Clamping Loophole

Jeff_Bridges_hair

So with the legislation that is going through banning clamping are you aware that they have added to the legislation a loophole which says that cars can be clamped if on private land if the entrance has a closeable gate.

Not a gate that is closed, but one that can be closed and they can still clamp you.

Now i cant find a link for this but it was in yesterdays Torygraph motoring section.

Sirdan

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

So with the legislation that is going through banning clamping are you aware that they have added to the legislation a loophole which says that cars can be clamped if on private land if the entrance has a closeable gate.

Not a gate that is closed, but one that can be closed and they can still clamp you.

Now i cant find a link for this but it was in yesterdays Torygraph motoring section.

It's very badly written but I think what the bill is trying to say is that if there is a barrier then it is lawful to prevent removal of the vehicle by closing / locking the barrier ..not by clamping ..

"Offence of immobilising etc. vehicles
(1)A person commits an offence who, without lawful authority—

(a)immobilises a motor vehicle by the attachment to the vehicle, or a part of it, of an immobilising device, or

(b)moves, or restricts the movement of, such a vehicle by any means,intending to prevent or inhibit the removal of the vehicle by a person otherwise entitled to remove it.

(2)The express or implied consent (whether or not legally binding) of a person otherwise entitled to remove the vehicle to the immobilisation, movement or restriction concerned is not lawful authority for the purposes of subsection (1).


(3)Subsection (2) does not apply where—

(a)there is express or implied consent by the driver of the vehicle to
restricting its movement by a fixed barrier, and

(b)the barrier was present (whether or not lowered into place or otherwise restricting movement) when the vehicle was parked."

I'm hopeful that this will be tidied up as the Bill passes through the Lords..because as written it could be taken either way ..

sabz3008

Clamping Loophole?! - You almost gave me a heart attack!

HO87

It is saying that clamping (or other immobilisation) would be lawful in an area than is capable of being restricted by a barrier that was in place, though not necessarily being used, at the time the vehicle in question was parked. The express or implied consent of the driver of the vehicle - presumably by virtue of signs giving a warning of clamping being in use - would be sufficient to confer the required lawful authority.

The immobilisation could by whatever means:

(a)immobilises a motor vehicle by the attachment to the vehicle, or a part of it, of an immobilising device, or

(b)moves, or restricts the movement of, such a vehicle by any means,intending to prevent or inhibit the removal of the vehicle by a person otherwise entitled to remove it.

This is a permissive section allowing any means to be used to immobilise or restrict the vehicle movements not necessarily any particular means and could thus include the use of the barrier(s)

By contrast in areas not restricted by barriers the implied/expressed consent of the driver/owner etc would not confer lawful authority and it would therefore need to be obtained from elsewhere.

Sirdan

HO87 wrote: »

It is saying that clamping (or other immobilisation) would be lawful in an area than is capable of being restricted by a barrier that was in place, though not necessarily being used, at the time the vehicle in question was parked. The express or implied consent of the driver of the vehicle - presumably by virtue of signs giving a warning of clamping being in use - would be sufficient to confer the required lawful authority.

The immobilisation could by whatever means:

This is a permissive section allowing any means to be used to immobilise or restrict the vehicle movements not necessarily any particular means and could thus include the use of the barrier(s)

By contrast in areas not restricted by barriers the implied/expressed consent of the driver/owner etc would not confer lawful authority and it would therefore need to be obtained from elsewhere.

So as it stands all that needs to be done is for the landowner to install some form of barrier (but not actually ever use it) and it's carry on clamping ....that does seem like a pretty big loophole on the face of it :-(

taffy056

I can't see it being allowed to be honest, it's open to huge abuse, and emails should be sent to featherstone mp in regards to this, mine has been sent, the more the better

vax2002

Its all spin and no Balls, they will just by an old scaffold pole and two wall clamps and carry on as before.
The bill only needs one clause. that it is an absolute offence for anyone to immobilise your vehicle or place any item upon it unless authorised by the secretary of state by statuary instrument for purposes of law enforcement .
Would stop spam leaflets, wheel clamper's, windscreen bandits and fake parking ticket merchants in 1 go
Car park owners would have to invest in a man in the box taking money, you know, just like the old days.

taffy056

Or have barriers that you pay to leave, in a supermarket that would be at the till , probably free to use the car park with a a ticket like a multistorey, or maybe £5 if you don't shop there , think that would help most abuse, in smaller car parks have a barrier on entry and exit, pay to leave, the landowner gets the full amount for parking. There are solutions out there, the parking companies are leaches

Sirdan

taffy056 wrote: »

Or have barriers that you pay to leave, in a supermarket that would be at the till , probably free to use the car park with a a ticket like a multistorey, or maybe £5 if you don't shop there , think that would help most abuse, in smaller car parks have a barrier on entry and exit, pay to leave, the landowner gets the full amount for parking. There are solutions out there, the parking companies are leaches

The only problem with barriers is how do you limit the time a person can stay ? What happens when you overstay your two hour welcome ,will they try to charge you £60+ to open the barrier ??

Maybe supermarkets should emulate multi storeys and dispense with time limits ,just have a sliding scale of reasonable charges.
The only issue being if the supermarket is near a train station but then they could always dissuade commuters by ensuring that their charge for a whole days stay is more than the station car park ?

In fact regardless of clamping bans (or not) why don't landowners do this now ??

taffy056

Well its free providing you shop at a retail unit, if you don't there is a charge to get out of the car park, local morrisons to me has a £1 charge unless you go to the shop and spend £5 and its taken off your bill, the thing is there is no one answer to everything in regards to this, my opinion is that providing you are using the facilities there is no such thing as parking abuse, commen courtesy is to park within bays, and not use the disabled bays unless needed.

That works in my local Tesco, go to another Tesco a few miles away, and they have loads of abuse, well at least according to the ppc who lurks there.