MSE News: Wheel clamping ban moves closer

Flyboy152

anewman wrote: »

Or here's a radical idea, people could use lockable posts or gates to protect property where there are known problems?! These solutions are highly effective (unless the person who wants to park there are an expert lock picker), relatively cheap (compared with other costs associated with protecting property such as fire/burglar alarm systems), and cost little to maintain.

Police already supposedly deal with problems on the roads, so if someone blocks your gated and locked driveway with your car on it then it's under their jurisdiction.

And what about those who can neither afford, nor get permission, to do that, what solutions do have for them?

I have been quoted very nearly fifty thousand pounds to fence and enclose my forecourt (including maintaining the security for five years), with effective protection and security. That is about ten times as much as it cost to install and burglar and fire alarm system.

Unless thiongs have changed recently, as far a I am aware, the police have no powers to punish a driver, or remove a vehicle, if it is blocking a driveway. If the car is parked on the highway, with no parking restrictions and it is taxed, they cannot do anything at all, except advise the owner of their responsibilities under the highway code.

Flyboy152

oldone wrote: »

There is a simple solution. Observe your car park to see when the first rogue car arrives. You then enter your car park just ahead of this time and block the entrance, pulling forward to let staff members in.When the park is full go about your days work.

This has to be less disruptive then a recptionist dropping work and going and asking people not to park.

But apparently we are not allowed to do that. I am supposed to let any Tom, !!!!!! or Harry on to my private property and let them park where they want. Because, according to some on here, if I try to stop them, apparently that will be illegal.

anewman

Flyboy152 wrote: »

The permit was not visible; by the car owner's admission. Yes, they should have released the car when it was clear she had authority to park there, but the onus is on her to display her pass correctly. If it falls behind the tax disc, she should have secured it properly, shouldn't she? Or is not okay to suggest that it could have been as much her fault, as the clampers?

The clampers are employed by either the residents themselves, or the freeholder (or their management company) on their behalf. Therefore, they have an invitation to be present on that land and property, for the purpose of immobilising a vehcile, which they believe has no right to be there. The management company have presumably responded to the needs of the residents and employed a company to deter trespass parking. If the residents don't want the clampers there, they should take it up with the freeholders, or their management company. But I am sure, if this ban comes into place, they are the ones who will be asking the same questions as me. Are you going to tell them all to, "get a gate?"

Problem is most clampings happen to residents who are permitted to park there and get caught out somehow. In most cases the residents do not want the clampers there, and were never consulted - or if they were and wanted clamping companies, quickly change their mind once they end up clamped. The management company is usually in it for a bit of a backhander from the protection racket.

In cases where land owners charge exorbitant amounts of money to rent out a parking space, like £500 a year, then yes a gate is justified.

Here's proof that gates work http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=leeds&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Leeds,+United+Kingdom&gl=uk&ll=53.797825,-1.527572&spn=0.006058,0.021136&z=16&layer=c&cbll=53.797779,-1.527391&panoid=h9-b7n6JVGvU0b37PzoCnA&cbp=12,354.82,,0,18.34 the guy who lives there in the little house must make a mint out of having people pay him to park close to the city centre. Look at all the cars opposite parked against the rules (on the public highway) who just can't be bothered paying to park in the city centre.

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Because, according to some on here, if I try to stop them, apparently that will be illegal.

A gate/barrier is not illegal.

Here are some possibilities depending on the layout of your parking http://www.hazard.co.uk/hub-pages/2-one-way-flow-traffic-barriers.html

Flyboy152

anewman wrote: »

Problem is most clampings happen to residents who are permitted to park there and get caught out somehow. In most cases the residents do not want the clampers there, and were never consulted - or if they were and wanted clamping companies, quickly change their mind once they end up clamped. The management company is usually in it for a bit of a backhander from the protection racket.

Then that is something for them to resolve amongst themselves. If they are unhappy with the service the clampers provide, they need to re-negotiate ther agreement with them.

In cases where land owners charge exorbitant amounts of money to rent out a parking space, like £500 a year, then yes a gate is justified.

Here's proof that gates work http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=leeds&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Leeds,+United+Kingdom&gl=uk&ll=53.797825,-1.527572&spn=0.006058,0.021136&z=16&layer=c&cbll=53.797779,-1.527391&panoid=h9-b7n6JVGvU0b37PzoCnA&cbp=12,354.82,,0,18.34 the guy who lives there in the little house must make a mint out of having people pay him to park close to the city centre. Look at all the cars opposite parked against the rules (on the public highway) who just can't be bothered paying to park in the city centre.

He seems to have the right idea. Unfortuantely, I don't have that option.

A gate/barrier is not illegal.

It is if I erect one without planning consent, or without an agrement with the freeholders.

oldone_2

Flyboy152 wrote: »

But apparently we are not allowed to do that. I am supposed to let any Tom, !!!!!! or Harry on to my private property and let them park where they want. Because, according to some on here, if I try to stop them, apparently that will be illegal.

My suggestion was to use your car to stop people ENTERING your car park, which is the same as putting up barriers or gates.

I'm afraid with your replies to this thread you are rapidly losing credibility and don't want to consider any solutions.The conclusion from this is you receive a chunk of the clamping fees and don't want this income stream to stop. I hope you declare them on your income tax return.

Flyboy152

oldone wrote: »

My suggestion was to use your car to stop people ENTERING your car park, which is the same as putting up barriers or gates.

My reply, in case you missed the sarcasm, was well........sarcastic.

Who is going to pay employees to arrive up to three hours early everyday to monitor the car park?

I'm afraid with your replies to this thread you are rapidly losing credibility and don't want to consider any solutions.The conclusion from this is you receive a chunk of the clamping fees and don't want this income stream to stop. I hope you declare them on your income tax return.

I have explained, in detail, why the solution of any building work is not practical. So, I have come up with other more practical solutions, but seeing as that is seen to inconvenience the trespass parkers (never mind them inconveniencing me, my staff and my clients), they have been shot down, because they prevent lazy, ignorant, tight motorists from using my forecourt, in order to do their shopping.

Have you seen my accounts? Have you actually read this thread? What leads you to believe I take any income from the release fees?

ripped_off_driver

This discussion is going round in circles and rather pointless. Clamping is going, like it or not (and the vast majority fully support this ban). It is futile and nonsensical to keep arguing that the only solution that will work is one that is being abolished (because of the criminal activities of the operators). It is time for clampers and landowners to get real. Clampers to (hopefully) find a new job that does not involve leeching off the backs of their fellow citizens. Landowners to secure their land, if unauthorised parking is likely to be a problem for them. Anything else is like trying to beat the sea back with a stick.

Flyboy152

ripped_off_driver wrote: »

This discussion is going round in circles and rather pointless. Clamping is going, like it or not (and the vast majority fully support this ban). It is futile and nonsensical to keep arguing that the only solution that will work is one that is being abolished (because of the criminal activities of the operators). It is time for clampers and landowners to get real. Clampers to (hopefully) find a new job that does not involve leeching off the backs of their fellow citizens. Landowners to secure their land, if unauthorised parking is likely to be a problem for them. Anything else is like trying to beat the sea back with a stick.

Or here's another solution, selfish lazy gits shouldn't park on private land.

SodG24

Flyboy152 wrote: »

I have explained, in detail, why the solution of any building work is not practical. So, I have come up with other more practical solutions, but seeing as that is seen to inconvenience the trespass parkers (never mind them inconveniencing me, my staff and my clients), they have been shot down, because they prevent lazy, ignorant, tight motorists from using my forecourt, in order to do their shopping.

Have you seen my accounts? Have you actually read this thread? What leads you to believe I take any income from the release fees?

It really is very simple - in all likelihood clamping will be outlawed ( regardless of what you or I think of that ).

That means YOU as the landowner need to think of something different to deter people from parking on your land. Many have suggested gates / a barrier and you've responded that it would be illegal without planning consent and the freeholders permission. Firstly it's not illegal without the freeholders permission - you would just be breaking your lease. Secondly, have you actually applied for planning consent - it's very painless and fairly cheap ? Or indeed have you asked permission of the freeholder ?

Whether you like it or not, whining and !!!!!ing on here will not change the fact that it is very likely it will become law.

Finally, you mention boxing in vehicles. I agree with you that I don't believe you could be charged with obstruction BUT you could be charged with a breach of the peace. It's an offense that police can invoke for almost anything including any behaviour which will offend, upset or cause discomfort to others where a possible outcome could be - for example a fight. Boxing in a vehicle could easily fall into this category.

If you fancy a criminal record go ahead but personally, if I owned any land, I would be looking at a better alternative than getting arrested.

oldone_2

Flyboy152 wrote: »

I have explained, in detail, why the solution of any building work is not practical.

What building work do you need to do to park your car across the entrance before the rougue parkers arrive.
As I have said, you don't want a solution, but continue to collect clamping fees.

I