Trevor Whitehouse in deluded 'save clamping' e-petition bid

Coupon-mad

Just found this (register to read the whole article):

http://www.transportxtra.com/magazines/parking_review/news/?id=28518

'Trevor Whitehouse, founder of National Clamps and president of the Parking Enforcement Association, has launched an e-petition in a bid to prevent the ban on wheel clamping.

The ban, which affects parking on private land, features in the Protection of Freedoms Bill, currently in the House of Lords.

Whitehouse says: “The proposed ban has simply not been thought through. The industry is against it; the police are complaining about it; landowners are up in arms and soon the public will be...'



Police complaining about it?! Public against it?!!! :rotfl:

Trebor16

What planet is he on?

I guess the pressure of having gone through life with a surname that rhymes with toilet has taken its toll on him.

esmerobbo

Must be worried about paying his mortgage on his villa in Spain.

I thought he would be happy about the ban, after all he was going to claim £4m from the Government was he not!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1347597/Clamping-bosss-4m-payout-bid-Government-claiming-new-anti-cowboy-rules-ruin-business.html

peter_the_piper

I've signed.












































Sorry, my mistake , different one. Love all the comments on the above link, wish we could see all of them.

Trebor16

What planet is Whitehouse on?? Some snippets from his article:_

"The alternative, ticketing, is simply ineffective. Only 40 to 60% of tickets are ever paid and for many drivers this results in bailiffs at the door and lengthy court proceedings where the costs to motorists can be far greater, with fines of up to £400."

Bailliffs at the door???? ha ha ha

And:-

"As far back as 1995, in Arthur & Another v Anker, the Law Lords ruled in favour of the landowner’s right to clamp, based on the ruling: Volenti-non-fit-injuria. Or in plain English: ‘no wrong is done to one who consents.’ If the signs are clear, the driver has been warned and therefore is responsible. In fact, in 99 per cent of clamping cases the motorist has been in the wrong. A ban makes no sense."

No mention of the need for the fee to be reasonable, the vehicle to be released without delay, and most importantly, the issue of contract, i.e the driver seeing the terms and conditions and accepting them, the signs being properly worded and clearly displayed. Minor details of course:D

There's more:-

"But the principal purpose of clamping is to deter illegal parking and protect private property, not generate revenue "

Really? Does he honestly believe that?

The man is clearly deluded.

peter_the_piper

He obviously believes that turkeys are in favour of Christmas.

ric3vic

He professes to prefer the quick fix of clamping (which prevents someone from leaving private land) rather than the longer term, more permanent and more remunerative court route. It is rather like saying that a lynch mob is so much better than trial by jury because it is quick and does not waste time in the tedious possibility of defence.

esmerobbo

"not generate revenue" Not for the land owner, however I think he has done quite well out of it!

AlexisV

Playing devil's advocate, what would people think about banning the sale of keeper addresses by the DVLA, thus ending ticketing, and keeping clamping with a maximum release fee of £50 and no towing? With only one approved sign design being permitted?

Clampers must also lodge a fund with the SIA in the case of any CCJ's being awarded against them, thus guaranteeing refunds.

Trebor16

On the subject of DVLA, could a keeper write to them and instruct them not to process their data to any party other than the police, local authorities and any other ornganisation who has a statutory right to request the info, to prevent them from providing keeper details to these cowboys?

esmerobbo

AlexisV wrote: »

Playing devil's advocate, what would people think about banning the sale of keeper addresses by the DVLA, thus ending ticketing, and keeping clamping with a maximum release fee of £50 and no towing? With only one approved sign design being permitted?

Clampers must also lodge a fund with the SIA in the case of any CCJ's being awarded against them, thus guaranteeing refunds.

I think I would accept that, as long as the risk of being clamped was obvious.
The only thing I would add is that there was a 15 min grace period before the boot went on!


However I don't believe the clampers would like it! They would only make a living and not a killing!