Private Clamping Regulation

Dear Home Office,

From the information I have gathered, the Home Office implies that
soon the legislative system will reign in the activities of private
landowners performing dubious contractual clamping and seizure of
cars on their land, from my research this is one of many similar
claims by government in the last 15 years.

Could you clarify the following points:-

Which government departments have the authority to regulate the
size of a sign displayed by a landowner on private land ?

What law or legislation grants them this authority ?

Yes or No, Will the requirement of an SIA license obligate those
engaged in the activity of clamping cars on private land to follow
a strict code of conduct regarding clear signage and the time taken
to release the car and the size of release fees, under penalty of
criminal charges ?

Will the 'independent appeals process' mentioned in recent
government statements on this subject, be the course of action that
will result in the criminal charges brought against the
perpetrators of clamping that does not meet the code of conduct
suggested in the same statements ?

Will the granting of a license from the SIA to clamping firms give
them limited liability against criminal prosecution, if they fail
to uphold an enforceable code of conduct regarding clarity of
signage, amount of release fees ?

What justification is there for the police to refuse to get
involved in cases of private clamping ?

Is the common law charge of extortion not applicable in this case ?
If not why not ?

Finally, what is the legal status or a car whilst it is on private
land, owned by someone other than the owner of the car, as compared
to its legal status as a registered vehicle while it is on public
roads ?

Yours faithfully,

Philip Collins

Dear Home Office,

Many thanks for your response, I have copied it below for clarity,
along with a request for internal review, due to the specifics of
the information requested not having been provided.

Please see my annotations for clarification.

Information requested:

Which government departments have the authority to regulate the
size of a sign displayed by a landowner on private land?

What law or legislation grants them this authority?

Response

We are not aware of any Department with responsibility specifically
for regulating sign-age used by vehicle-immobiliser s.

Under the Private Security Industry Act 2001, the Home Office set
up the Security Industry Authority. The SIA is a Non-Departmental
Public Body.

Under the Crime and Security Bill, currently before Parliament, we
plan to introduce a requirement for vehicle immobilisation
businesses to be licensed by the Security Industry Authority (SIA).
Proposals within the Bill will make it mandatory for vehicle
immobilisation (VI) businesses and their employees seeking to be
licensed to follow strict conditions set out in a code of practice
by the SIA. Sign-age is one of the proposed areas where conditions
would be set

ANNOTATION:

My questions was regards private landowners and sign-age, I did not
request information relating to vehicle immobiliser s in this
question.
I repeat the request for the information in the hope that I will
receive a more appropriate response.
Incidentally the reason for asking this question is because an SIA
license is not required for those engaging in clamping on private
land on the authority of the landowner (see the SIA Get Licensed
Guide and also the relevant law and legislation for confirmation of
this fact), as such the governments promises to regulate the rogues
who use inadequate sign-age and then appropriate cars of those who
do not/cannot pay their 'presumed contracts' is only applicable if
their is some department that has the power to regulate the size
and visibility of a sign placed by a private landowner on his
private land. Without this authority their is no way to regulate
private landowners clamping and the result will be no change to the
current situation where by the CAB reckon it receives 16000 queries
each year from people who feel they have been unfairly extorted by
these clamping operations.

So again I request please answer the question, without reference to
(VI).

Which government department / authority will be able to
effectively regulate the size of a sign placed on private land by
the landowner ?

------------
Information requested:

Yes or No, will the requirement of an SIA licence obligate those
engaged in the activity of clamping cars on private land to follow
strict code of conduct regarding clear sign-age and the time taken
to release the car and the size of release fees under penalty of
criminal charges?

Response:

These are all matters which are likely to be covered by the
proposed code of practice

ANNOTATION:

This response is unreasonably vague, These are not matters which
are likely to be covered by the code of practice,

My question was, Will the requirement of an SIA license obligate
companies to follow the code of practice/conduct ?

Before you respond, I would note that in the last 15 years that
various governments have 'proposed' solutions to prevent private
clamping by rogue operators who use confusing sign-age and then
threats of 'keeping your car' or immediate cash payments necessary.
This relates to the previous question regarding land owners
sign-age, If the case is, as I expect that there is no jurisdiction
for the government to regulate private landowners sign-age, then it
is also the case that the SIA license will not be able to obligate
anyone to display signs of certain sizes, proportions and in line
with guidelines regarding visibility. In which case, then the
government ought to stop creating the illusion that it is doing
something which it is patently not, namely finally regulating these
rogues.
-----------

Information requested:

Will the `independent appeals process' mentioned in recent
government statements on this subject, be the course of action that
will result in the criminal charges brought against the
perpetrators of clamping that does not meet the code of conduct
suggested in the same statements?

Response:

The outcome of contested release fees would not necessarily lead to
direct action against the business concerned. Responsibility for
securing compliance with the conditions of a licence will continue
to rest with the SIA and decisions on the appropriate action in
relation to a business would be for the SIA to decide. The SIA's
preferred option is to encourage compliance with the law rather
than to prosecute. In deciding on the appropriate action in
relation to a licence holder the SIA takes into account all the
relevant evidence available to them.

The penalties and powers available to the SIA for enforcement of
business licensing would mirror those available in relation to
individual licensing, including revocation or suspension of a
licence and/or prosecution.

ANNOTATION:

So in a nutshell, No.

I would draw attention again to the fact that NO LICENCE IS
REQUIRED, in the majority of problem cases since the rogue clamping
operators are working 'With permission of the landowner'

Since no licence is required and you have stated that the preferred
penalty imposed by the SIA is to revoke the license, what deterrent
is there, or what course of action is there for people who are
unfairly treated by rogue operators who use confusing unclear
sign-age and then take the cars hostage in lieu of payment.

------

Information requested:

Will the granting of a licence from the SIA to clamping firms give
them limited liability against criminal prosecution, if they fail
to uphold an enforceable code of conduct regarding clarity of
sign-age, amount of release fees?

Response:

No. Adherence to the conditions of a licence will be required as
part of the conditions for holding a licence, or having it renewed.
However, as indicated above, the SIA will continue to exercise its
discretion in enforcing licence conditions.

Information requested:

What justification is there for the police to refuse to get
involved in cases of private clamping?

Response:

This is a matter for which Chief Officers of Police are
responsible, since they are responsible for the day to day
management, use of resources, policies and deployment of staff are
operational matters.

Any concerns about an individual case should be addressed to the
Chief Officer of the force concerned. The Home Office has no power
to intervene or act in such cases. Where a person is dissatisfied
with the explanation received from the force, they may raise the
matter with the local Police Authority.

ANNOTATION:

I have had much dealing with the Dorset Police who refuse to act, I
will now be taking it up with the Chief Constable, on your
recommendation.

Information requested:

Is the common law charge of extortion not applicable in this case?
If not, why not?

Response:

We are not aware of any decision of the courts in England and Wales
to the effect that the law relating to extortion would prevent
wheel-clamping. Only the courts could give a view on this matter.

Information requested:

What is the legal status of a car whilst it is on private land,
owned by someone other than the owner of the car as compared to its
legal status as a registered vehicle while it is on public roads?

Response: (from the DVLA):

This would appear to be a question on which you would need to seek
legal advice. One important issue, however, would be whether the
vehicle was present on private land with or without the
land-owner's permission.

Date: 21st January 2010
--------------------------

Many thanks for your time and effort on my request,

I understand that my questions approach the limit of what the
government wants to discuss, however I intend to pursue this
matter, It appears that my recourse is by way of the police and as
such I shall continue to my efforts to get them to act.

In the meantime I would suggest that the government stops creating
the illusion that the Private Security Industry Act, SIA and
licences have any bearing on the rogue clamping operations in
question and issue guidelines to all police forces that they ought
to take seriously complaints of blackmail/extortion and theft
perpetrated by rogue clamping operators.

I would also like an internal review of the handling of my request
and for the annotated points to be re-addressed.

Yours faithfully,

Philip Collins