MSE News: Wheel clamping ban moves closer

taffy056

Altarf the source of the information was an interview with troy of the BPA to the times a couple of months ago, there are links to that on forum somewhere, also various parking companies have stated that about 70% of invoices went unpaid, and parking eye admitted that they have never taken anyone to court ever.

It's out there in the public eye, unfortunately if you want the actual article you have to pay for it through subscription with the times. Just to say as well that troy admitted some of this to mp's going back a couple of years ago

taffy056

Mikey ,

The anti clamping on here brigade on here as you put it, does not endorse abuse of parking spaces or land, it's the clampers who operate under the anything is fair game motto, that is why they are being outlawed on private land

mikey72

taffy056 wrote: »

Mikey ,

The anti clamping on here brigade on here as you put it, does not endorse abuse of parking spaces or land, it's the clampers who operate under the anything is fair game motto, that is why they are being outlawed on private land

That's a quote from pgl0897.
It's not a clamper speaking is it?

"anyone who owns lands has to accept that either you take measures to gate off the property (if parking is that much of an issue for you) and only allow access to those you wish, or just stop moaning about it."

taffy056

mikey72 wrote: »

That's a quote from pgl0897.
It's not a clamper speaking is it?

"anyone who owns lands has to accept that either you take measures to gate off the property (if parking is that much of an issue for you) and only allow access to those you wish, or just stop moaning about it."

Sorry I am on my iPhone and sometimes it's difficult to browse the forum

Flyboy152

trisontana wrote: »

If PPCs are going to be given semi-official status then they need to be properly regulated, and not by the BPA. This official regulator, "Ofpark", would be given the powers to oversee all aspects of the private parking industry. This includes laying down rules over things such as the signage in a car-parks, the wording of the tickets left on cars, and the contents of the various letters sent out by the PPCs, their debt collectors, and solicitors.

If this was done then this should see the end of the various "threatograms", full of pseudo-legal mumbo-jumbo which are so beloved of the private parking industry

But then, didn't "Dave" say he doesn't want anymore quangos?

ripped_off_driver

taffy056 wrote: »

It's far higher than 25% not currently paid, it's closer to 70% of invoices are not paid, the source of this is the BPA and various PPCs over the last few months, this legislation if passed as is will not help them at all, they will not be able to take tens of thousands of people to court, win and force payment

Yes, you are almost right. Currently 40% of PPC invoices are paid, 60% are not.

Source: Patrick Troy, head of BPA at the Parking Forum in Nov (Item 2):

http://www.parkingforum.co.uk/sites/default/files/pictures/sites/default/files/pictures/Parking%20Forum%20Meeting%20Notes%20-%20051110%20%20final.pdf

ripped_off_driver

The achilles heel for the PPCs is that large scale litigation is not feasible. To get the numbers of paid invoices up from 40% they will have to have this. Othewise people will calculate (as they have been doing) even if I am the RK and they can issue a claim, what is the chance of that? 1in a 1,000? 1 in 10,000?

It is simply not realistic or scaleable to embark on large scale litigation to up the numbers. Preparing even one case takes many hours and then there is the attending court. The costs recoverable make it just not worth it. No real solicitor will take this on in any scale because there is not enough financially in it for them.

Plus litigation is a very uncertain business. There is absolutely no way of knowing how the court will find. This proposal removes one defence but of the relatively few cases that PPCs have taken and lost many did not even involve driver ID issues. The cases were decided on existence of contract (largely signage and right to enforce parking), unlawful penalties and in at least one case that it was not even a case of contract but trespass.

Those defences will continue to exist, so if the PPCs think this is a panacea they will be be sorely disappointed.

Hadeon

Altarf wrote: »

Fair enough if you own the land, and have not appointed a management company to operate a set of rules regarding parking on the land. But most allocated parking is usually in connection with leased property, where the land is not owned. In which case, the rules will depend on what the lease says.

With respect, you are playing with words here & disguising what is an obvious 'penalty charge' for failing to display a permit, by calling it a parking charge under the proposals. How on earth do you envisage that a parking charge can be imposed upon & enforced against an individual who is in 'possession and control' of land (by virtue of a lease or tenancy agreement) & upon which he is perfectly entitled to park a motor vehicle.

If a lease/tenancy agreement has been allegedly breached in this way, the 'freeholder' of the land has other more befitting recourses in law & in practice to deal with such matters.

The imposition of instant penalty charges (unlawful anyway) unashamedly disguised as parking charges is, in my view, neither appropriate nor intended by the proposed legislation in such cases.

BTW, I happen to agree with much of what you have stated on this & another thread, but not on this particular issue I'm afraid..

Spartacus_Mills

taffy056 wrote: »

Mikey ,

The anti clamping on here brigade on here as you put it, does not endorse abuse of parking spaces or land, it's the clampers who operate under the anything is fair game motto, that is why they are being outlawed on private land

Like Taffy I have been in this forum alot longer than most of those who have wandered into this thread.

The regulars here, like Taffy, never condone people abusing private land for parking. No one condones that. However extorting money from motorists is something no one condones either.

I think this whole claim that we are endorsing the abuse of parking spaces and private land is a poor attempt at a strawman.

Spartacus_Mills

Flyboy152 wrote: »

But then, didn't "Dave" say he doesn't want anymore quangos?

No, he said he wanted to reduce the ones we currently have. He has not ruled out new ones. The OBR is one such example.