New Clamping Plans ...
Discussion
My first concern is
1. The database.
My second concern is
WTF do you do when you have a wife and three kids sat at the side of the road trying to work out how to get home when your car has been clamped because some feckwit at the DVLA put in the wrong plate..
Yet another tax on the motorist.
1. The database.
My second concern is
WTF do you do when you have a wife and three kids sat at the side of the road trying to work out how to get home when your car has been clamped because some feckwit at the DVLA put in the wrong plate..
Yet another tax on the motorist.
Edited by jasandjules on Wednesday 17th January 11:00
Not to mention the problem of cloned plates. Mentioned to DVD this am that 2% of our fleet have been subject to cloning and the clone has been involved in suffiently dodgy activities to draw attention from police. Now apply that across UK.
Then factor in any which might have been cloned but not brought to atention of plod for some reason. ie just driving around keeping nose clean.
Then factor in any which might have been cloned but not brought to atention of plod for some reason. ie just driving around keeping nose clean.
telegraph said:
Ministers are looking to roll out London's data base of rogue motorists to the rest of England although it will be left to local authorities to pay for the scheme and implement it.
Er, what London database of rogue motorists ?
Who created this, who maintains it, who has access to it ?
Assuming that I am paying for it (a fair bet under the current shower of shit), what does it cost ?
More anti-motorist madness from the feckwits in shitehall....
The much vaunted (but totally useless) DVLA database is ONLY 60% accurate....anything which RedKens cronies are party to, would be even worse.... blackmail and extortion is the word for what they're planning!!!!
Just glad I live in a much more democratic country than the socio-fascist state of unimportant and getting more unimportant Britain. No way would such laws ever get passed in the rest of the EU.......
Time for a revolution methinks!!!
The much vaunted (but totally useless) DVLA database is ONLY 60% accurate....anything which RedKens cronies are party to, would be even worse.... blackmail and extortion is the word for what they're planning!!!!
Just glad I live in a much more democratic country than the socio-fascist state of unimportant and getting more unimportant Britain. No way would such laws ever get passed in the rest of the EU.......
Time for a revolution methinks!!!
BPA parasite Keith Banbury said:
"We are talking about a huge amount of money, some people think it could be as much as £30 million owed in unpaid fines.
"It is a lot of money to councils and the decent law-abiding motorist who does pay up is subsidising the dishonest one who doesn't."
"It is a lot of money to councils and the decent law-abiding motorist who does pay up is subsidising the dishonest one who doesn't."
Parking fines are supposed to deter people from causing nuisance and congestion. Banbury's suggestion of subsidisation are total admissions that
s like him are only in it for the money. Richard C said:
BPA parasite Keith Banbury said:
"We are talking about a huge amount of money, some people think it could be as much as £30 million owed in unpaid fines.
"It is a lot of money to councils and the decent law-abiding motorist who does pay up is subsidising the dishonest one who doesn't."
"It is a lot of money to councils and the decent law-abiding motorist who does pay up is subsidising the dishonest one who doesn't."
Parking fines are supposed to deter people from causing nuisance and congestion. Banbury's suggestion of subsidisation are total admissions that
s like him are only in it for the money. Don't you think parking fines should be collected, or do you think parking should be a free-for-all?
herewego said:
Richard C said:
BPA parasite Keith Banbury said:
"We are talking about a huge amount of money, some people think it could be as much as £30 million owed in unpaid fines.
"It is a lot of money to councils and the decent law-abiding motorist who does pay up is subsidising the dishonest one who doesn't."
"It is a lot of money to councils and the decent law-abiding motorist who does pay up is subsidising the dishonest one who doesn't."
Parking fines are supposed to deter people from causing nuisance and congestion. Banbury's suggestion of subsidisation are total admissions that
s like him are only in it for the money. Don't you think parking fines should be collected, or do you think parking should be a free-for-all?
The point surely is that whenever an aspect of enforcement becomes civilianised and the fine revenue is to the direct benefit of the enforcer or their employer then sense goes out of the window along with discretion, accompanied by any common sense, along with a liberal dash of deliberately ignoring or bending the rules and law which is actually in place.
Aside, Oi Richard C:- just noticed the C word!!!!
Flat in Fifth said:
herewego said:
Richard C said:
BPA parasite Keith Banbury said:
"We are talking about a huge amount of money, some people think it could be as much as £30 million owed in unpaid fines.
"It is a lot of money to councils and the decent law-abiding motorist who does pay up is subsidising the dishonest one who doesn't."
"It is a lot of money to councils and the decent law-abiding motorist who does pay up is subsidising the dishonest one who doesn't."
Parking fines are supposed to deter people from causing nuisance and congestion. Banbury's suggestion of subsidisation are total admissions that
s like him are only in it for the money. Don't you think parking fines should be collected, or do you think parking should be a free-for-all?
The point surely is that whenever an aspect of enforcement becomes civilianised and the fine revenue is to the direct benefit of the enforcer or their employer then sense goes out of the window along with discretion, accompanied by any common sense, along with a liberal dash of deliberately ignoring or bending the rules and law which is actually in place.
Aside, Oi Richard C:- just noticed the C word!!!!
I wouldn't claim the enforcers(or anyone else) are perfect, but it's a different point from whether the fines should be collected. I think they should.
herewego said:
Flat in Fifth said:
herewego said:
Richard C said:
BPA parasite Keith Banbury said:
"We are talking about a huge amount of money, some people think it could be as much as £30 million owed in unpaid fines.
"It is a lot of money to councils and the decent law-abiding motorist who does pay up is subsidising the dishonest one who doesn't."
"It is a lot of money to councils and the decent law-abiding motorist who does pay up is subsidising the dishonest one who doesn't."
Parking fines are supposed to deter people from causing nuisance and congestion. Banbury's suggestion of subsidisation are total admissions that
s like him are only in it for the money. Don't you think parking fines should be collected, or do you think parking should be a free-for-all?
The point surely is that whenever an aspect of enforcement becomes civilianised and the fine revenue is to the direct benefit of the enforcer or their employer then sense goes out of the window along with discretion, accompanied by any common sense, along with a liberal dash of deliberately ignoring or bending the rules and law which is actually in place.
Aside, Oi Richard C:- just noticed the C word!!!!
I wouldn't claim the enforcers(or anyone else) are perfect, but it's a different point from whether the fines should be collected. I think they should.
The problem is that there is a sector of society, eg serial non-payers, who just take the piss.
Cue proposal from Govt to sort this.
Cue response from reasonable people who say "Yes I think the fines should be collected"
Cue introduction of legislation.
Cue enforcers running amok full of self rightouesness.
Cue numbers of people who were not a problem becoming seriously inconvenienced due to, incorrect data, idiots entering wrong information, buying a car with outstanding fines, their plates have been cloned, what have you.
What about contested fines?
What about unlawful fines from areas enforced completely outwith the regulations. CPZ in Brum for example totally illegal, but they still enforce, some people pay the fines.
What about outstanding congestion charging fines where plod and DVLA have agreed in writing there is a cloning problem but CC4London mob are so thick thay can't understand despite having several copies of the official reports complete with crime numbers. Yet still send the bailiffs in.
I could go on but my wee is boiled dry.
Flat in Fifth said:
Cue numbers of people who were not a problem becoming seriously inconvenienced due to, incorrect data, idiots entering wrong information, buying a car with outstanding fines, their plates have been cloned, what have you.
.
No, no FiF
They've thought of that
mastermind said:
In the case of a motorist claiming the fines were the responsibility of the previous owner, the council which clamps the car could demand a bond of around £250 before releasing the vehicle.
This would be returned if the driver was found to be telling the truth. But it would be up to the motorist to prove the car had changed hands,
See , after few days you will get your car & money back & you will have helped uphold the law & everything will be ok ,wont it......, errr.. possibly....
AFAIUI, to deliberately disable a vehicle where the justification is false (i.e. the wrong information is held in a data-base) is known as 'Criminal Damage' in that the vehicle has been rendered unfit for the purpose for which it was manufactured. Add to that another claim for 'Loss of Quiet Enjoyment' and any erroneopusly clamped owners could have huge claims against the clampers and anyone who authorised them to clamp.If illegally clamped there would be justification for cutting the clamp off to remove the cause of the Criminal Damage and one might suspect that anyone doing this would have the sympathy of the media and the courts (if it got that far). The idea of holding your property to ransom whilst demanding monies not due is too draconian to contemplate and the consequences for such actions will return to haunt those doing it.
martind said:
Flat in Fifth said:
Cue numbers of people who were not a problem becoming seriously inconvenienced due to, incorrect data, idiots entering wrong information, buying a car with outstanding fines, their plates have been cloned, what have you.
.
No, no FiF
They've thought of that
mastermind said:
In the case of a motorist claiming the fines were the responsibility of the previous owner, the council which clamps the car could demand a bond of around £250 before releasing the vehicle.
This would be returned if the driver was found to be telling the truth. But it would be up to the motorist to prove the car had changed hands,
See , after few days you will get your car & money back & you will have helped uphold the law & everything will be ok ,wont it......, errr.. possibly....
Like your style. Interesting concept, so there you are with a handy £250 quid just in case.
You get clamped, argue the toss, hand over your wedge to get car back and drive off into the sunset.
Next town park up, this lot won't talk to the other lot, they'll be eager for their share of the payment reward so you get clamped again. Dunno about you, sometimes I have >£250 quid on me, but not often £500 unless for a special reason. OK Credit cards I have with a staggering amount of available credit, more than a yearly salary, but many don't.
There will be people left in a vulnerable position over this. When the law of unintended consequences follows, as it will, then expect the press to have a field day. Except the BBC of course.
Cooperman has it right, this lot have to be bankrupted by litigation from aggrieved parties, because they will cock up and often.
Unfortunately the awarded costs will come from the taxpayer no doubt. It ought to come from the politician's pension scheme. Oh damn, that's us again.....
. james_j said:
30 to 40% of DVLA records are incorrect.... and they're going to rely on them?... 
It appears that most of the errors are just spelling mistakes that wouldn't prevent identification and the rest are due to people not advising DVLA when they've bought or sold the car or moved house.
herewego said:
james_j said:
30 to 40% of DVLA records are incorrect.... and they're going to rely on them?...
It appears that most of the errors are just spelling mistakes that wouldn't prevent identification and the rest are due to people not advising DVLA when they've bought or sold the car or moved house.
Well that's a load of bollox, I've 2 cars in my garage in the UK (no they've not been SORNed as this was not possible when I left GB!) and the feckwits at the DVLA say they don't exist!! I've still got the cars complete and the logbooks (old green ones!) and I drive them about once a year on red garage plates....
41PHY a Standard Estate and SK 3435 a 1934 Lanchester limousine with a passenger semi-droptop (like the royal limos) and drivers/passenger glass separator.
Edited by JMGS4 on Thursday 18th January 09:27
Flat in Fifth said:
herewego said:
Richard C said:
[quote=BPA parasite Keith Banbury] "We are talking about a huge amount of money, some people think it could be as much as £30 million owed in unpaid fines.
"It is a lot of money to councils and the decent law-abiding motorist who does pay up is subsidising the dishonest one who doesn't."
"It is a lot of money to councils and the decent law-abiding motorist who does pay up is subsidising the dishonest one who doesn't."
Parking fines are supposed to deter people from causing nuisance and congestion. Banbury's suggestion of subsidisation are total admissions that <censored>. like him are only in it for the money.
Aside, Oi Richard C:- just noticed the C word!!!!
sorry FiF its the only way I knew of putting up that rather succinct <censored> emoticon
hypocrites doesn't quite have the impact Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff