Table Of Content

WHEELCLAMPINGONPRIVATELAND ACONSULTATIONPAPERBYTHEHOMEOFFICE Introduction paras.01-04 TheScopeoftheProblem paras.05-08 TheAbuses: paras.09-15 • Fees • WarningSigns • WaitingTime • BehaviourofWheelclampOperators • NotificationofClamping TheLegalPosition: paras. 16-29 • CriminalLaw • CivilLaw • PositionoftheLandowner • Byelaws • ConclusionsontheLaw ThePublicInterest: paras.30-35 • Landowners • Motorists • WiderPublicInterest Options paras.36-59 : (A) “goodpractice”guidelinesandselfregulation (B) clarificationofthecivillaw (C) statutoryregulation (D) statutorylicensingofwheelclampoperators (E) statutorylicensingofland (F) outlawingofallwheelclampingonprivateland Comments paras.60-61 PrintedimagedigitisedbytheUniversityofSouthamptonLibraryDigitisationUnit INTRODUCTION 1. Theuseofwheelclampstoprotectprivatelandfromtrespassbymotorvehicles has become common over the last few years, in the wake ofthe successful use of wheelclampsbythepolice onpublic highways. However, with the increaseduse of wheelclamps on private land has come a reportedly disproportionate rise in bad practice.Examplesrangefrominconsiderateorrudebehaviouratoneendofthescale to whollyunreasonable andpotentially dangerous activity at the other. The Home Office is aware ofthepublic concern aboutwheelclamping onprivatelandandhas undertaken some research into the reportedproblems and available legal remedies. Thereappeartobenoeasysolutions—andtherearemanyanddiverseintereststotake intoaccount. 2. J Thepurposeofthispaperistoexamine: • thescopeoftheactivityandthemaintypesof“abuse”; • thepotentialrelevanceofthecivilandcriminallaw; • thepublicinterest; • optionsforfutureaction; andtoinvitetheviewsofinterestedpartiesonthevariousoptionscanvassed. 3. WheelclampingonthepublichighwayinLondonisspecificallyregulatedbystatuteand is thereforeoutsidethescopeofthepaper. Thispaperis also confinedgeographicallyto consideration ofthe situation in England and Wales, as the Scottish position was established bythe ruling ofthe High Court ofJusticiary in Edinburgh on 12 June (Black andAnotherv Carmichael) that wheelclampingon private land amounts to extortionandtheftunderScottishlaw. 4. The Government expresses no preference for any one ofthe options canvassedinthispaper.Indecidingonthewayforward,itwillwishtoassess the likely effectiveness ofpossible solutions, and determine the costs and benefitsofeachtothepartiesconcerned,andtothepublicpurse. 1 PrintedimagedigitisedbytheUniversityofSouthampton DigitisationUnit THESCOPEOFTHEPROBLEM 5. Wheelclampingisusedbylandownerstoenforceprohibitionsonparking-either blanketprohibitionsorpartialrestrictions, suchastimelimits.Itisalsousedinsome commercial car parks to counter parking without payment. The landowner may employawheelclamp operatortomonitorthelandregularly-andclampvehiclesas necessary. Alternatively, the landowner may call out the wheelclamp operator on noticinganillegallyparkedvehicle. Otherswillnotemployagentsatall,carryingout theclampingthemselves.Itisclearthattheuseofwheelclampingdoeshaveadeterrent effect, and is often used to tackle a genuine parking control problem, e.g. vehicles parkinginfrontofafactory’sloadingbay.Indeed,manylandownersseethethreatof wheelclamping(i.e.puttingupwarningsigns)assufficientdeterrentandneveractually requirethewheelclamperstotakeaction.Althoughwheelclampsareusedmainlyinthe carparks of(orserviceroadsleadingto) shops, offices, hospitals orhousingestates, waste land is also occasionally targeted by the more unscrupulous wheelclamp operators.Mostlandownerspaya“retainer”feefortheservicesofthewheelclamper, although a minority appear to participate in a “profit share” system with the wheelclampoperator. 6. ParkingReviewmagazineestimatedinJune 1992thatthereare“between75and 80 private clamping companies nationally, though many are small.” Since then, estimateshavebeenrevisedupwards,somecommentatorssuggestingthatasmanyas 1000wheelclampoperatorsnowexist.Butitisdifficulttogiveanaccuratenumberat any one time, in part because some wheelclamp operators change their name periodicallytoavoidhostilelocalreactiontotheiractivities.Inaddition,thecompany employedbyalandownermaycontractouttheactualclampingandfeecollectionto localoperators,ormaybeoperatingafranchisesystem-bothofwhichpracticesmake itdifficultto determinetheactualnumberofwheelclamp operators. Ithasalsobeen suggestedthatthereisnowasignificantnumberof“cowboy”wheelclampersworking withintheindustry,attractedbyits“easyaccess”nature:eachclampcosts£200-;£300 and the only othernecessary equipment is avan and a mobile telephone. There is certainlyevidencetosuggestthataconsiderablenumberofwheelclampoperatorsare not registered companies. The Association of British Wheelclamping Companies (ABC)wasformedinJuly1990andaCodeofPracticedrawnupwiththeintentionof ensuringthat“legalandsatisfactoryproceduresarecarriedoutatalltimesbymembers when wheelclamping offendingvehicles.” The Association now has eight corporate members. Some wheelclamping isundertaken byprivate securityfirms as part ofa widerrangeofservices. 7. Reportsfromlocalpoliceforcessuggestthatthenumberofprivatewheelclamping incidentsthatgivecauseforconcernisincreasing,buttherearenoreliablerecordsof thefrequencyofsuchincidents, aspolice actionis inappropriate inmostinstances. Reported incidents include clamping the cars of an entire church congregation, militaryvehicles,amilkfloatandanAAbreakdownvan.Moredisturbingly,therehave alsobeenseveralcases wherelonefemalemotoristshavebeenclampedlate atnight andhavehadtowalkhomealonebecausetheydidnothavethemoneytopayforthe releaseoftheirvehicle.Therehasbeenatleastonereportedcaseofaclampedvehicle beingsubsequentlyremovedandsold. 2 PrintedimagedigitisedbytheUniversityofSouthamptonLiH|H)igitisationUnit 8. Althoughthispaperfocusesonwheelclamping,theGovernmentrecognisesthat thereareotherpractices (suchastowingawayor“blockingin”) whichmightgrowin harness withwheelclamping, or as an alternative to it ifclampingwere made more difficult.Itmaythereforebenecessarytoconsiderwhetheranymeasuresintroducedto address the problems associated with wheelclamping should extend to cover other methodsofpreventingillegalparkingonprivateland. 3 PrintedimagedigitisedbytheUniversityofSouthampton /DigitisationUnit THEABUSES 9. This list has been drawn up following analysis of press reports and the correspondence received by Government departments from members ofthe public andMPsoverthelastsixmonths.Itdoesnotpurporttobeacomprehensivelistofall possible “abuses”., nor to define badpractice-it is simply a summary ofreported complaints from motorists. And it is not concerned with wheelclamping on public highways, where goodpracticepolicies havebeen developedto avoidthose sorts of difficulties. 10. Fees: Thechargefortheremovalofaclampwhichhasbeenfixedtoavehicleonthepublic highwayiscurrently£38(setbytheHomeSecretary).Thisfeeisdesignedtoreflectthe cost of clamping, including the cost of employing private contractors to fix the wheelclamps (who in turn include a profit element in their charges). Charges for releaseofvehiclesclampedonprivatelandaremostlywithintherange£50-£100,but therehavebeenreportsofchargesupto£240.Receiptsarenotalwaysavailableorfail to identify the wheelclamp operator’s name, address or telephone number (thus preventingthemotoristfrompursuingaclaimagainstthewheelclampoperator) The . fee is almost always demanded incash and othermeans ofpaymentrefused. Ifthe motoristisnotimmediatelyabletopaythefullamount,valuablepersonalitemshave onoccasionbeendemandedasguaranteesofpayment. 11. WarningSigns: Intheworstcasestherearenosignsatall.Inothercases,signsaretoosmall,poorlylit ornotclearlydisplayed.Signsmayfailtomentionthethreatofwheelclamping(stating onlythatthelandisprivate)ormayfailtodrawattentiontothereleasefee. 12. WaitingTime: Theperiodbeforethewheelclamperturnsouttoreleasethecarcanbeanythingupto 12 hours. Some firms will not remove clamps after a certain time in the evening, forcingthemotoristtowaituntilthefollowingday. Similarly, ifthemotoristcannot payimmediately,thevehiclemaybekeptforafurtherperiodandfurtherchargeslevied to coverthe costofthis. (Onpublichighways, by contrast, theMetropolitan Police release 48% ofclamped cars within 1 hour and 89% within 2 hours. Their target maximumis4hours.Theyalsoprovidearoundtheclockreleaseservice). 13. BehaviourofWheelclampOperators: Most wheelclamping companies require staff to wear uniforms, but many wheelclampers are individual operators who do not wear uniforms or carry any identification.Somewheelclampoperatorsresorttothreateningandabusivebehaviour whenmotoristsrefusetopaythereleasefee.Evenwherethewheelclampoperatorsact professionally,thesituationisinherentlylikelytoleadtofrayedtempersandtheriskof confrontation. Unsympatheticandinconsiderateactionbywheelclampoperatorscan preventpotentiallyvulnerablegroups (women, oldpeople, disabledpeople) andthe emergency services from using their vehicles, and may put people in danger as a consequence.Decoyvehiclesanddisguisedwheelclampersarealsousedbythemore unscrupulous operators to entice or directmotorists onto private land, in order to clampthevehicle. PrintedimagedigitisedbytheUniversityofSouthamptonL igitisationUnit 14. NotificationofClamping: Wheelclampoperatorsmayfailtoleaveaclearnoteoftheactiontheyhavetakenand thestepsnecessarytogetthevehiclereleased.Wherenotesareleft,theremaybeno contact name or company identification given - sometimes only a mobile phone number. 15. TheHomeOfficewouldbegratefulforinformationandcommentsonthe prevalenceofsuch “abuses” (andanyotherexamples ofbadpracticewhich are notlisted here). Itwould be particularly helpful to have any estimates whichrecipientsmightbeabletomakeofthenumberofindividualinstances ofbad practice which currently occur, whether in a particular locality or nationally. 5 PrintedimagedigitisedbytheUniversityofSouthampton yDigitisationUnit THELEGALPOSITION 16. TherehasbeennotestcaseinEnglandandWalesthatmightbecomparedtothe judgementoftheHighCourtofJusticiaryinScotlandasanexaminationofthebasic legality ofwheelclamping on private land. The Government has therefore sought advicefromCounselastothescopeofthecriminalandcivillawinEnglandandWales inrelationtowheelclampingonprivateland.Wehavebeenadvisedthat,becauseofthe natureofthecriminalandcivillawinEnglandandWales., andthewidevariationin practice in the use ofwheelclamping devices,, it is impossible to give a categorical statementofthepositioninlaw. Eachcasewillturnonitsfacts. However, we setout belowthepotentialcriminalandcivilliabilitieswhichmayresultfromwheelclamping onprivatelandanddrawsomeconclusions. CriminalLaw 17. Asfarasthecriminallawis concerned,therecentjudgementintheEdinburgh HighCourtofJusticiarywhichsettlesthepositioninScotland(seeparagraph3above) providesonlylimitedprecedentforEnglandandWales.Thedefinitionoftheftunder EnglishlawisrathernarrowerthaninScotland: inadditiontofindingthattheactof wheelclamping amounts to “appropriation of another’s belongings” (the Scottish position) itisnecessaryunders.l oftheTheftAct 1968toestablishbothdishonesty and “an intention permanently to deprive”. These elements are unlikely all to be presentinmostwheelclampingcases.However,itispossibleinanextremecasethata wheelclampoperatormayintendtokeepthecarclampedforsolongthatitsdetention will amount to an outrighttakingand thus the wheelclamp operator mayhave the necessary intention permanently to deprive. In cases where a vehicle is sold by a wheelclamp operator (following a motorist’s refusal to pay a release fee) it is also possiblethatthenecessaryelementsoftheoffenceoftheftwillbepresent. 18. Section 12 ofthe TheftAct 1968 definesthe offence oftakingaconveyance without consent. It is now well established that this requires movement of the conveyance concerned andits use as ameans oftransport. Wheelclamping in itself couldneveramounttothisoffence.Ifthevehicleweretobetakentoacarpound,an offence contraryto this sectionmayhave been committedifthevehicle was driven ratherthantowed. 19. Theoffenceofblackmailundersection21 oftheTheftAct 1968requiresthe makingofanunwarranteddemandwithmenaceswithaviewtogainorwithanintent to causeloss. Thethree essential elementsofblackmail-namely (1) ademand, (2) with menaces, (3) a view to gain, are likely to be present in almost every case of wheelclamping.However,thedemandmustalsobeunwarranted.Thisisregardedas beingthecase unless theperson making thedemanddoes so “inthebelief(a) that he/she has reasonable grounds formakingthe demand and (b) that the use ofthe menacesisapropermeansofreinforcingthedemand.”Theremaywellbecaseswhere thedemandwouldbefoundtobeunwarranted-forexample,ifthesumdemandedfor avehicle’sreleasewereexcessivelyhigh-butingeneral,theoffencedoesnotseemwell suitedtowheelclampingonprivateproperty.Itistriableonlyonindictmentandwas clearlydesignedasaseriouscriminaloffence. 20. Section 1(1) ofthe Criminal Damage Act 1971 states that “a person who wdiatmhaoguetlaanwyfulsuecxhcuspero.p.er,tdyam.ag.e.ssahnalylprboepegrutiyltbyeloofngainngoftfoeancneo.t”heDraimntaegnedinignttohe.s.e. circumstancesincludesimpairmentofthevalueorusefulnessoftheproperty,whether temporaryorpermanent.Thefixingofawheelclamptoavehiclecouldwellamountto 6 PrintedimagedigitisedbytheUniversityofSouthamptonL DigitisationUnit damagetothecartherefore.However,itislikelytobedifficulttoproveanabsenceof lawfulexcuseinmanycasesofwheelclamping.Wherewheelclampoperatorscanpoint toprominentlypositionednoticeswarningmotoriststhatunauthorisedparkingonthe landwillresultinclamping,forexample,theywillbeabletosaythattheybelievedthe motoristhadconsentedtotheclamping.Wheelclampoperatorsmightalsosaythatthe clampingofthevehiclewasnecessarytoprotecttherightsofthelandowner.However, theremaybesomecases (forexample,clampingonwasteland)wheretheconductof thewheelclampoperatorissoclearlyunjustifiablethatthecourtmightfindnolawful excuseexisted. CivilLaw 21. Thecivilwrongsforwhichthewheelclampoperatormaybeliablearetrespassand conversion,bothofwhichamounttowrongfulinterferencewithgoodsundertheTorts (InterferencewithGoods)Act1977.However,manyofthecaseswhichunderpinthe lawoftrespass and conversionandthedefences availableto thosetorts areofsome antiquity,someofthemconcernedwithstrayinganimalsratherthanwrongfullyparked vehicles.Therelevantlegalprinciplescannotthereforealwaysbeclearlystated. 22. Trespass to property includes any unpermitted contact with or impact upon another’s chattel. Theessenceoftrespassinthesecircumstancesisinterferencewith thevehicle. 23. However, there are several defences available to the defendant in a trespass action: (a) absenceofpossession(themotoristdidnothaveactualpossessionoraright totheimmediatepossessionofthevehicle) (b) volentinonfitinjuria(themotoristconsented) (c) distressdamagefeasant(wherethevehiclewasdamagingtheland) (d) absenceofactualdamageand/orabsenceofintention Iheapplicationofanydefencetoaparticularcaseisnotstraightforwardandwouldfall to a courtto judge. We are advisedthatplacing a clamp on awheelprobablycould amounttotrespasstothevehicletowhichthewheelbelongs,butitmustbeforacourt todecideon.thefactsofeachcasewhetheranyactionablewronghasbeencommittedor not(i.e.whetherornotthemotoristconsentedtotheclamping).Anactionintrespass is mostlikelytosucceediftheprecise consequencesofparkingonthepropertyhave notbeenclearlyadvertisedtothemotorist(seealsoparagraph24below). 24. Thetortofconversionmayberelevanttothedemandforareleasefee.Thereare various ways inwhichthis tortmaybe committed. In relationto wheelclamping on privateland, itwouldariseifthemotoristcould showthattheconditionofpayment demanded by the wheelclamp operator as the price ofreturning his vehicle was unjustifiableoronewhichhehadnorighttoimpose.Again,mostofthecasesonthis pointareratherold,butweareadvisedthatthewheelclampoperator’srefusaltoreturn thevehiclesaveonpaymentofasumofmoneyseemstoamounttoconversion,unless thewheelclampoperatorcanestablishoneofthedefencesavailabletohimorher: (a) no deprivation (where the motorist was not deprived of the use of the vehicle) (b) volentinonfitinjuria(themotoristconsented) 25. The first defence is unlikelyto succeed, as the clamp clearlydoes preventthe motoristfromusingthevehicleforthepurposeforwhichitwasdesigned.Inorderto establishtheseconddefence,thewheelclamp operatorwouldprobablyhaveto show notjustthatsignshadbeenerectedinprominentpositionswarningmotoriststhatthey PrintedimagedigitisedbytheUniversityofSouthampton! 7 yDigitisationUnit wereatriskofhavingtheirvehicleclampedintheeventofunauthorisedparking,hut alsothatthosesignsclearlystatedthatinthosecircumstancestheywouldhavetopaya feeinordertosecurethereleaseofthevehicle.ItshouldbenotedthatinLeroyvSouth CoastSecurity HisHonourJudgeWroathsetouttheprinciplesinvolvedinthedefence ofvolentinon,fitinjuriaandconcludedthat“eachcasewillfalltobedefendedonits ownmeritsandinmanycases,andIwouldgosofarastosuggestthemajorityofcases, Ithinkitishighlyunlikelythatthedefendantwillbeabletosatisfythecourtastoallthe ingredientsnecessarytojustifyclampingonthebasisofvolentinonfitinjuria.”Onthis basis, where the sum is not specified on warning notices and is actually wholly disproportionatetothetrouble, inconvenience, expense andotherlosses sufferedby the landowner, the court is likely to hold that the motorist consented only to the paymentofareasonablefee.Nevertheless,asinthatspecificcase,ifthewarningsigns actuallyspecifythesumstobecharged,andthemotoristisawarethatparkinginthat locationisunauthorisedbutparksregardless,thedefencemightsucceed. PositionoftheLandowner 26. Thelegalrelationsbetweenthelandownerandthewheelclampingcontractorwill beamatterofindividualcontract.However,itseemslikelythatthelandownerinvests the contractor with the authority both to clamp vehicles which have been parked withoutauthorityandto demandafeeasthepriceforthevehicle’srelease.Inthese circumstancesthelandownerwillbejointlyandseverallyliablewiththecontractorfor anytortcommitted.However,theremaybecaseswherethewheelclampoperatoracts outside the scope of the authority invested in him or her, in which event the wheelclampoperatoralonewouldbeliable. Byelaws 27. Byelawsareameansofprohibiting(ratherthanauthorising)particularactivities. The Home Office does not offer anymodel byelaws to prohibit wheelclamping on privateproperty andhas not, as yet, received any applicationfrom local authorities wishingto adoptsuch ameasure. Althoughthedevelopmentofsuchmodelbyelaws mightbeawayforward,theyareinevitablyopentovariationbylocalauthorities,which wouldthencreatemore-ratherthanless-confusionaboutthelegalityofthepractice. Furthermore,byelawsinthisareawouldbeextremelydifficultto enforce, asofficials wouldhavenoauthoritytoenterprivatelandwithoutthelandowner’spermission(and itwouldclearlybeinthelandowner’sinteresttorefuseaccess).Wehavethereforenot includedbyelawsintheOptionssectionbelow. ConclusionsontheLaw 28. TheGovernmentdrawstheconclusionfromthelegaladviceithasreceivedthat legalactionagainstlandownersandwheelclampoperatorsislesslikelytosucceedifthe consequencesforamotoristofparkingonapieceoflandareadvertisedclearlyatall times, andbothlandownerandwheelclamperactreasonablyinthemanneroftheir operationandinrelationtothefeesdemandedforthereleaseofvehicles.Someofthe more extremepractices ofwheelclamp operators maywellbefound tobe unlawful under the present civil and criminal law. In addition, wheelclamping that has the pursuitofprofit,ratherthanthedeterrenceofillegalparking,asitsprimaryintentionis clearly less likely to attract the defences recognised in law. It should also be rememberedthatwherewheelclampingleadsto assault,intimidation, orabreachof thepeace (whatmightbetermed “mischiefs onthemargin”),thelawalreadyoffers protection. 29. However,thepresentlawmaynotalwaysdealeasilywithsuchabusesasthelate night clamping ofcars owned bywomen motorists andthe demanding ofpersonal propertyas security, orgenerallywiththe overbearingconductofsomewheelclamp operators.Thereremainlargeareasofthelawwhichareuntestedandunclear. 8 PrintedimagedigitisedbytheUniversityofSouthamptonL DigitisationUnit THEPUBLICINTEREST 30. Many commentators have argued that the reported levels of“abuse” and the uncertainty surrounding the law merit some kind of controlling intervention by Government.Ifsuchaninterventionisnecessary,itisclearthatitshouldseektostrike therightbalancebetweentheinterestsofmotoristsandoflandowners.Inthissection, weexaminethekeyinterestsofbothparties. Landowners 31. Landownershaveaproperinterestinthequietenjoymentoftheirproperty,free fromintrusion.Theymayalsohavecommercialorotherinterestswhichillegalparking maydamage(thevehicleparkedinaloadingbay,forexample,orobstructinganaccess road). Butitisclearlynotintheirintereststohavevehiclesregularlyimmobilisedon theirproperty. Prevention ofunauthorisedparkingis thekey-the threat ofwheel- clampingcan clearlybe aneffectivestrategyandwheelclampers mayberegarded as providingaservicetolandownersinpursuitofthisinterest.Althoughthelawalready entitlesthelandownerto suefortrespassincasesofunauthorisedparkingonprivate land, where conduct involves some minor tortious activity (such as trespass) it is routinelythecasethatredresscanonlybeobtainedthroughlitigation,whichmaybe inconvenient and involve some cost. Nevertheless, the overall need to preserve the peacemakesthelawcautiousaboutendorsingself-help. 32. Thelandowner’slegitimateexpectationmightthenbeencapsulatedas: • the effective prevention, without unreasonable cost or inconvenience, of trespasstotheirproperty,and • theeffectiveprotectionofcommercial andotherinterests damagedbyillegal parkingontheirproperty. Motorists 33. Motorists clearly have no entitlement to park on private property without authority.Buttheresponsetosuchillegalparking,whetherinadvertentornot,should be proportionate to the nuisance caused. Motorists should not be unreasonably deprivedoftheuseoftheirvehicles,orputinanykindofpersonaldanger. 34 Thevalidexpectationsofmotoristsmightthereforeinclude: . • clearwarningsigns • reasonablereleasefees • clearnoticeofthereleaseprocedureandspeedyrelease • theacceptanceofallreasonablemethodsofpayment • relativelysimplemeansofappealagainstunreasonablebehaviour. However,arangeofothermatterscouldbeaddedtothislist,forexample: • obligatoryuseofHomeOfficetypeapproved/clearlymarkedwheelclamps • specialrulesforOrangeBadgeholders • landownersshouldauthoriseandtakeresponsibilityforclamping • 24hourreclaimofvehicles • wheelclamperstowearuniformsandcarryI.D. WiderPublicInterest 35. Asnotedearlier,wheelclampingonprivatepropertyhas aninherentcapacityto createtensionandconflictbetweenindividuals.Whereitputsindividualsinphysical danger,itsconsequencesmaybeveryseriousindeed.Thereisawiderpublicinterest, therefore,inensuringthattheessentiallyprivatematterofcontrollingparkingdoesnot giverisetofarmoreseriousthreatstopublicorder. 9 PrintedimagedigitisedbytheUniversityofSouthamptor^^ByDigitisationUnit