Clamper Gets Himself ARRESTED

Kite2010

Don't they just use fake names & addresses for official vehicles?

Sirdan

Kite2010 wrote: »

Don't they just use fake names & addresses for official vehicles?

Simple answer is( believe it or not) NO.

HO87

CWCDiver wrote: »

Same as failing to display an SIA licence when requested.

The offence is actually contravening the conditions of his SIA licence by, in this case, failing to display his licence whilst carrying out a designated activity. When clamping he is required to wear it visibly and if he had to be asked to produce it, then the offence would seem to be complete.

CWCDiver

HO87 wrote: »

The offence is actually contravening the conditions of his SIA licence by, in this case, failing to display his licence whilst carrying out a designated activity. When clamping he is required to wear it visibly and if he had to be asked to produce it, then the offence would seem to be complete.

Could well be, but I wouldn't be nicking them for that alone. If they get it out and show me I'd be happy with that (as would the officers concerned in this case) but I would still be making a report to the SIA for failing to display.

Sirdan

HO87 wrote: »

The offence is actually contravening the conditions of his SIA licence by, in this case, failing to display his licence whilst carrying out a designated activity. When clamping he is required to wear it visibly and if he had to be asked to produce it, then the offence would seem to be complete.

Looks like he is stuffed all ways :rotfl:

Shoal Enforcement Code of Practice "Where the driver of the vehicle is present at or near the vehicle, every effort should be made to resolve the situation and seek voluntary relocation of the vehicle"

So he knew before he clamped that it was the police ..o dear ..I feel some book throwing in the offing ..

robredz

CWCDiver wrote: »

It is not a CIVIL matter, the clamper was obstructing police officers in the execution of their duty, said clamper was hampering the police protection efforts. That is a criminal act. Same as failing to display an SIA licence when requested.

See the point, and agree the act was criminal, but the irony is that the clamper thought they were ordinary Joe Public, what evidence had he to believe otherwise? the fact he was a complete moron and carried on with his enforcement, in spite of the treat to his liberty from angry plod is also hilarious. Obviously the clamper thought the ppc warning signs would protect him from sanction from a clamped plod. Doesn't look good for Shoal

Sirdan

robredz wrote: »

See the point, and agree the act was criminal, but the irony is that the clamper thought they were ordinary Joe Public, what evidence had he to believe otherwise? the fact he was a complete moron and carried on with his enforcement, in spite of the treat to his liberty from angry plod is also hilarious. Obviously the clamper thought the ppc warning signs would protect him from sanction from a clamped plod. Doesn't look good for Shoal

Whilst discretion may be paramount I would have thought a visit from a local police inspector to the site just prior to the arrival of the cars would have avoided all this...
After all it's not like Shoal are unknown, quite the contrary they are well known to be keen as mustard at this particular site ..clamp first questions later.
Surely a quiet word along the lines of " there will be two cars arriving here shortly ..parking over there ..you don't need to know who they are or why they are here but you will NOT clamp them under any circumstances ..got it ?"

I'm sure the Police and the Royal Protection squad in particular would be of the opinion that they should not have to do this but it could have avoided all this unnecessary fuss and embarrassment.
As has already been pointed out if these guys can't even stop a clamper from putting his clamp on whilst they are still with the vehicle what hope have they got against a real threat to Her Maj ??

Sirdan

HO87 wrote: »

The offence is actually contravening the conditions of his SIA licence by, in this case, failing to display his licence whilst carrying out a designated activity. When clamping he is required to wear it visibly and if he had to be asked to produce it, then the offence would seem to be complete.

It is also an offence to clamp an "emergency vehicle when in use" as it is a condition of the licence that clampers will not do this by vitue of

The Private Security Industry Act 2001 (Licences) Regulations 2007

and furthermore despite what Shoal and the BPA say about vehicles being liveried this is not what the law says ..the above regulation states that an emergency vehicle is as defined by :-

The Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989,

which defines an emergency vehicle as

"a vehicle used for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes"

no mention of livery or markings !!

So sorry Shoal and BPA but it is a condition of "clamping" licences that police vehicles when in use are not clamped / immobilized / towed etc

I think that's quite clear cut regardless of any obstruction charges.

HO87

Whilst the regulations do indeed use the words as you described them it is interesting to note that the SIA themselves insert the word "marked" before "emergency vehicle". I suspect that had this been clearly defined that Mr Andrews would have been charged with a breach of his licence conditions in addition to the two he already faces.

Sirdan

HO87 wrote: »

Whilst the regulations do indeed use the words as you described them it is interesting to note that the SIA themselves insert the word "marked" before "emergency vehicle". I suspect that had this been clearly defined that Mr Andrews would have been charged with a breach of his licence conditions in addition to the two he already faces.

Are you saying that on the conditions issued the SIA use the wording "marked" ?
Shame :-(

But this SIA document :-http://www.sia.homeoffice.gov.uk/Documents/licensing/sia_get_licensed.pdf

says :-

"Further conditions for vehicle immobiliser licences
When carrying out front line vehicle immobilisation duties the following conditions must be followed.
A vehicle must not be clamped/blocked/towed if:
• a valid disabled badge is displayed on the vehicle
• it is an emergency service vehicle which is in use as such."

So which is it , I'm confused now , the regs say " emergency vehicle" unqualified as does the above SIA guide for applicants so where do SIA use the term "marked" ?

EDIT -found it !! It does indeed say marked on the SIA website

http://www.sia.homeoffice.gov.uk/Pages/licensing-conditions.aspx

lucky for Shoal that SIA are giving them a get out by giving advice which is strictly contrary to what the statute regs say !!