Regulation of Wheel-Clamping (Hansard, 20 October 1992)

§ Mr. John Spellar (Warley, West)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to control the wheel-clamping of vehicles on private land; and for connected purposes. Let me begin, Madam Speaker, by offering you my congratulations—and, I am sure, those of the whole House—on being made a freeman of the borough of Sandwell, together with my predecessor Peter Archer, now Baron Archer of Sandwell. I am sure that that is fitting testimony to the service that both of you have given your constituencies and our borough.

My Bill would regulate wheel clamping on private land. It is important in itself, because of the growing evidence of abuse by clampers; but it is also important in a wider sense. It is about time that we stopped treating the motorist as a second-class citizen. It is about time that we recognised the reality of the 20th century, and the role that the motor car has played in it.

Currently, in England and Wales, there is effectively no legal framework to regulate the clamping or removal of vehicles on private land. We talk expansively about "cowboy dampers", but the position is indeed somewhat akin to that in the old West: there is no law west of the Pecos that relates to clamping.

The motor car is probably the second most expensive asset that the motorist owns; in some cases, it may be the most expensive. Yet motorists can be deprived of its use: it can be forcibly removed without either due process or accountability. Furthermore, although I do not wish to tar all clampers with the same brush, there is definitely a disreputable element—people who have scented rich pickings, and are behaving in a very unprincipled way—and all the evidence that I have received suggests that the position is worsening.

They order things a little differently in Scotland; or, at least, they have done so since the summer. Faced with a decision on private clamping and a demand for payment, the Scottish courts observed, in a short, sharp and effective judgment, that such action was extortion and theft under Scottish law". I have asked Scottish colleagues about the effects of that judgment. Has traffic ground to a halt in Scotland? Are Glasgow and Edinburgh gridlocked? Will the House be besieged by Scottish landowners seeking redress? None of that seems to have happened: the position seems to have remained fairly normal. It appears that the abuse has been rectified without the great problems that might have been expected.

As a result of the Scottish decision, I tabled an early-day motion which was supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House. After one or two abortive attempts in the early hours of the morning, I introduced an Adjournment debate on 16 July, just before the summer recess. I was supported by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), who, I understand, is chairing a Committee elsewhere. I hoped that we would make some progress with the Home Office over the summer; its representatives have been very courteous, and I am pleased to see that the Minister is present today. Unfortunately, however, we have not yet secured a definitive result. I hope that, as a result of our discussions, the Home Office now recognises the size and dimensions of the problem caused by private clamping.

337 I also hope that those in the Home Office understand that the problem will not go away. Every day, more private citizens are wheel clamped, and more and more feel aggrieved. This is a constituency that is increasing in size. Accordingly, I hope that the Bill's next stage will not be blocked by the Government, and that the Home Office will try to work with us positively to achieve a satisfactory solution.

On 16 July, I drew the attention of the House to many of the abuses that have taken place. I mentioned cars being blocked in while their owners were still inside, with the engine still running, after which the clampers would emerge and clamp them. I mentioned cars being parked on empty land to entice motorists into believing that it was an open parking area, and the motorists' vehicles then being clamped. I mentioned the clampers who wait until someone has gone around the corner, and then come out to clamp that person's car. I mentioned the clamping of cars in inner-city zones late at night: motorists—often they are women—come back and discover that they must find a telephone and wait for perhaps an hour or two to be released.

The action of those who wait before clamping vehicles highlights one of the problems. If the clampers' concern was to stop illicit parking, they would tell motorists immediatly that they were parking in an inappropriate place. Instead, they let motorists park, wait until they have gone round the corner and then come out and clamp them.

It is all down to motivation, and the main motive seems to be to extort money from the motorist. I suspect that if a clamping operative does not catch enough victims, he loses his job. It is very much like the problem that has been revealed in regard to Westminster council, which is involved in a row with its traffic wardens because they are not issuing their quota of parking tickets. It all sounds remarkably Stalinist. Some clamping firms advise their employees to get the clamp off as quickly as possible so that other motorists will not see any clamps and will therefore be enticed on to the property. Some clampers offer landowners a profit-sharing scheme if they will allow them to clamp on their land.

The money involved is not insignificant—far more than is involved if one parks on the street and is caught by the public authorities. The minimum amount seems to have moved up to about £50. When I talked today to Radio WM on its Ed Doolan programme, I gathered that in the Birmingham area it has moved up to £70 if one pays straight away. If, however, one has to go away and come back the next day with the money, one finds that the amount has gone up by another £50. The record is held by Hebden Bridge. If one is clamped there, it costs £240. I am waiting for somebody to improve on that figure.

With such rich pickings, it is no wonder that dubious characters have been attracted into the business. All that one needs are a few wheel clamps, a van of whatever quality and a mobile phone. I have been warned that the only danger in mentioning these facts is that other people might be attracted into the business.

As a result, many hon. Members, of all parties, have been approached by their constituents who had been personally inconvenienced and aggrieved. A number of those hon. Members have passed correspondence to me, as have a number of broadcasting programmes and the national press, all of which have been running campaigns. I have handed to the Home Office a considerable number 338 of letters that were received as a result of one of the broadcast programmes. Many of them make distressing reading.

The AA and the RAC, the two main motoring organisations, have also provided a long list of complaints from their members. Those two organisations tried to bring many of the complaints to court but, unfortunately, either the clampers settled at the doors of the court or they went out of business. Unfortunately, therefore, the AA and the RAC have been unable to obtain effective case law in the way that has been possible in Scotland.

We have to consider what clamping is trying to solve. Is clamping trying to solve the problem of obstruction? It strikes me that to immobilise the obstructing vehicle is the most bizarre way to deal with obstruction. Is it a misuse of parking space? I recognise that that can be a considerable problem and a major inconvenience where blocks of flats are involved, but is that the only way in which obstruction can be dealt with?

One of the problems with wheel clamping is that the clampers are judge, jury and court bailiff, all rolled into one. There is no redress. There is no effective due process. Sometimes, not even the landowners are able to provide redress. One example that has been drawn to my attention is that of a motorist who parked his car in a British Rail car park. He had a British Rail season ticket. He also had a season ticket for British Rail's car park. That person was clamped. British Rail accepts that he has a season ticket, but all it can do is to refer him to the clamper because British Rail has handed over its rights on that land. That is unsatisfactory. I doubt whether even the citizens charter will solve that problem.

The situation is a mess. It is unacceptable for things to muddle on as they are. It is not a sustainable position. Quite apart from whether clamping is desirable in itself—I do not believe that it is—far too many undesirable elements are being attracted into the industry. Furthermore, to leave vehicles immobilised late at night means that motorists, especially women, are vulnerable to attack. I do not want the Home Office to be forced into drastic action as a result of an incident.

We have, therefore, to look at the possible remedies. In such an easy-entry industry, self-regulation does not seem to be a practical proposition. We need to look at what happens in Scotland or at some form of licensing under the control of local authorities. We cannot leave the position as it is—a free-for-all.

A major abuse of power by private clampers is taking place that is causing considerable public concern, distress and cost to many members of the public. It has been going on for too long. It is time to close down the clamping cowboys. Accordingly, I seek leave to introduce a Bill to control the wheel clamping of vehicles parked on private land.