vinci "fine"

SodG24

RENEGADE wrote: »

Your sources are correct. The antagonist will be able to point the finger at registered keeper but that is all. Contract Law and its requirements remain the legislation so the losses claim shall continue to be the saviour - that and distortions or other variations of legal guidelines which those opportunist bandits will doubtless attempt.

And to get this non-enforcable ability the PPCs had to give up clamping - seems like a pretty good deal for victims to me. Shows what a bunch of braindead fools PPCs and the BPA really are if they thought a good business model would be to give up £150+ clamping income in return for being able to ask the RK to pay an illegal invoice and the risk that it will cost them a further £32 each and every time to try and collect it.

My goodness, it makes Lehman Brothers look well run :rotfl:

RENEGADE_2

SodG24 wrote: »

And to get this non-enforcable ability the PPCs had to give up clamping - seems like a pretty good deal for victims to me. Shows what a bunch of braindead fools PPCs and the BPA really are if they thought a good business model would be to give up £150+ clamping income in return for being able to ask the RK to pay an illegal invoice and the risk that it will cost them a further £32 each and every time to try and collect it.

My goodness, it makes Lehman Brothers look well run :rotfl:

Only one thing. The PPCs are largely two-fold with one mob doing tickets and postal harssment and the other more notorious excreta involved in clamping. I don't think there are that many firms that dabble in both dirty deeds though I do know of one. In the Shires Shopping Centre in Trowbridge, Wilts, you have Senator Security who issue tickets on vehicles in alleged breach of terms and they clamp vehicles left alone where parking is not permitted such as on the filling station forecourt. But as the name suggests, it is a security company which has stretched out into the ticket/postal harassment caper. The majority of clamping firms are precisely that: tinpot businesses who tend to be security firms. And since I work in static gatehouse security, I know the types of people you get in the profession. I work for a big employer (no, not G4S so don't worry - my lot are not involved in any parking venture) but within the smaller firms, you get the dirty rogues, ex-convicts, benefit thieves, "long-term sick" merchants, the bald-headed men in their 40s that share squalid rented accommodation with a dangerous dog. It seems the SIA is nothing more than a government scam because the licence is issued to anyone to have passed a simple set of exams, and those with learning difficulties (ie. clamper personnel) receive help when answering the questions. It was supposed to regulate the industry by eliminating undesirables but it has utterly failed to make the slightest impact there.

Clamping companies tend to be small security firms and we have established how reputable an SIA badge makes you, and they almost always hide behind PO Box addresses. They are also known for flagrant actions such as refusing mail which they return to sender. From what I can gather, the big wigs of the ticketing scandals, the APCOAs, Highviews, ParkingEyes and the rest of the merry bands of fortune hunters are not clampers, or it may be a rare occurrence for one reason or another.

I wouldn't be surprised if many clamping firms weren't aware of October changes. Most require an interpreter and that's just the illiterate directors.