Clampers/BPA in disarray about ban/but Ticketing danger

ripped_off_driver

Have a look at this very revealing correspondence which a wheelclamper has placed on his protest site:

http://www.myexpense.org/Reply.to.Troy.pdf

It is clear that the government remains steadfast about a ban. But look at what the BPA, who the wheelclamper appears mightily annoyed with, is looking for as a concession - RK liability. What a surprise.

Can I suggest that everyone who has an interest in this matter takes a few minutes to write to the relevant ministers Lynne Featherstone and Norman Baker strongly objecting to any such proposal:

The online contact forms are here:

http://www.lynnefeatherstone.org/contact

http://www.normanbaker.org.uk/contact_form.htm

With a strong show of opposition this predictable but outrageous BPA suggestion will never get off the ground.

sarahg1969

All those poor clampers. I've got a lump in my throat.

pmsl at Rockweiler.

"I too could have charged £130 instead of £80 for a release fee and towed away vehicles willy nilly just to line my

pockets, so to say that I am extremely bitter is a gross understatement."

Or, you could all have just charged, say, £5 or so, and you could have carried on without any problems. It's your own greed that has caused your downfall. Shame.

torontoboy45

I'll be writing to both of them.

the bpa seems to have been wrong-footed by the announcement but it comes as no surprise that 'concessions' are being begged.

the coalition are on to a winner with the motoring public but only if it stands firm.

I smiled at the 'nazi' analogy chairman trevor used: join the club, matey.

to add: can anyone explain the precise significance of 'owner liability for enforcement'?

trisontana

torontoboy45 wrote: »

to add: can anyone explain the precise significance of 'owner liability for enforcement'?

I think it means the PPCs want to go after the registered keeper as well as the driver. All very academic really, as these PPC invoices are still not worth the paper they are written on.

peter_the_piper

Isn't it nice to know that the clampers think the BPA is a waste of time just as their victims do.

mikey72

trisontana wrote: »

I think it means the PPCs want to go after the registered keeper as well as the driver. All very academic really, as these PPC invoices are still not worth the paper they are written on.

"PPC invoices are still not worth the paper they are written on" at the moment.
Unless of course the law is changed to make the owners liable, and some sort of offence written up so the money can be collected on behalf of the landowner/enforcer/and more importantly government body.
Or maybe I'm being too cynical.

Coupon-mad

OMG that Trev is illiterate!

There are so many grammatical and factual errors (e.g. he talks about fines and penalties!) in his email but to actually be thick enough to type out the word 'Rockweiler' (sp) made me spit out my tea with laughter just like sarahg1969!

Methinks Trev needs a spell-check on his computer before he uses it for job applications.

And don't you just love the unfortunate Freudian slip at the end, making it read as though this is how he has signed off his email, and I quote:

'Demanding money with menaces'

Trevor Whitehouse, National Clamps

I prefer 'kind regards' myself to end an office email but his is much more appropriate for a scammer.

It is worrying about how much they are lobbying MPs though, I knew they would but am also concerned that concessions may work in ticketers' favour if they don't even have to establish who was driving. TBH rogue ticketers could accuse ANY car of being parked ANYWHERE and the rk would have a hard job defending it unless they knew exactly where their car was at the given time, weeks later when the threatograms start arriving.

All the scammers would need is a list of car regs. That's all, and the DVLA would furnish them with the rest of the info to pin a scam on anyone they choose to.

trisontana

Another clamper whose IQ is lower than his shoe size.

fb1969

"I am absolutely discussed that you have squandered such an opportunity"

I agree, I hate being discussed! :rotfl:


EDIT: And from the @myexpense website

Trevor Whitehouse
Chairman & Founder National Clamps 1989~ Present day
(Unemployed like others tomorrow) :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

bromsgrovebarry

The scammers think that all that needs to be done is to tweek the 'law' that enables them to 'fine' the RK rather than the driver. To give private companies the right to fine citizens would require a major change in the law that would prove massively unpopular and open to abuse. With their experience of 'managing' supermarket car parks, perhaps our scamming friends could apply to be trolley boys.

torontoboy45

trisontana wrote: »

I think it means the PPCs want to go after the registered keeper as well as the driver. All very academic really, as these PPC invoices are still not worth the paper they are written on.

if you what you say is correct: we needn't worry too much.

my concern is (without doing the paranoid bit) that the scramble for 'concessions' isn't that simple; does anyone know, btw, if any of the big players in this grand scam donate to the libs/cons?

it could be a swansong but I'm watching. always watching.