Another clamper in court.

peter_the_piper

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1326200/Rogue-wheel-clamper-bullying-staff-terrorised-motorists-paying-fines-ordered-reimburse-victims.html

I especially like the repayment bit, but don't hold out much hope of victims getting much money.

geordieracer

great news but i bet they dont see a penny.. which is a shame

peter_the_piper

Would it mean a greater smack from the judge if he does not?

Paranoid

peter_the_piper wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1326200/Rogue-wheel-clamper-bullying-staff-terrorised-motorists-paying-fines-ordered-reimburse-victims.html

This link to the Daily Mail article shows reference to "The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (No.1277)"

I have not come across these regulations before, but I think they clearly could be seen to apply to many of the PPC's as well as clampers.

It would appear that the police are required to take action against offenders. (?)

Views would be appreciated. https://www.oft.gov.uk/business-advice/treating-customers.../protection

Nilrem

peter_the_piper wrote: »

Would it mean a greater smack from the judge if he does not?

Not obeying the court order tends to be taken very dimly.

Given what he was found guilty of, and the fact that he likely has property the court may be able to seize assets if he doesn't do as he's told.

Failing that the court could decide on jail for non payment (which is the real reason people go to jail for not paying the TVL, it's not non payment of the TV licence but non payment of the court imposed fine if they are found guilty and still don't pay).

dacouch

Paranoid wrote: »

peter_the_piper wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1326200/Rogue-wheel-clamper-bullying-staff-terrorised-motorists-paying-fines-ordered-reimburse-victims.html

This link to the Daily Mail article shows reference to "The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (No.1277)"

I have not come across these regulations before, but I think they clearly could be seen to apply to many of the PPC's as well as clampers.

It would appear that the police are required to take action against offenders. (?)

Views would be appreciated. https://www.oft.gov.uk/business-advice/treating-customers.../protection

It's the local trading standards office to the trader who take action

Paranoid

dacouch wrote: »

Paranoid wrote: »

It's the local trading standards office to the trader who take action

Section 19 of the the regulations say —(1) It shall be the duty of every enforcement authority to enforce these Regulations.

Sections 20-27 Give extensive powers to the "authorities" which must include the police (?)

Trading Standards, although sympathetic to complaints, are underfunded and appear to be reluctant to take what may be expensive action. In my experience!

I think these regulations, which came into force on 26th May 2008, probably are sufficiently important to justify a new strand.

Herbert1

This landmark case using the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs) was brought to court by Brent and Harrow Trading Standards Service. I think they should be congratulated on a job well done! The consumers should get their money back as this was a compensation order requested by Brent TS and approved by the Magistrate. It is therefore enforceable by the Magistrates Court. Mr Peacock and his various companies have been around and trading in a questionable manner for years now. It is a shame that some other local authorities as well as the Police are not so keen to protect consumers in certain other areas where Mr Peacock and his various companies have been operating. You can see some other posts on this forum to find out where. With respect to the suggestion that the Police can enforce the CPRs; if you read the enforcement part of CPRs it outlines whose duty it is to enforce the regulations and it certainly does not include the Police ! It is interesting to note that Brent TS also prosecuted Peacock for 2 Fraud Act offences. Why didn't the Police bring this to Court? Although TS can investigate under the Fraud Act, it must have been difficult for them as they have no powers under this particular act. Well done Brent and Harrow TS!!!! P.S. It good to have a public gallery in Court, we should all attend more often.