Clamping of Vehicles

Obviously I am not going to rehash all the points that were being made earlier. However, a reference was made to Scotland wherethe ban on clamping has produced no increase in the level of these offences.

Clamping no longer provides a last resort. Land owners have numerous measures available to them to protect their interests, including, as you point out, ticketing. One or more of these measures, including the use of physical obstructions will, in nearly all cases, have the desired result. The problem remains that where the ultimate recourse (clampers) remains available, it will be the "route of least resistance" down which the land owners will rush rather than use other, more sensible, measures.

The government, therefore, does not need to spell out how they would replace the loss of the clampers. The fact that the clamping companies and the people that use them have been behaving in the way that they have been is its own justification.

There is an issue with making the owners liable for any tickets issued. How will that relate, for example to vehicle hire companies? How will it relate to a hire purchase company who owns the vehicle... what about motor pools in big business? Lumping extra time and costs onto businesses in a period of recession, in order to mitigate againsta few people, is not a viable way to move forward in an environment that is forcing everyone to cut back... not spend more!

While the BPA encourages its members to behave responsibly, it seems to me that you have little real authority to force them to do so, with the excepption of removing them from your organisation. The businesses that this legislation is aimed at, and the people who are being protected by it, woudl not have benefitted from your organisation's activities. The unethical traders would simply have continued doing what they do.

Let's face it... as a private householder I am not even entitled to defend my home and family in the way I see fit. Seen along side that, it seems ludicrous that such extreme measures should remain available to protect a parking space.

I'm glad you support our general thrust. The BPA uses 'last resort' in the context of it being effective when everything else has failed.

The BPA believes parking on private land should be regulated to ensure that motorists can be treated fairly and proportionately and that owners of the land can properly control their land and have the means to do this. Regulation should cover all types of enforcement including ticketing, clamping and towing away.

Clamping provides a last resort to landowners where ticketing is ineffective – for example where the driver persistently offends or is not registered correctly – or where vehicles trespass on land.

If clamping is banned the government must describe how it would protect landowners’ interests where vehicles are parked unlawfully on their land.

The government must also change the law regarding driver liability where vehicles are ticketed so that owners – who are not currently liable – cannot avoid responsibility by saying they do not know who the driver was. We want to see the owner made liable for such transgressions.

The government should take the opportunity to fully regulate the private parking sector, making membership of an Accredited Trade Association compulsory so that operators must comply with a statutory Code of Practice

We acknowledge entirely the business model to which you refer but the BPA encourages all landowners to act responsibly and to actively work with their contractors or agents to ensure that any enforcement activity is fair and reasonable and achieves the employing landowners’ objectives, irrespective of the business model used.

Interesting comments Kelvin, I agree that whatever rules are in place should be balanced rather than the way they are at the moment, however your observation that clamping is the last resort of private land owners, while originally accurate I would imagine, may be misleading.

Using a clamping company is cost effective, since all the clamping companies want more premises to patrol and therefore rarely levy a charge on the land owner. Hence: a free solution becomes the option of choice rather than that of last resort.

Earlier posts in this thread have illustrated that while clamping companies remain an option, many land owners will continue to encourage them to abuse their positions rather than make even the smallest investment themselves.

Car drivers should, as you say, be encouraged to play by the rules. If we are all honest then the fact is that the vast majority of drivers do exactly that; it is only the very few that measures are needed to deal with. As such the clamping industry is like killing a fly with an elephant gun!

More recent posts has discussed the Workplace Parking Levy being developed in Nottingham. I spoke on this subject in a short video at the Workplace Law Conference in 2010. That video can be viewed elsewhere on this website. The Transport Act 2000 provides the legal basis for a Workplace Parking Levy and the first scheme is being developed in Nottingham for implementation in 2012. I expect many other Cities will be watching closely to see how the Nottingham scheme progresses before deciding upon developing similar Schemes.

Should Rogue Clampers Banned...

I read with interest the Forum debate on Control and Management of Parking on Parivate Land. The whole debate reinforces the view that this is an emotive subject.

I have written more about this and other parking related matters in the Workplace Law Handbook 2011. More recently I have provided the 'End Note' Workplace Law Magazine (November 2010) where I write about the proposed Clamping Ban.

The British Parking Association (BPA) has been active is raising standards in this sector for many years and in response to the Government’s announcement about an upcoming ban on wheel clamping on private land, we have called for a full review of the private parking sector.

The BPA has long lobbied for better regulation of the private parking sector, including clamping. We want to see higher operator standards and a fairer deal for motorists when they fall foul of the rules. We are concerned however that an outright ban removes any incentive to follow the rules.

Clamping provides a last resort to landowners faced with persistent offenders and ticket evaders. The Government must allow landowners to protect their interests if ticketing is ineffective and drivers continue to park unlawfully.

Drivers should be encouraged to comply with the conditions of private car park use. Everyone recognises landowners’ rights to control their land; if drivers trespass, there must be repercussions. However, these repercussions must be proportionate and take a driver’s needs into account.

The BPA urges the Home Office to tightly regulate the private parking sector and real progress can be made by addressing the end of the market occupied by rogue clampers.

In a bid to improve standards, the BPA launched the Approved Operators Scheme (AOS) in 2007. Every member is subject to a robust Code of Practice. If they cannot demonstrate compliance, their membership may be revoked.

The AOS is designed to act as a blueprint for any future government legislation. Until the introduction of tighter regulations, the BPA will continue to drive up industry standards for the benefit of everyone – landowners, car park operators and drivers.

I still say that if you have a piece of land in an area where there is demand for parking, then surely charging £5 an hour for the privilege is an option?

Again, if people weren't over-reliant on the car, then more people would travel by public transport and less parking space would be needed.

Did the government ever say anything further over its plans to levy a tax on businesses who provide employees with a car park?

This post has been removed because it contravened our guidelines.

Personal note: Stop buying the wife chocolate..............

You know what Gareth... This could be the way forward!

They say that women use chocolate as a substitute for...well, you know what, so perhaps if there were more female clampers, a bar of dairy milk under the wiper blade would avoid a wheel clamp Chris.

I am trying desperately to lnk the effects of chocolate to the activities of clampers.

As yet I have failed to come up with anything I can post... but a great many ideas that I can not...

I am currently working alng the lines of bribing a clamper with chocolate the same way you would with an errant child....

Bourneville anyone?

Now don't get me started on Chocolate.........sigh!

Wow.... Mr Fryer has either gone on holiday or is spending time looking up alternative phrases!

Carole... Chocolate can do many things... a lot of which should not be visited on this forum methinks! LOL

Chocolate Wine can do that for you too.........

You know what Barry... you might just have hit the nail on the head!

Maybe it is not the principle of charging money for the inconvenience - or levying a small charge... but the pure scale of the thing that causes so much outrage.

I did find the article interesting though... and so much support for the anti - point of view that I felt all warm inside!

@Chris

I did and thought it added ever so slightly to the confusion however what was clear was the parking fine does not exist and the ones issued on private land are really invoices and you can probably treat them as a contract.
You may also have read the Honest John column in the telegraph, while he is very anti the notices he does suggest sending a token £10 to settle the matter if you get a notice.
So that would indicate that he does not agree with the cost but the principle of the charge is correct.

Barry L

Just returning to the subject for one minute... I found watchdog interesting last night... anyone else?

Sainsburys are doing chocolate wine - red wine with a hint of chocolate. Might give the Marmite chocolate a wide berth though!

Barry ... Marmite chocolate; now there's a whole new discussion thread!

As Christmas is approaching , peace and goodwill to all etc, please will you all accept a virtual bar of the new Marmite chocolate from me.................... :-)

Now thats more like it guys!

@Barry Fryer....

That wouldn't be nearly as funny... if I didn't fully believe you!

"On the different measures approach... I wonder whether a sign declaring that any vehicle parked without permission could be reported as a possible terrorist threat and summarily destroyed might hit the mark!"

I think that is the least private landowners should be able to do to offending vehicles.

I'm campaigning for compulsory sterilisation of all remaining family members as well

@Matthew

Matthew these comments aren't meant to be childish... Barry and I seem to enjoy the debate... it just seemed time to move it along... no reson why we shouldn't keep it entertaining as well...

On the different measures approach... I wonder whether a sign declaring that any vehicle parked without permission could be reported as a possible terrorist threat and summarily destroyed might hit the mark!

@Chris

We will also do nothing until we have a problem, although a very interesting TV program on exactly this subject on the box a few day ago, which seemed to indicate that you can buy a kit to enable you to issue "tickets".
Now I would guess that as James has written in the past, the legal bit is that they are really just invoices for the use of the land.
So again they could be issued and details obtained from the DVLA for onward posting.
Sounds like it could be fun or it could be called in as a suspect vehicle, which is what is.

Regards

Barry L