Civil Enforcement Ltd Parking Charge at Ibis Hotel

Mr._Mime

ANPR would've overtaken clamping anyway, once the technology became cheaper to install a camera which captures every vehicle rather than pay a year's wages to an oaf with a shedfull of clamps who could well have been pocketing profits themselves.

Coupon-mad

ANPR is banned for local authorities for car park enforcement, and there need to be more safeguards about its misuse by PPC scammers.

KeithP

Mr._Mime said:

ANPR would've overtaken clamping anyway...

Unlikely.

Remember, the legislation that banned clamping - POFA 2012 - also introduced the idea of being able to hold the keeper liable for a driver's alleged transgression.

So without the POFA, and the possibility of being able to chase the keeper, the parking company would have great difficulty of using ANPR to help them chase the driver.

Umkomaas

Mr._Mime said:

ANPR would've overtaken clamping anyway, once the technology became cheaper to install a camera which captures every vehicle rather than pay a year's wages to an oaf with a shedfull of clamps who could well have been pocketing profits themselves.

I've yet to see any ANPR camera immobilise a car in a car park, or a car with children inside at a doctors' surgery, or a hearse about to load a body, or how about an ambulance, or even an on-call doctor for good measure. 

https://www.getreading.co.uk/news/local-news/clamped--children-car-4221856

https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/3741737.hearse-clamped-before-funeral/

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/9204604.blackburn-gps-car-clamped-call/

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/ambulance-clamped-as-patient-is-helped-into-clinic-6829010.html

It's just as nasty a world all these years on!

Mr._Mime

KeithP said:

Unlikely.

Remember, the legislation that banned clamping - POFA 2012 - also introduced the idea of being able to hold the keeper liable for a driver's alleged transgression.

So without the POFA, and the possibility of being able to chase the keeper, the parking company would have great difficulty of using ANPR to help them chase the driver.

Ah, didn't realise the POFA element KeithP, I stand corrected. Was it intentional, or an accidental concequence?

KeithP

Mr._Mime said:

KeithP said:

Unlikely.

Remember, the legislation that banned clamping - POFA 2012 - also introduced the idea of being able to hold the keeper liable for a driver's alleged transgression.

So without the POFA, and the possibility of being able to chase the keeper, the parking company would have great difficulty of using ANPR to help them chase the driver.

Ah, didn't realise the POFA element KeithP, I stand corrected. Was it intentional, or an accidental concequence?  

Sorry, I don't understand the question.

POFA banned clamping.

POFA introduced the concept of transferring the liability of the driver to the keeper.

Coupon-mad

And that was engineered by the BPA, because the Government mistakenly took them to be regulators and listened to every single word they said and swallowed the lot, not realising that in fact the BPA strings are pulled by the parking firms on the board and they were walking into a disaster.   

Less than 50 court claims per annum in 2012 became over 100,000 today, because of that naive error by the Dept for Transport.  And now we have Scotland walking into the same trap...copying Schedule 4...why?!

The MHCLG must not make that mistake with the 2019 legislation but hopefully they know this and any misapprehensions they may have had, might have been blown apart by the spamming of the BSI consultation by clamper thugs and their threats of death and destruction if they don't get their way this time.