PPC's Business Model.

Driver8

Just think about it.

They set a business up on a Monday morning called for instance "Shark Parking control" send their reps around business's promising them the world.

Tuesday morning they put a chimp in a hi viz vest walking round one of their money pit car parks then start extorting money out of people on very very spurios grounds, unfortunately a lot of people pay them or they woudln't do it.

I have an idea. i am going to go out and get a PPC "ticket" and when the threatening letters start coming through the door i am going to go to the Police to demand action for which is basically extortion, blackmail and demanding money with menaces. If the Police say it's a civil matter i will demand to speak to a senior officer and ask, since when, has demanding money with menaces, threatening people with fake solicitors which is tantamount to fraud and the other stuff, a civil matter?

Hopefully a senior cop will see what you have to show them as regards the letters then take action against them. I personally would take THEM to court for, alarm, harassment and distress (the police love those words) extortion, threatening behaviour and anything else i could think of.

i just may do it.

I do not recall any laws being passed through Parliament that says a private company can "fine" a private citizen. or worse, extort money out of them.

I am surprised it's not been done already actually.

anewman

You won't get far with the Police, sorry. You'll be more likely to have luck with clamping. Even the DVLA ignore complaints about misuse of data.

The scam goes on because of a lack of willingness to act. People tend to think the person parked illegally (sic), the punishment is just, you brought it on yourself, and had you parked in accordance with rules then you could easily have avoided it (even if you did park in accordance with rules or could not reasonably be expected to have read the rules). Even Citizens Advice Bureaux spout out some crap regarding PPC charges that involves paying and appealing (DO NOT EVER DO THIS FOR A PPC CHARGE). This is why clamping has gone on for so long unchallenged.

Something will happen about PPC's one day IMO, but until that day ignorance is bliss and they'll continue to make massive profits when their only expenditure is minimum wage for hi viz vested chimp, £20 for some difficult to read signs stuck 12 foot up a lamp post, £2.50 per drivers details from DVLA, price of second class stamps, and some cheap yellow plastic envelopes and preprinted note paper.

daveyjp

PPCs don't help themselves and just like clampers they will kill the golden goose through their greed:

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/Pensioners-vow-over-50-penalty.6610970.jp

It's only by contacting MPs on a regular basis that clamping has been banned, I suggest the same for PPC tickets and constant reporting to actionfraud.org.uk, espeically if you weren't driving when the ticket was issued as in this situations the PPC actions are fraud.

backfoot

I have some sympathy with Driver's suggestion. Many of the actions do ,imho, verge on intimidation and harrassment.

Without having researched it,what are the differences between some of the criminal cases showing up recently regarding clampers?

Could we learn something useful from those cases,where Local Authorities, Trading Standards and the police have taken action.

My gut instinct is that there are cases, where the circumstances are so clear cut, that it is clear that action is being taken without any just cause with menaces.

I think some of you more experienced campaigners will have some valuable input.

anewman

backfoot wrote: »

Without having researched it,what are the differences between some of the criminal cases showing up recently regarding clampers?

I guess the only differences are that they have a clamp on your car so you cannot move it until you have paid them, and because they have your car clamped they like to charge quite a bit of money and add on extras such as calling out a tow truck. You really have no choice but to pay up or cut the clamp off. So effectively your property is held hostage, and I think this is what the court cases for blackmail against rogue clampers hinge upon.

Whereas PPC's make threats of court etc.

backfoot

anewman wrote: »

I guess the only differences are that they have a clamp on your car so you cannot move it until you have paid them, and because they have your car clamped they like to charge quite a bit of money and add on extras such as calling out a tow truck. You really have no choice but to pay up or cut the clamp off. So effectively your property is held hostage, and I think this is what the court cases for blackmail against rogue clampers hinge upon.

Whereas PPC's make threats of court etc.

Yes. I understand the leverage they hold over you. You can't avoid it.

But we are seeing cases being brought before the courts on criminal grounds. This is, of course, before the impending ban on clampers.
Is it blackmail these cases are prosecuted under?

I think it's maybe a lot more complicated than that. I was just wondering if there were parallels beyond the clamping bit which could be translated to the arena of ticketing?

I need to look into it more, but remember seeing things like not having licenses. Acting while disqualified as a Director. Not having Director's names properly displayed. Even things like poor/no signage or operating on land not properly assigned to them.

Anyone been following these cases closely?

anewman

A google http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=clamping+blackmail seems to bring up quite a alot

esmerobbo

This is a part of a clamper's letter to Lynn Featherstone MP over his appeal to leave clamping alone.

"Depriving a person of their property even for a short period is an act of theft" he meant depriving the owner of his land, then surely he has argued against himself in depriving an owner of their car is an act of theft! Even if they try and justify it as a penalty for trespass.

He goes on to complain that if he is moved in to ticketing it will leave him at a disadvantage as he will have to pursue though civil court. Whereas by clamping he has the upper hand in the paying of a release fee.

peter_the_piper

How sad, a clamper that does not have the upper hand. My heart bleeds for him.

Coblcris

Theft requires the intent to permanently deprive.
It is not Theft per se.
Although one must consider cases where clampers remove vehicles and sell them on rather quickly.
Even then there remains the 'intent' hurdle.

See: Tortious interference with goods.

taffy056

Is it legal for a clamper to sell on a vehicle that is not legally theirs ? Wouldn't it be theft ? If there is finance on said vehicle the finance company will have a say on it.