Clamping cars as a last resort

rhody said:
Moral dilema: Would you pay their parking release charge when they didn't read the sign in the bay they parked in and were genuinely visiting a resident on a social call?
Click to expand...

You can think about this as much as you like, ponder, consider, debate and even dither. As long as you arrive at the correct answer - which is "NO WAY!" I don't care how much or little the de-clamp fee is and I don't care if the driver was the vicar's 21 year old daughter, you cannot succumb to this request.

Three reasons:

1) All that lovely signage you have. The only thing missing that I can think of is flashing neon.

2) This is being done for the benefit of the tenants with their full backing. And they have been kept fully in the picture.

3) If you do reimburse you will set a very dangerous precedent - that you will regret.

Any one of those three would be enough for me to politely decline the invitation to reimburse. All three make it a Royal Flush. Stand firm.
 
Lynton said:
Rhody,

Thanks for the response. Given the content of it........ you mentioning all you have done prior to signs and clampers, I would be inclined to not stand the £95 fee.

That might sound harsh - and Iif I was that tenant I may be a tad miffed and see it as being "done over" by the landlord for a while, however you have mentioned the problems with parking, there has being fair and adequate warning from you / your company, and they all agreed to it.

£95 is going to smart a bit, but I pretty much guarantee they will not "re-offend" - and word will soon get round the tenants.

It sounds as if the company you have used is as bona-fide as they get in this line of business........ and there are plenty of warnings.

Only reason I asked about the fee and cuts etc, is I thought say £100, you might get £25 (no idea why I even thought that, but I did.... more like a commission I guess) - and was going to say as a one time only goodwill gesture you could give them the commission.

I think if you / your company does pay it for them, you'll make a rod for your own back, as will open up the floodgates to "Well you paid last time" or "You paid Terry's in no 3"

Just my tuppence.
Click to expand...
I agree with this as letting someone off could be seen as a license for others to do it again. Why not pay half as a GWG, and reinforce the fact that the tenants themselves have a responsibility?
 
Many thanks to everyone for taking the time to contribute to this thread.

As for the "moral dilema" question in particular - thanks to Lynton, fabs, spikeK6, 2blue4U and malo50 for your thoughts on the issue.

I think if we do reimburse the visitors parking release fee it will set a dangerous precedent and others will automatically expect the same treatment if something similar happens to one of them or one of their visitors.

So, in order to keep things simple and unambiguous, my recommendation will be that we treat everyone the same, adopt the same policy as the enforcement company - zero tolerance - and gently decline the request for repayment of the money.

The tenant, the one who forgot to tell their own guest that they needed to display a valid pass, is keeping their head well below the parapet and their credit card firmly locked away.
 
Nod said:
Children should be under proper control when near vehicles. A dog has to be so why not kids?

At least hell is warm and there are parties. Knowing my luck, my hell would be full of screaming brats.
Click to expand...

They may be close to the doors for conviencw, but you seem to have missed if someone parks in a normal space it's difficult to get a child seat in or out without the door fully open. Of course if you'd rAther have dings and scratches in your door then by all means carry on.

I do wonder about perfectly able blokes who think they have some god given right to payno regard whatsoever to other members of society or is it just keyboard warrior behaviour
 
boyfalldown said:
They may be close to the doors for conviencw, but you seem to have missed if someone parks in a normal space it's difficult to get a child seat in or out without the door fully open. Of course if you'd rAther have dings and scratches in your door then by all means carry on.

I do wonder about perfectly able blokes who think they have some god given right to payno regard whatsoever to other members of society or is it just keyboard warrior behaviour
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
boyfalldown said:
They may be close to the doors for conviencw, but you seem to have missed if someone parks in a normal space it's difficult to get a child seat in or out without the door fully open. Of course if you'd rAther have dings and scratches in your door then by all means carry on.

I do wonder about perfectly able blokes who think they have some god given right to payno regard whatsoever to other members of society or is it just keyboard warrior behaviour
Click to expand...

Hmm maybe buying a car seat and a "baby on board" sticker, so I could theoretically park in the Parent / Child places would be cheaper than squeezing into a "normal " space and having every numpty under the sun open their car doors into my car.

Cost me a fortune from dentdevils etc....




(I am joking by the way!)
 
Lynton said:
Hmm maybe buying a car seat and a "baby on board" sticker, so I could theoretically park in the Parent / Child places would be cheaper than squeezing into a "normal " space and having every numpty under the sun open their car doors into my car.

Cost me a fortune from dentdevils etc....

(I am joking by the way!)
Click to expand...

I can tell :)

You could but it's a lot of effort and if you really need to pretend to be a new mum the I'm sure there are specialist forums to help,
 
rhody said:
Moral dilema: Would you pay their parking release charge when they didn't read the sign in the bay they parked in and were genuinely visiting a resident on a social call?
Click to expand...

I guess it depends if the clamping company pay you the privilege to operate on your land? I'm not sure how it works to be honest but I guess you could just adopt the "it's out of my hands" route, as it does seem that way.
 
boyfalldown said:
They may be close to the doors for conviencw, but you seem to have missed if someone parks in a normal space it's difficult to get a child seat in or out without the door fully open. Of course if you'd rAther have dings and scratches in your door then by all means carry on.

I do wonder about perfectly able blokes who think they have some god given right to payno regard whatsoever to other members of society or is it just keyboard warrior behaviour
Click to expand...

Maybe I got it wrong then. I always assumed that those special extra wide parking spaces were for 'drivers' who need much bigger spaces to park in than the rest of us - didn't realise that it's because they have children too...
:exit:
 
Chris Primadona said:
I guess it depends if the clamping company pay you the privilege to operate on your land? I'm not sure how it works to be honest but I guess you could just adopt the "it's out of my hands" route, as it does seem that way.
Click to expand...

Hi Chris - we don't get a penny. The enforcement company have contracted to run the site for us - and in return for taking all the hassle and threats they keep all the money. Our "return" now is that we can ensure we have happy tenants who can park in their designated parking space when they get home from work and at weekends.

We have spent hundreds of management hours trying to sort this by reasoning with the errant motorists only to be threatened and abused over a parking space.

The Enforcement Company have taken all that away from us and once the dust settles, the parking should simply sort itself out, once the word gets around that it is a zero tolerance policy.

The Enforcement Company always get their money. If a tenant or visitor is seeking a refund or alleges they were clamped unfairly they can appeal to us as the site owners.

However, by having very clear warning signs and by taking a complete set of timed and dated digital photo's of the car, the signs next to the car, its dashboard, the passenger seats and the footwells - it can be clearly demonstrated that a valid pass was not being displayed and it had not fallen onto the seat or into the footwell when the wind blew or the door slammed without the owner noticing.

I hope we have covered every eventuality - but I'm sure my steep learning curve has a way to go yet :LOL:
 
Last edited:
Oh dear - a few clubbers have been upset overnight.

It seems they've got into the habit of parking in the residents spots to go clubbing and came back to find an unexpected and expensive twist to the end of their night out :bang:

As they were rude, abusive and threatening, just as the tenants had repeatedly reported, their vehicle was towed away and removed to a safe location.

Which begs the question - was the driver over the limit and safe to drive anyway?
 
Last edited:
rhody said:
Oh dear - a few clubbers have been upset overnight.

It seems they've got into the habit of parking in the residents spots to go clubbing and came back to find an unexpected and expensive twist to the end of their night out :bang:

As they were rude, abusive and threatening, just as the tenants had repeatedly reported, their vehicle was towed away and removed to a safe location.

Which begs the question - was the driver over the limit and safe to drive anyway?
Click to expand...

road rage drivers with a clamp - Not nice to deal with

Completely drunk clubbers, clutching a kebab with a clamp - man thats a whole new level.

I always did find it weird how we have a very strong anti drink and drive campaign here in the UK but most pubs have huge carparks, seriously? I appreciate its for designated drivers but most pub carparks are big enough to cater for every person who goes in and not everyone is in there drinking coke
 
Well done! Another week or so of this and the message will be drummed in to every thicko in town.
NO PARKING UNLESS YOU'RE A TENANT OR VISITOR WITH A PASS
 
ROFL mercedes - why is it you can get the message in Lancashire yet it goes over the locals heads by about 3 feet?? :bang:

Good point archamedes - pubs and car parks - not always such a good idea to pair them up after all.
 
Well it's taken a couple of weeks, a few heated phone calls and some vandalized signs to be replaced but the Enforcement Company have restored our residents bays to private use only.

All the residents are overjoyed that when they get home at night now their own parking bays are free for them to use.

This was a last resort for us and really was a desperate measure to solve the parking abuse problems for our residents but it has clearly worked out very well for all parties.

In no way would I support the actions of the "cowboy clampers" but the larger, more professional and more responsible enforcement companies deserve a fairer press.

Thanks to everyone for their comments and input.

Our residents have finally achieved closure on this deeply emotive, frustrating and time consuming issue.
 
Looks like everyone's happy... Well almost anyway :D Well done for getting it sorted (y)
 
Thanks to everyone that has contributed to this thread and made it so interesting.

It's good to see so many differing points of view.
 
Last edited:
Had a residents visitor go public today because they were clamped for not displaying a valid permit whilst parked on private land in a designated parking bay.

The visitor had been given a permit by the resident but had forgotten to display it.

The Parking Enforcement Company patrol the area on our behalf, saw the car without a valid permit and applied the charge for not complying with the clearly displayed terms and conditions for parking on our private land.

The Parking Enforcement Company have photographs of the vehicle not displaying a valid permit.

Should be interesting and very, very time consuming to see what happens now.
 
rhody said:
Had a residents visitor go public today because they were clamped for not displaying a valid permit whilst parked on private land in a designated parking bay.

The visitor had been given a permit by the resident but had forgotten to display it.

The Parking Enforcement Company patrol the area on our behalf, saw the car without a valid permit and applied the charge for not complying with the clearly displayed terms and conditions for parking on our private land.

The Parking Enforcement Company have photographs of the vehicle not displaying a valid permit.

Should be interesting and very, very time consuming to see what happens now.
Click to expand...

well in my mind, ignorance (i.e forgetting) isnt a valid excuse
 
Isn't it later this year that it will become illegal to clamp on private land? What's the contingency plan?
 
Spuff said:
Isn't it later this year that it will become illegal to clamp on private land? What's the contingency plan?
Click to expand...

We are waiting for confirmation of how the appeal is going against the ban on clamping in Southern England. It was originally postponed by 18 months to allow the appeal to take place.

Clamping has worked very well for us. It stopped shoppers, clubbers and others parking on our land without permission within a few short weeks once the word got around that the signs were not just for show.

Our residents used to be regularly threatened with violence by people parking without permission on private land.

If clamping is banned and I sincerely hope it isn't, we will have to consider CPN Ticketing (Civil Penalty Charge Notice) or ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) which is done remotely and automatically by computers and cameras.

Clamping was a last resort for us - signs were ignored; staff and residents were physically threatened and verbally abused by people who did not care if they were parking on private land in someone else's designated and legally allocated parking space. Some cars were left there on a Friday night and not collected again until Monday morning - so our residents had to park on the street or pay to use a local car park because their own space was occupied by a complete stranger without consent.

Having worked closely with the Parking Enforcement Company now for many months, they are very professional and firm but fair in how they operate.

I don't support the "Cowboy Clampers" in any way but clamping is a very effective method of regaining control of your own land when it is being abused by motorists parking without permission on private land.

It is amazing how many people say, "I was only parked there for a few minutes" as though they have a right to stop someone else parking on their own land or having a visitor whilst they "just nip to the shops" for a couple of hours.

An interesting few months ahead for private landowners again.
 
The Freedom bill received it's 3rd reading in the House yesterday. As far as an appeal against the ban, that's going nowhere. Royal Assent is looking likely to be halfway through the year, when the date of the ban will be, who knows..

What will happen in future is that ticketing will be completely the responsibility of the registered keeper. They're closing the loophole currently being used to get people out of paying them as a payoff to the PPC's for the ban of clamping.
 
minky_monkey said:
The Freedom bill received it's 3rd reading in the House yesterday. As far as an appeal against the ban, that's going nowhere. Royal Assent is looking likely to be halfway through the year, when the date of the ban will be, who knows..

What will happen in future is that ticketing will be completely the responsibility of the registered keeper. They're closing the loophole currently being used to get people out of paying them as a payoff to the PPC's for the ban of clamping.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I would describe it as a loop hole. Seems completely reasonable to me its the driver and not the registered keeper who is responsible for any ticketing incurred, would love to know how they would hope to get that through the first legal challenge
 
If clamping is banned is there any reason vehicles in the way can't be towed after a reasonable time?
 
Towing will also be banned.

People have used it as a loophole, people have used it to get out of paying pure and simple. I agree that yes, it should be the driver but now private tickets will basically have the same standing as a council one where the rk is responsible.
 
Sounds like the same farce as speed cameras. Ticket someone two weeks later rather than having a plod talk to them there and then!

I think a lot more obnoxious parkers are going to find their cars 'stolen and dumped' rather than towed...
 
minky_monkey said:
People have used it as a loophole, people have used it to get out of paying pure and simple. I agree that yes, it should be the driver but now private tickets will basically have the same standing as a council one where the rk is responsible.
Click to expand...

before we talk too much about loopholes, it is worth remembering that at the minute Private Notices have the same status as any other invoice, the fact that the invoice is addressed to the wrong individual is only a very small part of the issue. The first legal challenge to the changes, assuming it becomes law will be interesting. Remember the proposed changes still refer to these under contract law, not the RTA as per the council issues tickets under
 
They will have to strengthen the law and give greater support to take enforceable action against the Registered Keeper as a trade off if clamping goes.

There is nothing wrong with responsible clamping - it gets the job done very effectively - it has brought our land back under control for our residents very well.

We had one motorist who repeatedly parked on our private land and threatened to punch some of our female residents in the face and break into their homes whilst they were out "because now I know where you live".

He was clamped and towed and we never saw or heard from him again. He had been repeatedly parking on our land for months before we introduced clamping.

When people moan about being clamped, it is worth bearing in mind that some motorists are extremely nasty, threatening and violent towards the residents in whose space they have parked and private landlords need effective legislation to pursue people like this through the courts because some motorists could not care less where they park or who they inconvenience.
 
I think, as your circumstances have shown, that there is definitely a place for responsible clamping and that it can be a very effective solution. However, the "clamping" industry as a whole has obviously not been able to manage itself very effectively over the years and the prominence of the cowboys and associated negative press has no doubt influenced the upcoming amendments.

I haven't seen the bill but presumably there must be something in there to enable enforcement against the registered keeper, otherwise what is to stop (as Hugh says) the RK saying "tough" - I didn't enter into a contract with you and I'm either not going to pay a thing or I will pay you an amount commensurate with the loss you have suffered in my taking a parking space (which in a supermarket carpark, for example, wouldn't be much).
 
rhody said:
They will have to strengthen the law and give greater support to take enforceable action against the Registered Keeper as a trade off if clamping goes.

There is nothing wrong with responsible clamping - it gets the job done very effectively - it has brought our land back under control for our residents very well.

We had one motorist who repeatedly parked on our private land and threatened to punch some of our female residents in the face and break into their homes whilst they were out "because now I know where you live".

He was clamped and towed and we never saw or heard from him again. He had been repeatedly parking on our land for months before we introduced clamping.

When people moan about being clamped, it is worth bearing in mind that some motorists are extremely nasty, threatening and violent towards the residents in whose space they have parked and private landlords need effective legislation to pursue people like this through the courts because some motorists could not care less where they park or who they inconvenience.
Click to expand...


I'm in total agreement about all your responsible comments. It has been the irresponsible companies have damaged it for all though.

Unfortunatley I don't see how you can expect to make the registered keeper party to contract (add a private ticket will be still) if they weren't there. I'd be very surprised if that stood up to the weakest legal challenge
 
I guess it could be a bit like speeding fines... The owner / keeper has to provide details of the driver if it wasn't them?
 
Splog said:
I guess it could be a bit like speeding fines... The owner / keeper has to provide details of the driver if it wasn't them?
Click to expand...

I would expect thats the way they envisage it working, but the difference is of course you have at the moment a private and loosely regulated company (without any form of legal authority) and would you want to provide them details? - as opposed to the police for speeding say?
 
boyfalldown said:
I would expect thats the way they envisage it working, but the difference is of course you have at the moment a private and loosely regulated company (without any form of legal authority) and would you want to provide them details? - as opposed to the police for speeding say?
Click to expand...

If they have no authority then they would get nothing from me.
 
Splog said:
If they have no authority then they would get nothing from me.
Click to expand...

nor me, but that then leaves us back where we started - i.e. how can you enforce a contract against someone who may not of been responsible or party to it?
 
boyfalldown said:
nor me, but that then leaves us back where we started - i.e. how can you enforce a contract against someone who may not of been responsible or party to it?
Click to expand...

Simple..... You can't!
 
That's why before clamping is banned they will have to strengthen the law so that legal action can be easily taken by private landowners against the problem motorists and if challenged it will be supported and enforced by the courts.

In our experience 90% of those caught parking on our land without permission pay without question.

The other 10% complain bitterly and go to the media and waste even more management time as they try to avoid paying the charges.

We have one at the moment where someone parked in a residents bay for 2 days and was clamped for doing so. He parked right next to the warning sign and photographs were taken of his vehicle in the bay next to the sign.

His selfish actions meant our resident lost their parking space for the entire weekend and to add to the indignity of it all, the resident then had to pay to park in the Local Authority car park on the opposite side of the road - the same car park this selfish motorist avoided because he refused to pay the daily charge to park in the Council car park.

I don't support any cowboy clampers - but there are some very selfish and nasty motorists out there - a fact the media seem to willingly ignore in their war against "cowboy clampers".
 
Thanks for the link Spuff.

It does mention the option of allowing Local Authorities to clamp on private land where required - so that would remove the cowboy clampers from the equation but I seriously doubt if the LA's have the manpower, resources or desire to go down that route.

Reassuringly it does stress and recognise the need to protect the rights of private landowners to apply "reasonable" charges to persons parking on their land without permission.
 
Well, it took a few minutes but I've reached the end, good to hear Rhody that all the effort you put into this has paid off almost 100%.
As for parent/child-disabled bays in supermarket carparks I park as far away from the doors as possible, it helps keep dings from doors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top