Motoring organisations have welcomed plans to outlaw wheel clamping on private land.
The government has announced it is to stop private landlords clamping or towing away vehicles parked on their land.
It follows a spate of complaints about rogue clamping firms charging up to £500 for vehicles to be released.
But the move, included in new legislation in November, has caused concern among landowners and property firms in Manchester.
They say removing the sanctions could lead to a parking free-for-all in the city centre during special events, concerts and sports matches.
But Professor Stephen Glaister, director of the RAC Foundation, says clamping is not the only solution.
"For too long, unscrupulous clampers have managed to extort money from essentially law-abiding motorists, punishing them for their so-called crimes," he said.
"At last that is going to stop and there will be many who will breathe a sigh of relief after years of outrageous behaviour.
"But getting rid of clamping is not the end of disputes about parking on private land.
"Some operators have seen the writing on the wall and are already turning to issuing penalty tickets rather than using clamps and the law needs to recognise this growing form of enforcement.
"What we need is a fair system that protects motorists and landowners. How hard can it be?"
Home Office minister Lynne Featherstone told the M.E.N. that landowners could prevent drivers from parking on their land by setting up barriers and pursuing civil actions against persistent offenders.
She said: "We have tried licensing the industry but this didn’t stop the complaints about companies who put up invisible signs and charged a small fortune for vehicles to be released.
"We have to ask whether it is a proportional response to parking in the wrong place.
"Of course landowners should have the right to protect their land, but this should be done through ticketing and civil enforcement."
Ms Featherstone said proposals by the previous government to set up an independent review body to handle clamping appeals would have cost at least £2m.
But Ian Magenis, a partner at Manchester property management firm Scanlans, which manages nearly 300 sites, warned that removing the clamping powers from landowners would cause huge problems in the city centre.
He said: "This is going to cause a real headache for our clients who have city centre properties.
"Nobody likes having to use parking enforcement companies or clamping or towing vehicles, but the sad reality is that there are a number of people who refuse to park responsibly.
"Sanctions such as this are necessary to protect the rights of property owners."
The Home Office said that under its proposals vehicles which were parked dangerously or caused an obstruction could still be moved by police.
The ban on clamping and towing will not apply to local authorities, although the majority of Greater Manchester councils do not use clamps.
Enforcement officers at Manchester council stopped using clamping in 2003, after it was judged to be ‘unreasonable’ and ‘emotive’.
Tweet

Showing comments 1 to 24 and replies | View All
mary marin (17/08/2010 at 15:23)
Ivor Rash, Oldham (17/08/2010 at 15:41)
Englisc Stanas, North Manchester (17/08/2010 at 15:53)
lovinthebanter, Manchester (17/08/2010 at 16:51)
Because we are talking about private land not the councils roads, so traffic wardens have no right to issue tickets
Dzenko, Manchester United (17/08/2010 at 15:56)
HIP HIP HURRAY!!!
HIP HIP HURRAY!!!
HIP HIP HURRAY!!!
citycentre, manchester (17/08/2010 at 16:14)
J smith (17/08/2010 at 16:24)
Zingo, Manchester (17/08/2010 at 16:25)
Tezza, Tyldesley (17/08/2010 at 16:34)
the best thing to do would be to set limits on what can be charged
lovinthebanter, Manchester (17/08/2010 at 16:42)
Man, I wish I hadn't noticed this bit first, thought they had finally curbed those darn insurance companies, the companies that I 'have' to pay to be able to drive my car
lovinthebanter, Manchester (17/08/2010 at 16:45)
But lets ingore this for a second as it would look bad on the police we found it much easier to blame it on others
Poetic Justice, where virtue is rewarded and vice is punished (17/08/2010 at 17:11)
irrelevant, Salford (17/08/2010 at 17:15)
lovinthebanter, Manchester (17/08/2010 at 17:47)
lovinthebanter, Manchester (17/08/2010 at 17:50)
d1v1s1onby0, Out of Delhi and back in Wigan. Pies oh how I have missed you (17/08/2010 at 19:52)
Error7, Salford (17/08/2010 at 17:45)
lovinthebanter, Manchester (17/08/2010 at 17:51)
d1v1s1onby0, Out of Delhi and back in Wigan. Pies oh how I have missed you (17/08/2010 at 19:54)
citycentre, manchester (18/08/2010 at 09:16)
If it becomes the case that "Not allowing you to remove your car will viwed the same as clamping " will the NCP (and other paid for carparks) all become, effectively free as the exit barriers have to be removed to meet the new regulations?
JayTilzey, m29 (17/08/2010 at 17:53)
PW, Manchester (17/08/2010 at 18:37)
pentium, Bury (17/08/2010 at 19:12)
K , manchester (17/08/2010 at 21:14)
We can not put up barriers, we need to have access for bins.
What they hell are building owners supposed to do in this situation?
And what the hell gives these car drivers the right to park on land that is clearly not a parking space or road? Thats what really annoys me, that someone is arrogant enough to thing it's ok to park there!
Enthusiasm Curbed (18/08/2010 at 09:02)
I don't think any person would take issue with your company's reasonable methods -- apart from the actual clamping itself. I would say that clamping a car doesn't change the situation in one major way: the vehicle that is causing the obstruction is still there!
citycentre, manchester (18/08/2010 at 09:12)
Recent comments include "I know exactly where the van driver is comming from" about a man who chased a cyclist along the road, then "The van smashed right into him and drove off. It actually swerved to hit him on purpose."
And the numerous messages of support for the gang accused of assaulting two men recently.
I am the one and only, Tameside (17/08/2010 at 23:39)
Enthusiasm Curbed (18/08/2010 at 08:27)
I welcome any measure to curtail the activities of those who extort money from people. The activities of clamping companies amount to extortion and bullying.
I would say that the central issue to private parking enforcement is not simply "people shouldn't park where they shouldn't park". This does not fully explain the problem. The issues are reasonable behaviour, regulation and appropriateness.
If someone wilfully parks in a space that's clearly reserved for someone else in an apartment block car park, for example, or parks in an area that is obviously (i.e. clearly marked) private or forbidden in some way, then that's a risk they take and if there are financial consequences, then fair enough -- provided the consequences are fair, and not the monetary equivalent of using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. If someone parks on double yellow lines, potentially or actually causing an obstruction to traffic (including emergency vehicles), then of course their car should be towed. (Of course, the double yellow lines should be clearly marked -- if there is any doubt at all, then prosecution should fail...the whole issue of councils trying to enforce unenforceable "laws" of which their parking department staff don't even possess a modicum of knowledge is probably worth a whole article of its own.)
In Manchester city centre, it is possible to park all day for three quid or thereabouts. Yes, it might be on wasteland resembling something from Life on Mars but you get a good, secure parking space and perhaps even a bit of banter with the chap in the tiny booth. I've parked in at least three of these inexpensive rubble-tops in the Northern Quarter area and my motor hasn't been broken into. These car parks are usually full, as well - so they are clearly well-known. I think most people would rather part with a few quid than risk the possibility of a clamp and a huge bill. Even those who are in a hurry, or who only want to park for a few minutes (it works out cheaper than those meters on King Street, I'm sure).
I know people who do happily part with a few quid to park in such car parks and who have been "caught" by clampers or given a "fine" (yes, the inverted commas indicate my refusal to recognise its legitimacy) by a private parking enforcement company. These people are not Clarksonesque, LIttlejohn-devouring, leather-on-willow, "if only we still had an Empire" types; they are reasonable people who think of others in society and understand the consequences of their actions, who can read signs if they are clear (or even displayed in the first place), and who were surprised and upset -- and had every right to be surprised and upset! -- by what had happened to them. One lass I know was rather shaken by the threatening reply she received from one company when she replied to their "invoice" stating clearly why she thought she had been OK to park where she had parked (in the car park of the apartment block in which she lives!); it was clear that the company simply wanted money, they were not prepared to listen to reason and they were prepared to intimidate people in order to achieve their aims.
It's not just the clamp-happy thugs who are at it, though. The companies to which the councils award contracts engage in unreasonable behaviour -- in fact, they have been doing so for years.
My partner used to live on a street on which residents had to pay a fee for a permit to park there. On said street, non-resident motorists were allowed to park for up to one hour, I think it was. The police had overall responsibility for the parking enforcement at that time; the street was hardly ever patrolled (once or twice a year, I think, a few symbolic tickets would be issued). Of course, much mickey was taken. I fell foul myself one day, getting fined because my car had been there all day when I was visiting her. Fair enough. The County Council then took over responsibility; immediately, tickets were flying around like confetti -- but on residents' cars, including my partner's car, which had the parking permit disc clearly displayed next to her tax disc! Her stern letter and photo of her windscreen ensured that no fine was issued, and rightly so.
Finally, here's something to ponder. Is a parking fine (a legitimate one, by which I mean issued by the police or a local authority) designed to punish or to generate revenue? I would say it's to generate revenue. A few years ago, I parked in a street bay somewhere on a Sunday afternoon. I got sidetracked and ended up getting back to my car very late. I was expecting to get a fine and, sure enough, there was a small plastic bag taped to my windscreen. The fine was £50 (ouch) but would be only £30 if paid within seven days. Surely if the aim were to punish, it would be a (truly) fixed penalty, i.e. fifty quid or go to court? This is similar to what "debt management" companies do - companies which I have contacted on behalf of others many times. "OK, you owe Company X £200, you've had our threatening letter about sending bailiffs round...what's that, you say? You can give us £100 over the phone now? Oh, go on then..."
J smith (18/08/2010 at 14:23)
Elaine Savage (18/08/2010 at 12:25)
Elaine Savage (18/08/2010 at 12:25)
Eric Northman (18/08/2010 at 16:09)
C12038, wigan (18/08/2010 at 21:30)
To all clampers get out we don't want you we don't need you.
citycentre, manchester (19/08/2010 at 10:22)
Proper Sentences (19/08/2010 at 11:42)
How would the owner feel if you located their home address and urinated all over their garden and parked a car on their drive. Not very impressed at all so wha'ts the difference
Jackie Wesley (21/08/2010 at 19:30)