MSE News: Wheel clamping ban moves closer

ashleypride

anewman wrote: »

Yep bye bye parking eye.

Also, what happens if I am handed a charge and choose to drop it on the floor as if I never received it?

PPCs can tackle that by taking a photo of it on the car?

Wig

Arriving to the topic late, Can someone clarify...

Are we getting clamping by private firms, private land to become illegal?

Does the draft proposal really have a 'replacement' for clamping offered to private land owners the right to issue fines/tickets of up to £50,000 and make the RK liable? Aren't the newspapers already shouting from the rooftops at such a proposal?

d123

Wig wrote: »

Arriving to the topic late, Can someone clarify...

Are we getting clamping by private firms, private land to become illegal?

yes

Wig wrote: »

Does the draft proposal really have a 'replacement' for clamping offered to private land owners the right to issue fines/tickets of up to £50,000 and make the RK liable? Aren't the newspapers already shouting from the rooftops at such a proposal?

I think there is a fair amount of misinformation being delivered by pro-clampers, there will be a regulated amount allowed, and any sharp practices should see them "struck off" and not able to issue parking invoices.

I think it is still very much a wait and see situation with regard to what they are allowed to charge, who the independent adjudicator will be and what the actual process will be.

From the original announcement:

Towing away will also be outlawed, with private landowners – who often share in clamping firms’ profits – restricted to erecting barriers to keep drivers out or charging regulated parking fees.

In a tightening of the existing rules for private landowners operating parking charges, firms must belong to a recognised regulator. If they are ‘struck off’ for abuses, they may not lawfully issue parking tickets.

Coupon-mad

Yes, but to my mind the bill does not make the difference between regulated parking FEES and claimed parking CHARGES clear. They are different things but it only seems to say that the the FEES have to be regulated. Does it make any mention or clarification about regulating the amount of the 'charge' on the 'Notice' that they slap on the car?

So the fees might be, say, £3 for 3 hours parking (or whatever the regulated amount is for fees) but as the Bill stands, the fake Parking Charge Notice might say 'your wheel covered a white line so now you owe us a 'charge' of £500 as per our notices in that car park'.

Now I know that should never stand up in Court - but if the PPC put up notices to that effect and then point to the Freedoms Act as supporting them then a judge just might have to find in their favour! And - particularly if they are pursuing the registered keeper who wasn't even there and knows nothing about the alleged incident that may or may not have ever happened - how exactly is that fair for a private company to be able to do this?

This is daft! :eek:

That's why we must all write to or email our MPs to point out that we are desperate for the pariah of private clampers to be banned but the Freedoms Bill includes some huge errors:

- Allowing a private company to charge for whatever 'contravention' they allege (how about parking on a crack in the pavement, having a blue car, possession of an offensive wife...:p)

- No onus on them to prove the alleged contravention (yet Councils have to prove theirs!)

- No limit on the amount of money they can 'charge' (regulating the parking FEE is not the same)

- No appeal, no independent adjudicator (Councils have to have this process!)

- Not having to prove who was driving, being allowed to pin real or made up 'unpaid PCNs' against unsuspecting car owners who were never even there.

- And they talk about a 'regulator' but the BPA is by it's own admission, nothing of the sort.

This will surely be put right but we need to alert our local MPs and email Lynne Featherstone.

d123

Coupon-mad wrote: »

This will surely be put right but we need to alert our local MPs and email Lynne Featherstone.

Anyone who wants to email her can do so from this page:
http://www.parliament.uk/lynne-featherstone

anewman

Would be great if someone could post up an e-mail they sent so it can be shamelessly used as a template to contact our own MP's

peter_the_piper

Actually I shamelessly nicked CM's post above (hope you don't mind)

Good Evening.
I was pleased to see the Freedom Bill progressing through Parliament but am concerned about the so called parking fines issued by parking companies. A few of my concerns are as follows:-
- Allowing a private company to charge for whatever 'contravention' they allege (how about parking on a crack in the pavement, having a blue car, possession of an offensive wife...:p)

- No onus on them to prove the alleged contravention (yet Councils have to prove theirs!)

- No limit on the amount of money they can 'charge' (regulating the parking FEE is not the same) This also impinges on the age old law regarding penalties in contracts.

- No appeal, no independent adjudicator (Councils have to have this process!)

- Not having to prove who was driving, being allowed to pin real or made up 'unpaid PCNs' against unsuspecting car owners who were never even there.

- And they talk about a 'regulator' but the BPA is by it's own admission, nothing of the sort.

I am sure others will be contacting you to express their concerns and hope that those who draft the laws will take these and others into account.
Peter the piper

I'm just about to send same to own MP.

d123

anewman wrote: »

Would be great if someone could post up an e-mail they sent so it can be shamelessly used as a template to contact our own MP's

How about this?

I have been following the proposals for banning clamping of vehicles on private land, and up till now supported what Parliament was doing to protect it's citizens from these unscrupulous people.

I have just read the draft of the bill and I am shocked that it seems to hold the Register Keeper of the vehicle legally responsible to the profit-making Private Parking Companies with regard to paying any parking fee allegedly owed to these Private Parking Companies.

Could you advise what safeguards Parliament intends adding to the legislation to prevent any abuse of the new system?

I am sure you are already well aware of the immoral (even criminal) acts of these parking companies, and to allow them to chase the registered keeper without having to use the courts seems like giving them an open season to simply accuse any vehicle of parking and then pursue the registered keeper.

What is to stop them putting up signs saying "Parking Charge £500" or "Additional charge -parked outside White lines - £1000" and then just pursuing the registered keeper? What is there to stop them taking photos of legally parked cars and then pursuing the keeper 2 weeks later and claim they were illegally parked?

Experience show that the majority of these parking companies are unscrupulous and willing to break the rules to make money.

Surely the current procedure of the parking company taking the driver to civil court and allowing the court to decide if a contract was formed and reasonable is a better, safer system?

Especially as it would stop false demands from being pursued by less ethical parking companies?

The Act seems like a good, well thought out piece of legislation, but the appendix allowing the parking companies free rein to pursue all and sundry seems to have been a rushed, badly composed add on (suspiciously as if the private parking companies have exerted pressure through lobbying to get this unfair, open to abuse, addition included).

I would hope you are able to amend this appendix to be fairer and more impartial, and that allows the parking companies to seek redress for breach of contract through the courts from trespassers and provide legal protection to registered keepers and ensure the whole process is kept fair and impartial.

Yours

mikey72

What did I say last september?

mikey72 wrote: »

"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.

taffy056

Messages to various MPs sent

Contact Number 10

Thank you. An e-mail has been sent to the e-mail address you gave. Please click on the verification link within that e-mail to send your message to the Prime Minister's Office.

DONE!

http://www.number10.gov.uk/