MSE News: Wheel clamping ban moves closer

trisontana

It looks as though the clamping firm now patrolling the marina is no better:-

Hull Marina boss vows to review clampers' contract over costly charges

peter_the_piper

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100308/debtext/100308-0018.htm
Lords reading of the section on clamping etc. Needs a better brain than mine.

Oopsadaisy

peter_the_piper wrote: »

Needs a better brain than mine.

Ditto!!!!!

jkdd77

peter_the_piper wrote: »

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100308/debtext/100308-0018.htm
Lords reading of the section on clamping etc. Needs a better brain than mine.

That was the debate on the Crime and Security Act 2010 to "license" clamping, the relevant sections of which will not be commenced and indeed will be repealed by the Protection of Freedoms Bill.

Sirdan

jkdd77 wrote: »

That was the debate on the Crime and Security Act 2010 to "license" clamping, the relevant sections of which will not be commenced and indeed will be repealed by the Protection of Freedoms Bill.

Yep Protection of Freedoms is nowhere near The Lords yet ..still in the Committee stage at the Commons ..


http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/protectionoffreedoms.html

peter_the_piper

Damn you're right, why do they make it so confusing.

Oopsadaisy

Whose right???

ripped_off_driver

Here is the transcipt of the Committee session yesterday at which the BPA, SIA, AA and RAC gave evidence:http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmpublic/protection/110324/pm/110324s01.htm See Q414 to 439 for the relevant debate.Some good points made and the usual load pf guff as expected from the BPA and the totally useless SIA. Personally I cannot see this registered keeper liability being abandoned now. It is clear from the hurried naure of the hearing that this is not being assessed in huge detail. The discusison on the use of barriers to circumvent the ban was interesting though.

Oopsadaisy

Here's a little gem...from Mr Troy of the BPA...[we all know this but it's nice to hear it officially in hansard!!!]

Patrick Troy: Perhaps I could start with the BPA, which raised the issue in the first place. There has always been a concern about private land that, because it is unregulated and not subject to any regulatory law, landowners rely on the law of contract, or sometimes trespass, in order to carry out activities on private land. Under those laws the driver is liable, because it is the driver who has committed the act or misdeed, but of course they are unknown; only the keeper of the vehicle is known because they are registered at the DVLA.

peter_the_piper

Just had a letter from L.F confirming they are ""proposing that the RK will be responsible for the drivers misdeeds providing the ticket was given at the time and has not been paid. This will cause all sorts of problems, as has been said before. ""

Trespass would be excluded on the grounds of the value of the loss caused so that only leaves contract. There seems to be nothing yet proposed to force the rK to say who was driving only to make the RK responsible. How? There will surely be a proper court case to either overturn the old premise of only the driver can be sued or to confirm the old position which would make a mockery of the new law. I think I have interpreted it correctly, when I can I'll scan it in.