MSE News: Cowboy clampers 'could start new parking scams'

cheap_as_chips

Cowboys and highwaymen are interesting analogies... a friend of a friend (admittedly in the mood for an argument) had a gun pulled on him by one of these mobs at a pound in North London

clone

Barneysmom wrote: »

I don't understand all this now and I'm getting more and more confused.

With the new rules do we still ignore tickets from PPCs?

Yes ignore the threats of demands for money but when it takes affect in October I believe when they ban clamping they will be putting obligation on the registered owner to provide the details of the driver,if you ignore this request it may or not be backed by government.Still if it is Id have no problem providing then my name then ignore them buisness as usual,ignore the rest.

ManxRed

The change essentially puts an obligation on the RK to name the driver if requested. If they do this then the PPC must chase the driver and not the RK. If they don't provide the driver's details then the PPC can pursue the RK instead of the driver.

The tickets, however, are still unenforceable tosh which can be ignored by anyone being pursued for payment.

Although an official appeal will also cost the PPC £32, so the advice will change from 'ignore' to 'appeal and then ignore'.

bazster

clone wrote: »

Yes ignore the threats of demands for money but when it takes affect in October I believe when they ban clamping they will be putting obligation on the registered owner to provide the details of the driver,if you ignore this request it may or not be backed by government.Still if it is Id have no problem providing then my name then ignore them buisness as usual,ignore the rest.

The government doesn't enter into it.

BASFORDLAD

The sunday Mercury stated "we checked out what was said with the BPA" and they confirmed it was all correct

Unbelievable

Prehaps someone could write him a good email for publication to correct them!

paul.coles@trinitymirror.com - Chief Editor

GraceCourt

Lum wrote: »

How typical that the police only bother to do anything about it when it's one of their own that is targeted. It's that attitude that allows operations like this to flourish in the first place!

How typical that this numpty makes such wild assumptions then engages keyboard without engaging brain.

It's a criminal offence to obstruct a police officer in the lawful execution of his or her duty - hence, the ASBO.

If Lum can arrange for a private Act of Parliament to make it a criminal offence for clampers to obstruct him or her whilst wandering around talking rubbish, I can arrange for the police officers to assist in the removal of the clamp. :rotfl:

Lum

GraceCourt wrote: »

How typical that this numpty makes such wild assumptions then engages keyboard without engaging brain.

It's a criminal offence to obstruct a police officer in the lawful execution of his or her duty - hence, the ASBO.

It's also a criminal offence to clamp without an SIA licence.

GraceCourt

Lum wrote: »

It's also a criminal offence to clamp without an SIA licence.

But why are you assuming that it's one that the police should prosecute? There are many criminal offences that the police do not enforce, indeed there are quite a few that the police cannot enforce - however, I can assure you that obstructing police (contrary to Section 89(2) Police Act 1996) is definitely one of them.

Have a good read of the Private Security Industry Act 2001, which set up the Security Industry Authority ("SIA"), outlines its remit and responsibilities, and not only gives the SIA regulatory and investigative powers, it also creates offences of obstructing the SIA, and gives its staff powers of entry to premises, powers of seizure, and statutory powers to demand the production of documents for inspection! :T

After all that, are you seriously suggesting that the SIA then hands over all of its evidence to the village PC or hand it in to a local police station (if there are any left, but that's a different crisis), so that he or she can go through it all again and decide whether or not to pass the file to the Crown Prosecution Service or (in Scotland) to a Procurator Fiscal?

Sorry Lum, that most certainly ain't how it works.

Lum

I'm going off the examples given in the story, namely:

• Threatening to hold a 3 year old girl hostage.
• Demanding sexual favours.
• Demanding someone's gold tooth.
• Clamping an AA patrol.
• Clamping a royal bodyguard while they were on-duty.
• Clamping a hearse during a funeral.
• Clamping a police car.

Obviously some of those are more severe than others, but the story implies that only the last one had any action taken against the perpetrator. Are you seriously suggesting that none of the others are worthy of action by the police?

RENEGADE_2

Mr Wilkins: "In extreme cases we can take someone to a small claims court but it is rarely worth the hassle."

The words of a propagandist, shill and apologist for the cowboys in a pathetic last gasp attempt to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
What in the world of issuing private parking charges is an extreme case? And what does he mean "rarely worth the hassle"? Say it like it is Wilko: "not worth the hasstle because we are in the wrong and will lose", or perhaps he meant "not worth the hassle" for the judge, which explains why he will not even set a date for hearing.

Law is simple - you're either right or wrong, and if Wilko ever believed he stood a chance of exacing money off any of his targets, he'd have jumped at it like a lamb to the slaughter. Free money for that lazy twаt is like gold dust.

But it is the other statement in which he admits that drivers were able to ignore PPCs and that the PPCs were powerless legally to prevent it which lets the cat out of the bag. All of a sudden now one of them comes clean. Face it boy, the game is over.

Wilkins, next time you go to cross the road, don't bother looking!