I urge your readers to write to their MPs over the Protection of Freedoms Bill.
I have for many months read your replies regarding experiences with members of the British Parking Association (BPA), and how they have used the DVLA to make money from unsuspecting motorists. I have recently written to my MP, as I was subject of a "Fixed Penalty Charge" after parking at my local Halfords and overstaying by a few minutes (yes I was using the store to purchase items). I used the advice you have given to others and they left me alone eventually. After receiving a reply from my MPs secretary stating that he had passed my letter on to the secretary for transport, I heard nothing more. After writing a follow up letter, I received a reply, again from my MPs secretary, which merely enclosed a copy of the proposal submitted by the BPA.
In short it appears that the BPA will act as judge and jury on any of its members that breach its rules for issuing Fixed Penalty Charges. When clamping was made illegal, we all thought that the thug element to civil parking disputes had been put behind us, but now I feel that it has been moved up a level and there will be flood of FPCs falling through letter boxes, of which a high proportion will be paid by unsuspecting motorists. If any of your readers are lucky enough to have an MP that is not anonymous, I urge them to write to him or her before its too late.
In short it appears that the BPA will act as judge and jury on any of its members that breach its rules for issuing Fixed Penalty Charges. When clamping was made illegal, we all thought that the thug element to civil parking disputes had been put behind us, but now I feel that it has been moved up a level and there will be flood of FPCs falling through letter boxes, of which a high proportion will be paid by unsuspecting motorists. If any of your readers are lucky enough to have an MP that is not anonymous, I urge them to write to him or her before its too late.
Asked on 12 June 2011 by RL, Nuneaton
Answered by
Honest John
Clamping has not yet been made illegal. That is part of the Protection of Freedoms Bill too. None of it has yet become law. The relevant clause, hidden away in the complexity of the bill, is as follows:
"56 Recovery of unpaid parking charges Schedule 4 (which makes provision for the recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle in cases where it is not known who was driving the vehicle when the charges were incurred) has effect."
This is a blatant license to exploit, no better than the last government's license to clampers, and is set to be granted to a collection of people who already have a shocking record for exploitation. What the previous government did (and Ken Livingstone did in London) was to sub-contract enforcement to the private sector. If the purpose of enforcement is to deter, then, by definition, if it is successful, then it is very bad business because no income is generated. That is why the enforcement companies adopt sneaky tactics. It is the reason why when The London Congestion Charge was introduced, it was deliberately made difficult to pay. Drivers should simply have been able to register their debit or credit card with TfL, together with their car reg, and then the charge could have been automatically paid. But because that would not generate enough income it was never implemented, and for years the income from penalties for failing to pay vastly exceeded the Congestion Charge income. Let's see if your letter and any more I can generate from readers to their MPs will get through the Secretary of State for Transport.
"56 Recovery of unpaid parking charges Schedule 4 (which makes provision for the recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle in cases where it is not known who was driving the vehicle when the charges were incurred) has effect."
This is a blatant license to exploit, no better than the last government's license to clampers, and is set to be granted to a collection of people who already have a shocking record for exploitation. What the previous government did (and Ken Livingstone did in London) was to sub-contract enforcement to the private sector. If the purpose of enforcement is to deter, then, by definition, if it is successful, then it is very bad business because no income is generated. That is why the enforcement companies adopt sneaky tactics. It is the reason why when The London Congestion Charge was introduced, it was deliberately made difficult to pay. Drivers should simply have been able to register their debit or credit card with TfL, together with their car reg, and then the charge could have been automatically paid. But because that would not generate enough income it was never implemented, and for years the income from penalties for failing to pay vastly exceeded the Congestion Charge income. Let's see if your letter and any more I can generate from readers to their MPs will get through the Secretary of State for Transport.
Similar questions
Having been clamped on private land (where I was working, I parked in the wrong bay at a block of flats last week), I now carry a powerful angle grinder in my van. The nice Russian lad who came to remove...
You recently mentioned in your column that the British Parking Association is lobbying Parliament to make vehicle keepers liable for parking penalties. Is anybody lobbying to maintain the status quo?
Regular followers of the fight against parking pirates will welcome the news that one of the Penalty Charge Notice perpetrators, OPC Parking, was fined £26,750 plus costs in Wolverhampton Magistrates Court...
![2020 Vauxhall Grandland X 1.2 Turbo Elite Nav 5dr Auto [8 Speed]](http://images.honestjohn.co.uk/imagecache/url/crop/90x60/https/cdn.uk.prod.group-mobility-trader.com/images/cas/f510097c133eb24db8c73825ad75c3ac/a530a25ea87ebbd17845bb08a6ea9600.jpg)
.jpg)
