Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Iommi Sep 18 2010, 10:02 AM

The sooner the country is rid of these shysters the better...£160.00!

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=14544

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 18 2010, 10:16 AM

Pay & Display car parks will be empty at the weekend come the winter as folk simply leave their cars in empty office car parks.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 18 2010, 10:22 AM

I doubt they will be empty, but now perhaps they might try a more 'civilised' method to 'protect' their land. Or be a good citizen of Newbury and do as Bayer do.

Posted by: blackdog Sep 18 2010, 11:46 AM

There are other ways to prevent people from parking on your property - cowboy ticketting seems to be the replacement for cowboy clamping.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11267103

Posted by: dannyboy Sep 18 2010, 03:00 PM

The landowners are often just at odds with the clampers. Once you sign that contract.....

Posted by: Bill1 Sep 18 2010, 07:37 PM

Well said!

Posted by: Berkshirelad Sep 19 2010, 02:49 PM

Always remembering that cowboy 'fine' or 'penalty charge' is no such thing; it is merely an unenforceable invoice and can (together with subsequent 'threatening' letters) be totally ignored.

Posted by: GMR Sep 19 2010, 02:52 PM

I agree, they are cash cows; praying of the poor. The rich can defend for themselves.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 19 2010, 07:54 PM

My understanding is that clamping is to be banned, but you can get fined if you park on private land without permission.

Posted by: JeffG Sep 19 2010, 08:19 PM

But how can the "fines" be enforced? As far as I'm aware (and going on the long discussion we had about charges in Sainsbury's car park) they are not legally enforceable.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Sep 19 2010, 09:38 PM

No, you cannot.

Settled case law prevents any company in England or Wales levying fines or penalties as part of a contract. Furthermore, PPCs (Private Parking Companies) suggest that by parking, a contract is entered into by the driver. This can only be true if the driver has T&Cs displayed to him before parking.

There are statute laws covering unfair terms in contacts.

Finally, how are a PPC to find the driver at the time. The DVLA can only supply the name and address of the registered keeper. A driver, if not the RK, cannot enter into a contract on the RK's behalf The RK is under no obligation in law or otherwise, to name the driver.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 20 2010, 09:41 AM

I am talking about the proposed change in law, not the one we have at the moment.

"Private car parks will still be allowed to charge motorists a fee, using ticket machines. But they will have to sign up to a strict code of conduct agreed by the British Parking Association (BPA). All signs about charges must be clear, and any fees for over-staying must be 'reasonable'. Crucially, there will be a right of appeal to an independent tribunal with the power to quash unfair charges.

Any motorist who refuses to pay will face the same sanction that applies to public roads or council car parks, which is a visit from the bailiff or a trip to the small claims court."

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/bargains-and-rip-offs/motoring/article.html?in_article_id=512129&in_page_id=53949

Posted by: Darren Sep 20 2010, 09:47 AM

It will be interesting to read the new legislation. If it bans clamping, blocking in and towing away on private land, then what is to stop you parking on say, someone's driveway at their home?

Posted by: Iommi Sep 20 2010, 09:49 AM

You call the police.

"Where cars are abandoned or left in a dangerous place, the landowner will be able to call on the police, who will be given new powers to tow cars from private land. Currently, they can do this only on public land."

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/bargains-and-rip-offs/motoring/article.html?in_article_id=512129&in_page_id=53949

Posted by: Darren Sep 20 2010, 10:06 AM

But in the same article

"Only police or councils will be allowed to clamp or tow away a car in exceptional circumstances, if it is obstructing a road or if the driver is a known repeat offender."

Posted by: Iommi Sep 20 2010, 11:06 AM

It does, but I don't understand your point. It does, however, explain that it will be incumbent on landlords to secure their land from trespass.

Posted by: Darren Sep 20 2010, 11:29 AM

My point is, calling the police is a. A waste of their time and resources. Heavens knows there are enough threads here complaining about lack of resouces. And b. Futile as they have no powers to deal with it.

So every driveway in the country will need to be fitted with gates, bollards etc.

That's why I said "It will be interesting to read the new legislation"

Posted by: Iommi Sep 20 2010, 11:49 AM

OK, but not every drive way in the land operated a clamping firm, so there is no difference in that respect. The Police will, it is proposed, be given new powers.

Posted by: Roost Sep 20 2010, 07:47 PM

Wow.

New powers for the police.

Judging from a lot of previous posts / threads on here I think the police will be busy enough trying to fight crime!
So where, bearing in mind that in the very near future they will be subject to budget cuts of up to 40%, will the police find the resources and time to do this?!

Just a thought.........

Posted by: Iommi Sep 20 2010, 07:54 PM

40% cuts will mean they will be doing a lot less of a lot of stuff.

Posted by: user23 Sep 20 2010, 08:10 PM

All public organisations will be doing "a lot less stuff" after October.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 20 2010, 08:47 PM

Invest in some bollards - might not get your cash back but you'll certainly have some fun.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Sep 21 2010, 07:32 PM

This is the BPA's suggested solution. Case law already puts it into action; in that settled case law deals with penalties within contracts



There can be no lawful involvement of bailiffs for any debt without a Court Warrant. It cannot be 'or'; it can only be 'after'.

Posted by: Iommi Sep 21 2010, 07:41 PM

And your point is?

Posted by: Strafin Sep 21 2010, 08:39 PM

Yes because services will always be the first thing to go, rather than perks, pay rises or inefficiency.

Posted by: DrPepper Sep 22 2010, 05:16 AM

Hey, Iommi - remember your earlier post on another thread:-

"Yes and; what? I posted a comment, this is what this forum is for."

Posted by: Iommi Sep 22 2010, 09:37 AM

I understand that, I just simply didn't understand what he's driving at. There is a proposed change in law which might change how things are done in the future. His argument seems to be that things cannot be done because of current law. Well if it changes, then it won't matter. I'm confused by his stance.