The history of wheel clamping

Clamping first began on private land across the UK in 1998. The legal basis of the clamping concept is derived from the issue of straying livestock and was known as ‘distress damage feasant.’ If livestock belonging to one landowner ventured onto another landowner’s land, then he could claim damages for the damage the livestock caused. He also had the right to keep the livestock until the damages were paid in full.

Traditionally, free parking was easy to find, but with parking restrictions becoming ever more prevalent, it is now not as easy. Today, local councils enforce parking charges on motorists and many unfortunately turn to parking on private property belonging to other people as a way of escaping the charges. Traffic wardens cannot enforce fines upon drivers who have parked on private property. Instead, angry property or land owners enforced wheel clamping in a bid to rid themselves of the problem of these illegal parkers.

Property owners share the goal of wanting to prevent unauthorised parking by third parties. They also want to do so in the quickest and most cost-effective manner possible, so installing and maintaining traffic control equipment on commercial and residential property is not a realistic option due to the vast expense it entails. There are also issues surrounding who should pay for the traffic control enforcements – for example, leaseholds living in a block of flats will not be keen to pay out. This is where wheel clamping came in. The landlord saw it as a positive option as it cost him nothing and he could sometimes earn commission for providing clamping rights on his land. As a result, over the last few decades, the number of clampers in the UK skyrocketed, but few were sticking to professional guidelines, relying instead on basic laws of contract to justify their business.

One major problem with clamping, however, is the clarity of the warning notice. Many motorists who had their vehicles clamped argued that the warning notice in the car park was not clearly displayed or easy to read and understand. The wheel clampers would swoop in and clamp the vehicle, demanding that a release fee is paid by the driver to get the vehicle back.

The clampers’ argument was that the motorist had ‘consented’ to pay the fee by making the decision to park on the property.

This argument received court attention in a High Court action and a subsequent Appeal Court hearing (Arthur vs Anker, 30 November, 1995). The motorist lost to the clamping firm in both cases.

The concept of wheel clamping has major flaws – informal receipts have been handed to motorists, and some clampers have clamped vehicles without any warning notices at all, before going on to charge a far higher fee that a local council would levy for the return of a vehicle. Some angry motorists have even been known to use angle grinders to remove the clamp, causing both themselves and the clamping company to lose out. All wheel clampers aim to use the strongest clamp in order to prevent the motorist being able to remove it. At present, there are more than 20 unregistered designs, the Denver Boot being the best known, but not without its flaws, as it can be slid off if the tyre is deflated.

The latest and the best model available is American. This model allows the motorist to call the clamping company and pay the fee, after which time he is given a release code and can then unclamp the vehicle and attach the clamp to a lamppost for the clamping company to collect at a later date. If the company cannot find the clamp, they will charge the motorist’s credit or debit card for it.

The legal basis of clamping remains debatable. Often, the police become involved due to the anger of the motorist concerned. In Scotland, where there are no trespass laws, wheel clamping has been banned. Whilst the media continues to expose clamping malpractices, clamping companies have sought social acceptance of their trade.

In 1992, a handful of clamping companies formed the Association of British Wheel Clamping Companies, which had a voluntary code of practice. I attended one meeting of the BWCC and the clampers stood out! Since then, meeting have taken place all over the UK and alterations have been made to the code of practice, whilst the name has been changed to the Association of Parking Enforcement Companies.

However, the revised code of practice was not accepted by the motoring groups and local government and the Security Industry Authority (SIA) was appointed to regulate the industry. The result of this regulation was that prospective clampers had to attend a course – costing £350 – and obtain a licence, which cost £200. This regulation was not successful due to the length of time it took to complete the course – almost six months.

In May 2010, a request was made to the SIA under the Freedom of Information Act to disclose the number of clamping licences held in the UK. This request revealed that there were 1,900 licensed clampers in the UK. Taking into account those clampers who did not obtain jobs following the introduction of the course and licence, it was estimated that there were around 1.200 full and part-time clampers working in the UK – the equivalent of one licensed clamper for every 600 square miles.

There is rising demand for a realistic, alternative solution to the ongoing parking problem. A former clamper identified the best method of solving this issue, which was to issue parking charge notices directly to the motorist without the need for clamping or attendant confrontations.

The history of parking charge notices on private land

As there were such a small number of licensed wheel clampers after 2005, I devised a parking control kit to be sold online. The kit contained a book of parking tickets, warning signs and parking permits and enabled the landowner to issue the parking tickets by themselves, and then send us a carbon copy to process. The kit saw much success with landowners tired of enduring parking problems on their land.

Whilst the kit did prove that there was a realistic alternative to the practice of wheel clamping, it came with its own drawbacks. Landowners who had purchased the kit would delay in returning the carbon copy of the parking ticket to us, or the writing on the ticket would be illegible and hard to track. The kit also generated a good deal of paperwork at our end, which was far from ideal. However, despite these drawbacks, the kit was a success in that it solved ongoing parking problems suffered by our customers.

We continued to offer the kit to customers, especially to those living in remote areas, as it allowed them to stop a parking offender far more quickly and with less confrontation than an external wheel clamper may have been able to do. However, we decided that, whilst the kit suited the customer well, it was not a cost-effective method for us to be using as it generated a great deal of administrative work. As a result of this decision, I developed a blueprint in 2007, which meant that the entire operation could be carried out online.

The invention of FlashPark

The blueprint I devised showcased how parking tickets could be issued and processed online. Taking into account all of the previous issues surrounding the self-issuance of parking tickets, I went on to draft a proposal to a web development team to see how the online concept would work.

The team and I decided to utilise the services of a Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA)-approved software developer as we felt they would have the most accurate and up to date insight and background knowledge of our industry.

The main concept of the blueprint was for the landowner to go online and upload a photograph of the vehicle that was illegally parked on their land. The landowner also had to select the 'Offence Code' from a drop-down menu. Once they had done so, the software would then link to the HPI database in order tovalidate the vehicle's registration plates and ensure accuracy. Before this new online system, we would have been forced to destroy parking tickets if they held invalid or inaccurate registration details, thus losing a great deal of time and money.

There are countless advantages to using an online service, which include the fact that we receive the PCN details instantly, rather than having to wait days for it to arrive in the post. Another positive is the small amount of evidence needed – all we require is a digital photograph of the vehicle proving that it is parked illegally. The service is completely free of charge for landowners – who can sign up for the service online nationwide - and they also benefit from a £10 payback per vehicle.

The online service also allows for parking charge notices to be produced instantly, without any confrontation needed from the landowner, and the landowners can also cancel the ticket anytime during the process if he wishes. The online service is also far easier and quicker for motorists, who can view their ticket, pay or appeal it online. Flashpark’s online system is also linked to the police’s stolen vehicle register, meaning that any vehicles that have been reported as stolen can be easily identified.

The site went live in November 2008, and 869 landowners registered with us and purchased the warning signs within the first 18 months of operation. Over half of those landowners still have their accounts activated today. For many others, the warning signs have been enough to deter illegal parkers and solve the parking problem altogether. As a result of the success, the invention has received much coverage both in the national press and on television. You can check out all of the press coverage at Flashpark’s website, www.flashpark.co.uk

Competition

Individual clampers and wheel clamping firms are FlashPark’s competitors, alongside those who use Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) which has worked well in retail parks and shopping centres, but it lacks the flexibility to make decisions on just who the offender is. ANPR relies on a database of authorised users – which means that all tradesmen, customers and visitors must register their vehicle before they arrive – making the method impractical for certain sites and impossible to enforce. ANPR also has comparatively high set-up costs.

The Target Audience

Any person or organisation that has off-street parking - such as doctor’s surgeries, landlords, councils or forecourts - is a potential customer for a parking problem solution.

Need for service

Motorists need off-street parking. A flat for sale can generate an additional £15,000 if it comes with its own private, off-street parking space, thus highlighting the value of the asset. The demand for off-street parking will only continue to grow was our roads and cities become increasingly congested and traffic restrictions continue to be tightened.

Future Potential

The present Flashpark model is being constantly updated and improved. Following recent government policy changes regarding wheel clamping, we are now in a far stronger position to acquire new business. A successful interview for the BBC television programme Dragons Den resulted in being invited to do a full pitch of the FlashPark business model to the panel of Dragons, thus demonstrating the strength and appeal of the concept.

Effect of innovation

A website which allows illegal parking to be quickly and easily reported online greatly reduced the number of UK motorists who fall prey to wheel clamping firms. Many of these companies do not follow any code of practice and are not reputable. As Flashpark is a trading name for Vehicle Control Solutions Ltd - who is a British Parking Association approved operator - we follow a strict code of practice.

Deliverability of innovation

Following the launch of www.FlashPark.co.uk two years ago, we have been working with DVLA approved software developers, Entity, to ensure that the website is running smoothly and is straightforward for customers to use. Not only has the tool proven to be extremely helpful to clients, it has also proved invaluable in helping to locate stolen vehicles. The invention of FlashPark has provided landowners with the parking solution they have been searching for, whilst at the same time maintaining the civil rights of motorists.