an hour or two, they are there for maybe 10 hours while they go to work.

Village shops rely on passing trade as there just isn't enough custom within one village and when you lose that passing trade you might as well just shut up shop. Villages tend to work in clusters these days so between 5 or 6 villages there are a range of shops which serve the community, people drive between villages to shop, or more commonly shop as they are passing through nearby villages.

Near me, one village has a surgery, a pharmacy, a bank and small bakery, another village has a petrol station, off licence and post office, the next village has an Indian takeaway, a small general store and a dentist, another village has a butcher-!!!-deli, a furniture shop and boat yard (it's not anywhere near the sea oddly enough) and then other villages provide other services or you find businesses just in the middle of the countryside, like our local vet and a health spa, each village has at least two pubs. :beer: I added this paragraph just to show how much village businesses rely on passing trade from drivers, it probably makes up at least half of our business and much more for others.

I will do a little diagram if I get a chance and you can add suggestions.

bigturnip

bigturnip wrote: »

butcher-!!!-deli

I wonder why c u m is a restricted word? There is a perfectly clean meaning for it.

bigturnip

peter_the_piper wrote: »

I get the feeling that despite all the possible options offered the BT's problem will never be solved short of clamping.

We did come up with one solution, to lock cars in by a chain or pop up bollard and charge them for parking on return. By the way we are only intending to do this for people who park all day and go off to work on the train. But Apparently this would be illegal, although I can't see how it differs from any current pay to exit car park. I'm more than happy to listen to ideas, but notices and tickets don't work, we know from past experience.

bigturnip

bromsgrovebarry wrote: »

if the road has the national speed limit, I am sure it will not be in a built up area where parking issues are a problem or am I missing the point?

There is a station opposite which sold off its car park a few years ago for housing.

bromsgrovebarry wrote: »

I can sympathise with anybody whose business is affected by selfish car park abusers but clamping is not the answer.

For the past few years it has been a very good answer for us, I do sympathise with the drivers who have to deal with clamping firms and am all in favour of better regulation to keep them in check, but my priority is to protect my business by allowing customers to park, and they do solve this problem.

bigturnip

TheBogsDollocks wrote: »

If clamping is outlawed and BT can't find an alternative deterrent such as notices and barriers and inconsiderate parking continues to be so detrimental to business then BT's options would seem to be to move premises or become an online business (if possible and not already so).

Or just shut up shop, convert it into a house and there's one more village shop lost for ever.

TheBogsDollocks wrote: »

It is unfortunate that there will be businesses that suffer if and when clamping is outlawed. Many businesses were happy for clampers to operate their car parks and did not care, so long as their customers could park, that the clampers were often extortionate and bordering on criminal.

Pretty accurate, except I do sympathise with the people who fell in to the hands of the clamping firms. It is my job to run my business, not to regulate the clamping firms, blame that on the weak legislation passed by the last government, not small businesses for whom this may be their only solution.

TheBogsDollocks wrote: »

Therefore, the public will shed no tears on the fact that the tables are turned and business will now lose money. Sadly BT it seems you may suffer for the actions of others. This is not a perfect world and when a law changes there will always be those that benefit and those that don't.

I know the people who lose a local service will be unhappy and it will all be because of a few inconsiderate people parking cars so they can save their legs from walking a few hundred yards.

TheBogsDollocks wrote: »

One would hope that Govt come up with something sensible that appeases the public and helps such businesses. I believe they will.

I wish I could share your faith that they will come up with something.

bigturnip

Promised diagram:



If anybody has any suggestions then let me know.

Hadeon

bigturnip wrote: »

Please can you stop quoting within quotes, it makes it very hard to follow and very hard to reply to, it also makes it look like I said things I didn't.

My prerogative, but I regret that it appears to have caused you some difficulties. I disagree with your points & I'm particularly astonished at your claim that 'it makes it look like you said things you didn't' (perhaps you would care to elaborate & give an example(s) of this). The very reason in fact I 'quoted within your quotes' was that by reproducing your post in full, individual comments you made within it, if isolated & responded to, could not otherwise have been taken out of context.

bigturnip wrote: »

I read it that a start date had not been agreed between Moat and the residents and that there was an agreement between Moat and Aspire. If this is the case it makes all the other actions of the clamping company seem perfectly reasonable.

......and I read it that a start date for parking had not been agreed (period) and that Aspire subsequently realised the error (sic) was theirs.(period)
How you can possibly condone & consider the actions of the PPC to be perfectly reasonable under any circumstances, is totally beyond me.

bigturnip wrote: »

The cars were clamped overnight, hence why the 5 hours to sort it out doesn't, at first glance, doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

What!!!! Are you serious? :eek:
Hence nothing; I wonder if you would feel the same if your car was among the 15 clamped during this night-raid thus preventing you from getting to work, opening up your business premises, getting to the airport, hospital or whatever.
It appears to me your attitude in this instance towards innocent victims of PPC excesses, lacks understanding & is every bit as selfish & inconsiderate as the motorists you accuse of abusing your own business spaces.

bigturnip wrote: »

It's also The Sun, so take it with a pinch of salt.

Are you now saying The Sun article was a complete or partial fabrication? :eek:
I'll choose to add my own levels of seasoning if you don't mind.

lucylucky

bigturnip wrote: »

Promised diagram:



If anybody has any suggestions then let me know.

Is the whole pavement one giant dropped kerb?