Private Parking Industry Hits back blog discussion

savemoney · 27 August 2009 at 12:22AM

Crabman wrote: »

craigbass - how do you protect your premises and/or home against entry by unauthorised persons?

Once you have an answer to that, ask yourself what action you could similarly take in order to protect your car park from entry by unauthorised persons.

craigbass post #88 No idea why you quoted me surely it should have been crabman in post 73.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=24568801&postcount=73

All I did was answer his questions which was aimed at you

craigbass wrote: »

Just to be clear to people as they might have missed the first few threads. I work at a innercity Hotel. we want the hotel guests to park in our free carpark, not the shoppers who do not want to pay in the pay and display nearby.

If we use the same thought process as you have used here. in my house the way i let the people i want in is with a key.

HOW IN GODS NAME can i give the key to the bollard or gate to hotel guests and restaurant guests. I would either need to send it to them in advance, or have them walk into the hotel to get it or have someone there to open it for them.

Would YOU pay £100+ for a hotel room or £50+ per person for a meal and have to walk into a hotel to get the number??

also putting the barrier in costs money. why should we do this??????????????

this system we now have works. people know they should not park. people do not park there now. people who were fined knew that they were going to be fined and they ran the risk.

Also using the same thing. what would you do if on your driveway at your house someone parked. this meant that you could not. they only place you could park is 5/7 min walk away.
What would you do?
would you let them? (probally no)
would you ask them not to? (we did this for 2 1/2 years)
would you then out of frustration clamp them for a few weeks then when they stopped doing it, park there your self?

please can someone tell me what they would do

PLEASE???

PaulS43 · 27 August 2009 at 5:24AM

I posted this elsewhere on another thread which has been buried somewhere... The clampers and ticket touts rely on the victim having notionally somehow agreed to being clamped - this is what I wrote :

What's good for the goose....

Why not put a notice in your windscreen under your tax disk which says "By your action of attaching a wheelclamp to this vehicle you agree that such a wheelclamp becomes the property of this vehicle's owner and that as such he or his agents may remove, damage or dispose of it as he sees fit." Indeed, if you drive an old banger, why not put this on the hubcaps. The clamper could hardly fail to notice the gift he were making of the clamp by his actions.

And in any case... If this doesn't work (you forgot to put such a notice in the window of the car or don't have the balls to cut the clamp off regardless) and you find yourself clamped on a hardstanding surface, then a clever thing to do is to jack the car up with a trolley-jack and physically man-handle / pull it off of the private land where it was parked and onto the public highway. If a clamper does not remove the clamp IMMEDIATELY, then there is no grey area - this is blackmail and extortion (the whole lot is in Scotland, anyway).

Clampers rely of the rules of "distress damage faisant" (<bang this in a search engine and read what it says).... The thing is, they with-hold the vehicle because they claim for the ongoing damages of having the car parked there It's perverse because were they suffering damages by having the car parked where it had been clamped, then they are actually escalating the damages they're suffering!!!!

The whole thing is a thieves' charter and is completely outlawed in Scotland, whose Law-Lords read the theft act 1968 in a different way to down here in England. Personally, I'd fight these people any way I can

Additionally, I put up a template which can be used to get shot of these people when they write with menaces:

You are free to copy this and use it yourself. By all means give a copy to your friends too (or tell them where to find it). I don't like thieves, or extortion racketeering! This actual letter (which I have merely depersonalised) worked a treat and I heard absolutely nothing more. I sent it by recorded delivery. The bits in blue are the bits you need to change for your ticket. Do NOT sign the letter - just print your name - and don't forget to keep a copy and the recorded delivery slip:

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]DATE[/FONT]

The Manager
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Central Payment Office[/FONT]
NAME OF SCAM TICKET FIRM
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]ADDRESS 1[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]ADDRESS 2[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]ADDRESS 3[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]ADDRESS 4[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]POSTCODE[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Sir or Madam,[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]TAKE FORMAL NOTICE[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]
Your Reference "PCN" Number:ticket reference number

I refer to your unsolicited and unwanted communication which you have addressed to my person as part of an attempt to extract monies from me using what purports to be official documentation when you have no lawful basis to do so. Your correspondence has caused to my person and family much anguish, anxiety, fear and personal distress and as such I emphatically insist that you do not continue to pursue this course of conduct which is nothing less than harassment.

Should you at any time in future send me any further correspondence or come calling upon my home regarding this matter, you accept that by so doing, your company, its representatives and agents will once again cause me and my family to suffer such anguish, anxiety, fear and personal distress. In such circumstances I will immediately pursue a complaint of harassment against your company. The Police will be notified about this matter should your behaviour not stop immediately.

In closing, I refute entirely any suggestion or claim that I owe your company any money whatsoever. I fervently trust I shall not hear from your company any further.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]
Yours faithfully
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]NO SIGNATURE AT ALL
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Your Name (just printed - do not sign) [/FONT]

tealady · 27 August 2009 at 6:43AM

I know this is a bit of a non sequiteur but did anyone else enjoy seeing the clampers van being towed after being raided by the police (BBC W Midlands). Apparently the company are being investigated for alleged fraud.

tim_n · 27 August 2009 at 8:47AM

I have to say that I'm totally for private clampers.

I have an unmade car park which is for the sole use of our scout troop. Yet because we're next to a station, we'd usually find it was filled with commuters cars.

Up until recently we used the carpark for firelighting, so if a car was parked slap bang in the middle, we couldn't actually use it.

At other times of the day what little space there was left was used by mums dropping off kids at the local primary school. They tear in and out at 30/40 miles an hour tearing up the unmade surface. One particular day I took a day off work to clear the overgrown shrubs in the hall and dump them on our carpark for collection. I'd got up at 6am, gone down and put cones out and started working. When I looked up at 8am, my cones had been moved so they could park their cars in the way.

The actual landowner who lets us use it has always been afraid to do anything with the carpark because officially, it isn't one. It's just private land. We asked him nicely if he could deal with it and he got a private clamping firm to police it for us.

They put up notices, left them there for two weeks. Great big illuminous yellow things they were. They then left notices on all the cars on a daily basis.

Then, two weeks after they'd put the notices up, the brought down a car transporter and removed 14 cars. When he came back, seven more were parked there. All had been noted as repeat offenders. None of the cars were 'cheap' cars - one was a porche, the rest of similar calibre. We live in a poor area, these are people coming into the area who just don't want to pay the parking charges on the station. Each one was charged an astronomical sum of money to get their cars released.

I'm pleased, at last after seven years of polite notices, putting cones out, physically blocking the road, we have our carpark back and people have got the message.

The signs still stay up, the word has got out, the clamper has long gone.

Whilst I've had the odd ticket from council run clampers, I've only had to pay once and I was in the wrong. I can see the argument for getting rid of the people who are illegally/fraudently clamping however the ones that adhere to a code of conduct by a governing body whom are fair, display signs and warn people not to park in private places have a place in this world.

sporedude · 27 August 2009 at 9:45AM

tim_n wrote: »

I have to say that I'm totally for private clampers.

I have an unmade car park which is for the sole use of our scout troop. Yet because we're next to a station, we'd usually find it was filled with commuters cars.

Up until recently we used the carpark for firelighting, so if a car was parked slap bang in the middle, we couldn't actually use it.

At other times of the day what little space there was left was used by mums dropping off kids at the local primary school. They tear in and out at 30/40 miles an hour tearing up the unmade surface. One particular day I took a day off work to clear the overgrown shrubs in the hall and dump them on our carpark for collection. I'd got up at 6am, gone down and put cones out and started working. When I looked up at 8am, my cones had been moved so they could park their cars in the way.

The actual landowner who lets us use it has always been afraid to do anything with the carpark because officially, it isn't one. It's just private land. We asked him nicely if he could deal with it and he got a private clamping firm to police it for us.

They put up notices, left them there for two weeks. Great big illuminous yellow things they were. They then left notices on all the cars on a daily basis.

Then, two weeks after they'd put the notices up, the brought down a car transporter and removed 14 cars. When he came back, seven more were parked there. All had been noted as repeat offenders. None of the cars were 'cheap' cars - one was a porche, the rest of similar calibre. We live in a poor area, these are people coming into the area who just don't want to pay the parking charges on the station. Each one was charged an astronomical sum of money to get their cars released.

I'm pleased, at last after seven years of polite notices, putting cones out, physically blocking the road, we have our carpark back and people have got the message.

The signs still stay up, the word has got out, the clamper has long gone.

Whilst I've had the odd ticket from council run clampers, I've only had to pay once and I was in the wrong. I can see the argument for getting rid of the people who are illegally/fraudently clamping however the ones that adhere to a code of conduct by a governing body whom are fair, display signs and warn people not to park in private places have a place in this world.

Yep I agree with this for cases such as what your saying. Cant wait to see the high horse brigade jump all over this.

paulfoel · 27 August 2009 at 10:01AM

town_cryer wrote: »

Martin
I am a registered disabled (blue badge) driver and frequently find that the allocated 'disabled' bays at supermarkets etc are taken by non-badge drivers. Although not your intention I think that many of those will now see your article as encouragement to continue to do so. Clearly you are saying that if a one of these selfish drivers is using someone elses car (or the the owner SAYS someone else was driving it) there is no need to pay the charge/fine.
When you say you are protecting the consumer please remember that people like me, who would like to use the bay provided for our benefit, are consumers too.

And you also find the blue badge holders parking in the parent/child spaces cos they think they've got a god given right to park where they want....

sporedude · 27 August 2009 at 10:30AM

paulfoel wrote: »

And you also find the blue badge holders parking in the parent/child spaces cos they think they've got a god given right to park where they want....

Where did he/she mention anything like that? They where talking about ignorant b*stards who think they can park in a disabled space and get away with paying fines.

bargepole · 27 August 2009 at 10:37AM

This blog seems to have wandered off topic a bit, into the rights and wrongs of clamping. All I would say to the hotel owner, and the scout troop leader, is what would you have done if your premises were in Scotland, where private clamping is illegal?

Returning to the main point of this, which is the BPA's letter to Martin, and his response, it is noticeable that nobody from the BPA has contributed to this blog after over a week, or tried to defend the actions of firms who issue private tickets.

To recap, the points remaining unaddressed by the BPA are:

The surreptitious disguise of many tickets to try and resemble official council tickets.
The unjustifiable threat of debt collectors, including court action or bailiffs coming to take goods.
The talk of hitting credit files and the ridiculous attempts to pretend that these tickets are fines.
The action of clamping or towing, effectively kidnapping a vehicle, often when it’s entirely unnecessary.
The main premise of the guide, that some of these tickets are legally unenforceable.

All of the PPCs who belong to the BPA do some or all of the above, they know it, the BPA knows it, and now thanks to MSE and other sites, thousands of consumers know it. You can almost hear the sound of the PPC bank accounts shrinking.

savemoney · 27 August 2009 at 11:05AM

You will find that some supermarkets actively tell BB customers to use P&C spaces when BB spaces are full

I accept there is a need for P&C spaces but not for older children. Having kids is a life choice, having a disability often isnt

paulfoel wrote: »

And you also find the blue badge holders parking in the parent/child spaces cos they think they've got a god given right to park where they want....

Methusela · 27 August 2009 at 11:11AM

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]I almost feel sorry for Kelvin Reynolds of BPA. He desperately tries to defend the indefensible, like a barrister acting on behalf of a multiple murderer whom he knows to be as guilty as hell. But you don't fool anyone, Kelvin. BPA's sole reason for standing up in defence of its “Approved Operators” lies in the vast sums of money that it makes from those operators, over whose activities it has no control. Nor does it desire to have control, because this might mean having to take action against rogue operators, with consequent loss of income to BPA when those operators had to be kicked out for malpractice.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Kelvin says “BPA is not simply a “Trade Body”...” but when I complained to BPA about the activities of one of their members they replied “ BPA is a Member Services Organisation”. Perhaps Kelvin would like to explain the difference between these two terms? They sound to me like pretty much the same thing but maybe I'm missing something important.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]He goes on to say “We set up our Approved Operators scheme to separate the good from the bad...” Well, if the BPA think their operators are good, I dread to think what they would define as a bad operator. How can BPA pretend to separate good operators from bad when, in reply to my complaint, they said that they were “unable and unwilling to get involved with complaints”. It is easy for BPA to say that they don't have any bad operators, when their stated policy is to ignore and “bin” all complaints made by the public.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Kelvin then tries to take the moral high ground by referring to “the need for landowners to protect or charge for use of their land”. Right Kelvin, perhaps you can run through those needs with me in simple terms. Firstly, if you decide to “protect the use of their land”, isn't this best achieved by putting your attendant on the entrance, to prevent unauthorised entry in the first place? Oh, but then you wouldn't be able to stick a Parking Charge Notice on the vehicle and make lots of money out of it would you? [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]So instead you might go for Option 2 and “charge for use of their land”. In that case, wouldn't it make sense to put your attendant at the entrance to the land, where the charge could be collected? Oh no, of course that wouldn't allow your operators to charge £75 for five minutes parking would it? No one in their right mind would agree to pay that amount, they would all drive off and the operator and landowner would make nothing.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]So what option do your operators adopt? One of the above alternatives? No – instead they start by putting up insignificant signs (so no one will see them) then place their attendants out of sight until a vehicle is parked, when they pounce like vultures to affix their exorbitant charges to it. That's the way to make lots of money!!!! And it bears no relation whatever to your airy-fairy concept of protecting the landowner or charging for parking on his land, so please don't expect me to shed any tears over the poor landowner or the poor operator.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Kelvin also trumpets the introduction of a “brand new Code”, the result of two years work. Well pardon me for saying so Kelvin, but none of your operators took any notice of the original Code, so what makes you think they will take any more notice of the new one? Perhaps you should try living in the real world before you boast about introducing such an irrelevant, non-enforceable code. The sole purpose of its existence (and for BPA's existence) is to give the parking enforcers a degree of respectability they do not merit.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Finally Kelvin, you say the new Code was out to public consultation earlier this year. I should love to know which members of the public saw it, let alone approved it. I certainly did not. Do you not think it might have been a good idea to let people who had already complained to you (like me) have the opportunity to comment? No surprise that you didn't do so.[/FONT]

Private Parking Industry Hits back blog discussion

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free