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

HO87

Trevor exists on Planet Trev. Always has done and always will. I have been amazed that he never appeared as a spokesman for the BPA.

Just imagine: A piece to camera about how PPC's don't simply raise revenue for their owners. Trev's sitting on one of the sun loungers on the terrace at his villa in Spain called Casa PCN supping on a sleever of honest Lancashire brown ale, adjusting the knotted hankie shielding his bald pate and rolling his trouser legs up. He'd cut just the image the BPA would like.

Coupon-mad

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 couldn't accept it even though the idea seems possibly reasonable for both parties in some circumstances.

It's the thuggery and deceit that makes clamping a crime, and the fact that people like Trev are allowed to get away with literally seizing your car, which makes the whole experience very scary I am sure. And that would not change - for instance they could have the right signs up but then just park vans in front of them.

I have never been clamped but the amount of people who post about it on pepipoo at the moment is ridiculous and almost every post explains how horrendously shocked and upset they were. Often with a menacing operative looming over them. Often the person is stranded, made late to collect children, prevented from going to work, made to miss a job interview all because a jumped-up 'permit' introduced by the scumbag clampers themselves, 'somehow' slipped off the dashboard outside the persons own flat when parked in their own space, etc.

It's extortion however you look at private clamping. :mad:

jkdd77

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.

No, I'm afraid I wouldn't support that at all.

There are so many cases at present where the clamping is already blatantly criminal under existing law (e.g. no SIA licence, clamping a 'blue badge' car, clamping without the authority of any landowner or managing agent, clamping over alleged past debts) and the police STILL insist "it's a civil matter".

If clamping was "regulated", clampers would simply ignore the "regulation" (even regulation creating criminal offences for breaches) to continue with their extortion and aggressive practices and the police would continue to insist "it's a civil matter" even when the clamper is operating without a licence, just as they typically do at present.

Given the above, plus the huge profitability of clamping, and the length of time it takes a victim to obtain a CCJ, any "bond" lodged as surety against unpaid CCJs would need to be enormous, (and complicated to administer).

In any case, clamping is fundamentally unjust, in allowing a private citizen to effectively "punish" another citizen over an alleged, unproven trespass (that is often hotly disputed), by imposing a wholly arbitrary "punishment" (the ransom demand) wholly of their own choosing without any form of due process whatsoever. It is also perverse in that it deals with the supposed trespass by prolonging it.

I agree with Coupon-mad's post above, and would add that Scotland has not had any significant problems with selfish parking in the 19 years since banning clamping, illustrating that the aim is not to create space for the landowner but rather to make money for the PPC.

As it happens, I have substantially more sympathy with towing away as a remedy, since it is at least a logical way of ending the trespass, but banning clamping without also banning towing away is clearly not feasible since it would simply lead to rogue clampers switching to towing, continuing their extortion, whilst increasing their ransom demands (and therefore profits) even further.

esmerobbo

esmerobbo wrote: »

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!

On second thoughts and reading C_M's and jkdd77 posts I would probably change my mind!

I forgot if you give these parasites an inch they will take a mile!:cool:

jkdd77

For what it's worth, the relevant minister (Lynne Featherstone) suggested that one of the main reasons for a complete* ban (*except when acting on behalf of police/ local authority/ council/ bailiffs) on private clamping and towing is the refusal of most police forces to even consider the possibility that a criminal offence may have been committed by the clampers.

As she implies, but does not state outright, a total ban is needed, if only to force the police to do their job properly.

The other reason given by the Government is that 'self-regulation' of clamping has blatantly failed, and State regulation would be bureaucratic and complicated to administer, and therefore expensive.

It's clear to me that banning clamping and towing *will* lead to a increase in deliberate selfish parking without authority, but the Scottish experience suggests that the increase will be manageable. I see the inconvenience that will be caused by the clamping/towing ban to the landowner and legitimate users as 'the lesser of two evils' compared with the extortion of huge sums of money from innocent motorists (doctors on call, permitholders clamped in their own space...) by rogue firms who operate outside the law and ignore CCJs with impunity.

scheming_gypsy

They can't ban clamping! what will Angle Grinder Man do??????

AlexisV

The problem now is that ticketers will quote the Freedoms Act on their junkmail and more people will pay.

But then again, if you've got any sense you'll Google getting a ticket now and will continue to - where you'll come across people telling you to ignore.

peter_the_piper

I like the symmetry of the ""Independent Appeals"" system.
BPA want one but want taxpayer to pay.
Government want one but want BPA to pay.
And so it goes round and round.

vax2002

A correctly constructive defence would see this freedoms act increase your defence for it states the keeper is responsible, however they are claiming a contractual agreement was broken, so if the keeper was not driving, the keeper did not enter, consider or accept any contract.
If anything it provides a robust defence.

AlexisV

Yes, private companies have to be granted by statute the power to issue penalties. Without it, nothing changes.