DVLA clamped car on private property
news.eternal-september.org
door in tears: her car has been clamped and a notice put on it saying that
as the tax disc has recently expired, it's immobilised.
Separate from the niceties of whether or not her car should have been taxed
or not, is the DVLA (or their agents) permitted to enter private property to
clamp a car? There are clear and unambiguous notices at the entrance to the
car parking area and the clamper would have had to go 50 metres into the
private property to place the clamp.
TIA
steve robinson
Normally no they are not ( im assuming here that the cars been
declared off road) , what you need to determine first is this a
privatly owned car park or a carpark that is designated for the
flats but forms part of the public highway .
Its quite common for them to be designated 'private ' carparks or
residents only car parks .
If the car park is privatly owned then she needs to make this known
to the DVLA and make sure the vehicle is sorned otherwise they will
fine her .
Whats of more concern no tax often means no MOT and no insurance
cover
Clive George
It won't be the DVLA who did the clamping, it'll be the parking
management people at the block of flats. There'll be something in the Ts
and Cs which let them do that.
news.eternal-september.org
Thanks for coming back with a response, and apologies for the over-hasty
repost.
I've since confirmed with the local council that the area is indeed private
property and does not form part of the public highway. The small block of
flats has an off-road parking area for the exclusive use of its residents.
Further, I've found a couple of interesting links which suggest that
clamping on private property is, in certain circumstances, unlawful. The
first is the Finance Act 2008, which amends VERA 1994. The relevant section
can be found at http://tinyurl.com/5nynpt Schedule 45, 5 (3):
(1A) This Schedule does not apply to-
(a) any place which is within the curtilage of, or in the vicinity of, a
dwelling-house, mobile home or houseboat and which is normally enjoyed with
it, or
(b) any place which is within the curtilage of, or in the vicinity of, a
building consisting entirely (apart from common parts) of two or more
dwellings and which is normally enjoyed only by the occupiers of one or more
of those dwellings.
The second is a response to a 2009 FOI request to DVLA. I can't find the
original, but it's quoted at http://tinyurl.com/369x62q:
"Vehicles parked on land associated with a house or a block of flats cannot
be wheel clamped or impounded. This applies for example, to private
driveways, garages and allocated parking bays."
There's no doubt that the car parking area fulfils these criteria, but the
problem my neighbour has is that she doesn't have the £100 release fee,
which doubles tomorrow (she's on Incapacity Benefit) and the DVLA seems to
be completely unwilling to respond - their view is that the fee must be paid
or the car will be towed.
Does anyone know how one can get any response from anyone at DVLA who is
anything beyond a low-level phone operator who neither knows the law nor is
willing to put one through to anyone in any position of authority? We
rather feel as though we're beating our head against a wall here.
Adrian
sounding much like they were saying:
> I've since confirmed with the local council that the area is indeed
> private property and does not form part of the public highway. The
> small block of flats has an off-road parking area for the exclusive use
> of its residents.
Doesn't mean it doesn't count as "public highway" for the purposes of the
Road Traffic Act. Supermarket car parks are definitely "private land",
but the RTA applies.
As a rough rule of thumb, if this car park has visitor spaces and isn't
actively secured against general entry (in which case, who let DVLA in?),
then she should be OK - otherwise, she's fair game.
Was the car SORNed? If not, then she's got at least an £80 fine and back
tax even before considering whether the car might have been in a public
space.
steve robinson
Take a look on this site
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/UntaxedVehicle/DG_4022072
Your neighbour can aviod getting fined and get the clamp removed if
she can supply the tax disk or sorn notification
I take it she hasnt sorned the vehicle either given the fact they
clamped her .
She needs to contact the clampers and point out the vehicle is on
private ground (take a copy of her lease )
DVLA will still penalise her for failing to sorn the vehicle (if
thats the case) .
Assuming she does get the clamp taken off , she will be red flagged ,
if she tries to use the car and it gets reclamped on the roadways the
penalties are severe
news.eternal-september.org
No, it was DVLA, or rather NSL "working with DVLA".
a...@b.invalid
>> private property and does not form part of the public highway. The
>> small block of flats has an off-road parking area for the exclusive use
>> of its residents.
>
> Doesn't mean it doesn't count as "public highway" for the purposes of the
> Road Traffic Act. Supermarket car parks are definitely "private land",
> but the RTA applies.
The point, with respect to VED, is whether the car park is maintained at
public expense.
Sorry, no answer to the original question or on where the rules draw the
line for the purposes of clamping.
Adrian
saying:
>>> I've since confirmed with the local council that the area is indeed
>>> private property and does not form part of the public highway. The
>>> small block of flats has an off-road parking area for the exclusive
>>> use of its residents.
>> Doesn't mean it doesn't count as "public highway" for the purposes of
>> the Road Traffic Act. Supermarket car parks are definitely "private
>> land", but the RTA applies.
> The point, with respect to VED, is whether the car park is maintained at
> public expense.
<raises eyebrows>
Are you sure about that?
I thought it was an expectation of public access.
Paul
Agree with other posters - if clamp vehicle can drive to car, its a
public highway and tax disc must be fitted.
And she needs to do something SHARPISH - the clampers give 24 hours
notice, then collect and charge extra fees - all sanctioned by govenment.
Mate of mine had his clamped and collected 24 hours and 1 minute after
clamping - by a subsidary of NCP...
Paul
Letter to and snswer by the DVLA:
"The exceptions to the expanded enforcement powers state that vehicles
parked on land associated with a house or a block of flats cannot be
wheel clamped or impounded. This applies for example, to private
driveways, garages and allocated parking bays. Also vehicles kept by a
motor trader or vehicle tester at a business premise cannot be
wheelclamped or impounded."
Seems a grey area, some posh blocks have allocated bays, others just one
big carpark for all.
news.eternal-september.org
The vehicle has now been taxed, but the question of the release fee still
remains. The quotes I posted elsewhere seem to suggest that the clampers
are not allowed to immobilise a vehicle on private property, such as the
off-road parking area of a private block of flats, so I'm still trying to
work out what to suggest to my neighbour in terms of getting the clamp
removed before the vehicle is removed tomorrow lunchtime.
Any suggestions?
Robert Coates
I agree.
I had a mate who got caught driving while disqualified. He was moving
a mate's car from one parking spot to another in a supermarket car
park and a copper saw him do it.
Although private land, it was deemed the public has general access and
hence RTA applies and he "got done".
So I don't think being "maintained at public expense" is relevant.
Another example, we have a road near us with lots of big posh houses
on, that is "unadopted". That is, not maintained at the public expense
but by the residents, yet the general public are quite free to drive
up and down it.
I'm quite sure you wouldn't get away with parking on it without tax,
even though technically it's private land.
the Omrud
> On 22/06/2010 15:25, news.eternal-september.org wrote:
>> My neighbour (I live in a small block of flats) has just turned up at my
>> door in tears: her car has been clamped and a notice put on it saying
>> that as the tax disc has recently expired, it's immobilised.
>>
>> Separate from the niceties of whether or not her car should have been
>> taxed or not, is the DVLA (or their agents) permitted to enter private
>> property to clamp a car? There are clear and unambiguous notices at the
>> entrance to the car parking area and the clamper would have had to go 50
>> metres into the private property to place the clamp.
>>
>> TIA
>
> Agree with other posters - if clamp vehicle can drive to car, its a
> public highway and tax disc must be fitted.
What? Such as my drive? Or my garage, if I leave the door open?
--
David
news.eternal-september.org
posters. DVLA instructed the clampers to remove the clamp first thing this
morning after the following letter hit their desk:
The above vehicle was clamped by operatives from XXXX at approximately 14:40
this afternoon. Since I understand that the vehicle will be removed after
24 hours to XXXX Vehicle Pound, you will understand that this communication
is urgent and requires your immediate action (or that of an appropriate
superior) to prevent the situation from escalating.
Having spoken with a number of your officers in different departments, the
vehicle is now fully taxed and the short arrears paid. However, there
remains the matter of the release fee for the immobilisation, which stands
at £100 and will rise each day that the fee remains unpaid. I have the
added challenge of being on Incapacity Benefit as a result of a chronic,
debilitating condition.
I contacted the DVLA in Swansea as well as the local clamping office and
explained to them that the car had been parked on private property, well
away from the road and, while there was no argument about its tax status,
the clampers would have had to walk past two clear and unambiguous signs
indicating that this was private property. The clamping office quoted the
Finance Act 2008: their position is that the extended powers to VERA 1994
provided by the Finance Act allow for unlimited access to private land.
Unfortunately, while my conversations and dealings with all other DVLA staff
have been extremely helpful, this particular office's response was not: "You
can pay the £100 or sod off." Since then, all attempts to reach the XXXX
office have failed.
I tried to explain to them that the Finance Act is fairly explicit in its
exclusion of private property such as that in which my car was parked:
"(1A) This Schedule does not apply to-
(a) any place which is within the curtilage of, or in the vicinity of, a
dwelling-house, mobile home or houseboat and which is normally enjoyed with
it, or
(b) any place which is within the curtilage of, or in the vicinity of, a
building consisting entirely (apart from common parts) of two or more
dwellings and which is normally enjoyed only by the occupiers of one or more
of those dwellings." [http://tinyurl.com/5nynpt Schedule 45, 5 (3)].
Further, I attempted to draw your officer's attention to the FOI request
submitted by Derek Canning LLB (hons) to DVLA on 7th May 2009 and responded
to on 19th May 2009, in which the respondent states:
"Vehicles parked on land associated with a house or a block of flats cannot
be wheel clamped or impounded. This applies for example, to private
driveways, garages and allocated parking bays."
[http://tinyurl.com/369x62q].
There are four photographs appended to this letter which show quite clearly
the car's current position and the signs indicating that the land is private
property. The correct location can be confirmed if you have internet access
by checking with Google Maps [http://tinyurl.com/38wv8p9] or the Land
Registry [http://tinyurl.com/3yxwy96]. There can be no dispute as to
whether it has been moved since it was immobilised.
On that basis please ensure that the clamp placed unlawfully on the vehicle
is removed as a matter of urgency (the relevant office has already been
advised by the Vehicle Excise Duty office in XXXX that the excise is now
fully paid). Given that this immobilisation was unlawful, this matter
demands an urgent resolution. In the event that your office refuses to
remove the clamp, appropriate and immediate action will be taken through the
courts.
Mark Goodge
to keyboard and typed:
>The issue has been resolved, and I'm grateful for the advice of many
>posters. DVLA instructed the clampers to remove the clamp first thing this
>morning after the following letter hit their desk:
[letter snipped]
Well done. If you've got a blog, I'd strongly suggest posting the story,
complete with a copy of the letter, there so that it's accessible as a
simple web link (and from a web search, once it's been indexed), as there
may well be other people out there who will find it extremely useful should
they suffer in similar circumstances.
Mark
--
30 Days of Music in June:
http://mark.goodge.co.uk/category/music/30-days-of-music/
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>On 23 June, 07:25, Adrian <toomany2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "a...@b.invalid" <a...@b.invalid> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>> saying:
>>
>> >>> I've since confirmed with the local council that the area is indeed
>> >>> private property and does not form part of the public highway. The
>> >>> small block of flats has an off-road parking area for the exclusive
>> >>> use of its residents.
>> >> Doesn't mean it doesn't count as "public highway" for the purposes of
>> >> the Road Traffic Act. Supermarket car parks are definitely "private
>> >> land", but the RTA applies.
>> > The point, with respect to VED, is whether the car park is maintained at
>> > public expense.
>>
>> <raises eyebrows>
>> Are you sure about that?
>>
>> I thought it was an expectation of public access.
>
>I agree.
>I had a mate who got caught driving while disqualified. He was moving
>a mate's car from one parking spot to another in a supermarket car
>park and a copper saw him do it.
>Although private land, it was deemed the public has general access and
>hence RTA applies and he "got done".
>So I don't think being "maintained at public expense" is relevant.
No, what's relevant is the law.
Arguing by analogy with other offences is usually unhelpful, since the law
isn't necessarily consistent between different situations. The law which
allows the DVLA to clamp an untaxed car is entirely separate to the law
which allows the police to ticket a disqualified driver. There is not,
therefore, any overriding reason why the two should have similar limits as
to where they might apply.
In the case of offences under the Road Traffic Act, they are generally
applicable anywhere that is a "public place". In this context, note that a
public place is *not* the same thing as a "public highway" (or, for that
matter, the same thing as a "public right of way"). Privately owned
property can be a public place, and if it is then the RTA applies on it.
Vehicle Excise Duty, on the other hand, is specifically related to the use
of a vehicle on a public *highway*, not any public place, and therefore
anywhere that is not a part of the highway is exempt from it.
A.Lee
> On 23 June, 07:25, Adrian <toomany2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I thought it was an expectation of public access.
>
> I agree.
> I had a mate who got caught driving while disqualified. He was moving
> a mate's car from one parking spot to another in a supermarket car
> park and a copper saw him do it.
> Although private land, it was deemed the public has general access and
> hence RTA applies and he "got done".
> So I don't think being "maintained at public expense" is relevant.
I was explained this by a shopping centre manager a couple of years ago:
While on our premises (the car park), the car must be insured, and
driven to general 'rules of the road'. We can clamp people who overstay
their parking period, but we can do nothing else, other than inform the
Police if the vehicle looks 'dodgy', either by being driven
erraticly/dangerously, or looks to be stolen, or untaxed.
If it is not taxed, then we have no powers to do anythng, neither do the
Police if they attend to the vehicle. However, once the driver leaves
the car park, the Police can stop them immediately, as it is then a
public road.
Alan.
--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.
a...@b.invalid
>>>> public expense.
>>> <raises eyebrows>
>>> Are you sure about that?
>>>
>>> I thought it was an expectation of public access.
>> I agree.
<snip>
> No, what's relevant is the law.
<snip>
> Vehicle Excise Duty, on the other hand, is specifically related to the use
> of a vehicle on a public *highway*, not any public place, and therefore
> anywhere that is not a part of the highway is exempt from it.
I'm sure.
The definition of a public road for the purposes of VED is here:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1994/ukpga_19940022_en_6#pt5-pb2-l1g62
“public road”—
(a)
in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, means a road which is
repairable at the public expense, and
(b)
in Scotland, has the same meaning as in the [1984 c. 54.] Roads
(Scotland) Act 1984,
Percy Picacity
news:a0j426di10dkbboqf...@news.markshouse.net:
Indeed, a large proportion of public highways are privately owned,
and this is often true in housing estates, public and private. I
don't think that "adoption" by the local highway authority entails a
change of ownership. But IANAL.
--
Percy Picacity
Ian Jackson
news.eternal-september.org <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>The issue has been resolved, and I'm grateful for the advice of many
>posters. DVLA instructed the clampers to remove the clamp first
>thing this morning after the following letter hit their desk:
Well done, both for the excellent letter, and for reporting back here.
Thank you.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
dave
> I had a mate who got caught driving while disqualified. He was moving
> a mate's car from one parking spot to another in a supermarket car
> park and a copper saw him do it.
> Although private land, it was deemed the public has general access and
> hence RTA applies and he "got done".
> So I don't think being "maintained at public expense" is relevant.
That disturbs me, as I live in a block of six houses, whose access and
egress is via small piece of tarmac in a C shaped area. My deeds state
that I, along with all others have a right of access across this area
and that no one may restrict this access.
A couple of years ago, there was a dumped car left there. The police
would not touch it, as it was not dumped on the highway. The council
would not move it as it was not left on the public highway. The owner of
the land was not contactable at the time, so we had to wait for the
owner (it was stolen) to come and remove it.
If the police would not touch, why should a clamper be allowed on this
area, via the DVLA?
Dave
steve robinson
> > context, note that a public place is not the same thing as a
> > "public highway" (or, for that matter, the same thing as a "public
> > right of way"). Privately owned property can be a public place,
> > and if it is then the RTA applies on it.
> >
>
> Indeed, a large proportion of public highways are privately owned,
> and this is often true in housing estates, public and private. I
> don't think that "adoption" by the local highway authority entails
> a change of ownership. But IANAL.
LAs tend not to adopt roads if they are privatly owned because
generally when the locals are asking the question it usally means
they are in such poor condition that the suraces need completly
replaceing .
Chris R
news:xn0gvr1y...@news.eternal-september.org...
expense has nothing to do with whether it is a highway for rights of way or
road traffic purposes, or a public place.
Highway authorities have obligations to adopt highways, but the person
tendering them for adoption is expected to bring them up to adoption
standards first.
Chris R
Peter Crosland
news:3Fb*oe...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> In article <hvtgji$hd$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> news.eternal-september.org <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>The issue has been resolved, and I'm grateful for the advice of many
>>posters. DVLA instructed the clampers to remove the clamp first
>>thing this morning after the following letter hit their desk:
>
> Well done, both for the excellent letter, and for reporting back here.
> Thank you.
What are the chances that the DVLA will now issue a penalty for not having
SORNed the vehicle?
Peter Crosland
Roland Perry
2010, Paul <paul...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>"The exceptions to the expanded enforcement powers state that vehicles
>parked on land associated with a house or a block of flats cannot be
>wheel clamped or impounded. This applies for example, to private
>driveways, garages and allocated parking bays. Also vehicles kept by a
>motor trader or vehicle tester at a business premise cannot be
>wheelclamped or impounded."
>
>Seems a grey area, some posh blocks have allocated bays, others just
>one big carpark for all.
Even if a "posh block" has only a "big car park for all" it is
"associated with a block of flats". Doesn't seem particularly grey to
me.
--
Roland Perry
Adam Funk
Probably, but at least that isn't going to a private party
profiteering from tax collection.
steve robinson
I never implied that it was Chris
Paul
I dunno, I'd take the 'associated with a flat' and 'allocated bay' as
being a small apron off land with numbered bays relating to each flat.
I don't think it is intended to cope with the type of carpark round an
80 story block - with 120 spaces and through 'roads'
This one for instance:
very difficult to know where the adopted roads finish and the
'associated land' stop.
I would certainly say the RTA applies here.
Paul
the car - down a open to all access road, service road etc.
Paul
Paul Cummins
> very difficult to know where the adopted roads finish and the
> 'associated land' stop.
Actually, it's utterly clear. There are joints on the tarmac at 52.546267,-1.975027,
which show where the responsibility for the road changes. East of that joint is
private parking spaces.
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Alex Heney
<cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>On 22/06/2010 15:25, news.eternal-september.org wrote:
>> My neighbour (I live in a small block of flats) has just turned up at my
>> door in tears: her car has been clamped and a notice put on it saying
>> that as the tax disc has recently expired, it's immobilised.
>>
>> Separate from the niceties of whether or not her car should have been
>> taxed or not, is the DVLA (or their agents) permitted to enter private
>> property to clamp a car? There are clear and unambiguous notices at the
>> entrance to the car parking area and the clamper would have had to go 50
>> metres into the private property to place the clamp.
>
>It won't be the DVLA who did the clamping, it'll be the parking
>management people at the block of flats. There'll be something in the Ts
>and Cs which let them do that.
There will most certainly be nothing in the T&C which allow them to do
that.
And they would be breaking the law to do so, unlike the DVLA - or the
police on behalf of the DVLA.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Iraq won the toss... and elected to receive.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Paul
> In article<88gran...@mid.individual.net>, paul...@hotmail.com (Paul) wrote:
>
>> very difficult to know where the adopted roads finish and the
>> 'associated land' stop.
>
> Actually, it's utterly clear. There are joints on the tarmac at 52.546267,-1.975027,
> which show where the responsibility for the road changes. East of that joint is
> private parking spaces.
>
ago so know its history a little...
The block(s) used to be council, and was sold to developers who wern't
very particular about consents or traffic regs etc, they merely bought
the block for £1 (sic), spent a million on tarting it up and sold it for
nearly three - cutting as many corners as they could.
As a result, the plot still shows a road running up the middle of the
block's rear car park, and around the rear of the second block (and
indeed a third which has now gone).
The road up the middle of the rear carpark was merely overpainted and
'claimed' by the developers, technically I'm sure it still exists as
shown by the google overlay.
Indeed, all the roads and carparks were shared access and allow access
and parking for the community center and fields to the rear.
As owners, it was made clear that barriers or gates to the carpark were
'verboten' as the roads were still technically public, as were allocated
spaces - effectively we owned an island block with lots of on street
parking...
Cars *were* regularly nicked for offences whilst sat in the carpark.
As a further example, look at 'Pringle Close' which skirts the bottom of
the larger block - with an unnamed road running to the rear.
Look at the blue car parked on this corner, the only thing keeping it
*off* pringle close or the unnamed road is a white line...painted out
from the kerb into the road.
I find it hard to believe that this car is 'off road' for the purposes
of the VED.
Here's a better view with a silver car in the space
http://maps.google.com/maps?oe=UTF-8&gfns=1&q=b713pq&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=West+Bromwich,+West+Midlands+B713PQ,+UK&ei=xjYjTIunKYL80wSGpcjvBA&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CBQQ8gEwAA
Roland Perry
>>> "The exceptions to the expanded enforcement powers state that vehicles
>>> parked on land associated with a house or a block of flats cannot be
>>> wheel clamped or impounded. This applies for example, to private
>>> driveways, garages and allocated parking bays. Also vehicles kept by a
>>> motor trader or vehicle tester at a business premise cannot be
>>> wheelclamped or impounded."
>>>
>>> Seems a grey area, some posh blocks have allocated bays, others just
>>> one big carpark for all.
>>
>> Even if a "posh block" has only a "big car park for all" it is
>> "associated with a block of flats". Doesn't seem particularly grey to me.
>
>I dunno, I'd take the 'associated with a flat' and 'allocated bay' as
>being a small apron off land with numbered bays relating to each flat.
>I don't think it is intended to cope with the type of carpark round an
>80 story block - with 120 spaces and through 'roads'
>
>This one for instance:
>
>http://maps.google.com/maps?oe=UTF-8&gfns=1&q=b713pq&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&h
>near=West+Bromwich,+West+Midlands+B713PQ,+UK&ei=xjYjTIunKYL80wSGpcjvBA&s
>a=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CBQQ8gEwAA
>
>very difficult to know where the adopted roads finish and the
>'associated land' stop.
What, even by looking at which parts are inside or outside the green
fence?
In any case, just because there may be one location that's difficult to
distinguish, doesn't mean that it can't be very obvious at other
locations. The OP has posted to the effect that there are "Private
Property" signs, for example.
>I would certainly say the RTA applies here.
This is about the areas where vehicle licencing offences[1] can be
enforced. It's disjoint from other considerations, such as driver law.
[1] Actually, alleged offences.
--
Roland Perry
Paul
R. Mark Clayton
"news.eternal-september.org" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:hvqgtj$3pf$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> My neighbour (I live in a small block of flats) has just turned up at my
> door in tears: her car has been clamped and a notice put on it saying that
> as the tax disc has recently expired, it's immobilised.
>
> Separate from the niceties of whether or not her car should have been
> taxed or not, is the DVLA (or their agents) permitted to enter private
> property to clamp a car? There are clear and unambiguous notices at the
> entrance to the car parking area and the clamper would have had to go 50
> metres into the private property to place the clamp.
>
They can clamp on private roads (or so they claimed), but not AFAIK on
private car parks or driveways, but once the clamp is on...
dave
Out comes the angle grinder :-)
Dave
news.eternal-september.org
> private car parks or driveways, but once the clamp is on...
The clamp comes off. See my other post on the subject.
Dave S.
news:8rWdneSBAfUmArrR...@bt.com...
If a road or car par is private and has a barrier or some other form of pass
system that prevents general members of the public from using it, then the
DVLA should not clamp there. Even if it's signed as a "private" area, if the
public has general access (e.g. supermarket car park) then it's classed as a
public area and the RTA and DVLA VEL rules apply and a vehicle can be
clamped or towed away.
Dave S.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Ian Jackson
<some...@nowhere.com> writes
private carpark and a private road?
The general public is effectively invited en masse to use the
supermarket carpark (OK, subject to certain restrictions and
conditions).
In a private road, the general public are certainly NOT invited to use
the road. An exception has to be made for bona fide visitors to the
houses in the road and, of course, for delivery drivers etc, but this is
certainly not on the scale of people using a supermarket to do their
shopping.
Also, surely the owners of a private road can forbid its use by anyone
other than those to whom they have granted permission (explicit or
otherwise). Would a sign saying 'No Entry to Wheel Clampers' not have
the effect of making any entry by them effectively a trespass?
--
Ian
Ian Jackson
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Also, surely the owners of a private road can forbid its use by anyone
>other than those to whom they have granted permission (explicit or
>otherwise). Would a sign saying 'No Entry to Wheel Clampers' not have
>the effect of making any entry by them effectively a trespass?
This is a very good point. In fact, DVLA wheelclampers obviously
don't have implied permission to enter private property to clamp the
owners' cars.
I think that means that the DVLA's agents are at risk of committing
the offence of aggravated trespass. (Criminal Justice and Public
Order Act 1994 s68.)
In order to be convicted, the prosecution have to show that there is a
a "lawful activity" which people are "engaging in" or "are about to
engage in", which the wheelclamping is intended by the wheelclamper to
disrupt, deter or obstruct. Lawful here means not criminal.
A number of candidate lawful activities come to mind: the obvious ones
are moving the vehicle to another part of the private property or
doing maintenance which involves the clamped wheel. It would be
difficult however to show that that the activity had been "about to"
happen.
On the other hand, is "storing the vehicle" a plausible candidate for
an "activity" ? And since the no-SORN offence is of failing to
complete the paperwork, is the storage itself lawful ? Perhaps that
is too much of a stretch. Most probably the registered keeper is
caught by the phrasing of 68(2), which is quite broad about what
offence might be committed, and rendered incapable of being regarded
as performing any "lawful activity" by virtue of their commission of
the no-SORN offence. (Although that would suggest that if someone
were keeping an unSORNed vehicle, no activity they might wish to
undertake would be regarded as lawful for the purposes of s68 no
matter how remote the connection to the vehicle?)
But anyway if there is some activity which someone other than the
registered keeper is "about to" engage in, which is prevented or
obstructed by the wheelclamp, the clampers are committing the offence.
I guess the DVLA would really rather not open these kinds of cans of
worms - particularly as they don't know the full circumstances.