Protection of Freedoms Bill

Memorandum submitted by Proserve Enforcement Agency (PF 42)

Chapter 2 of Part 3 Vehicles Left on Land Clauses 54, 55 56

1 We are certificated bailiffs and vehicle immobilisers, the company has been in existence since 1992, our expertise is, we act as land bailiffs for commercial and private landowners, enforcing their regulations relating trespassing chattels. Accompanied with our bailiff certificates which enable us to levy distress, we are licensed vehicle immobilisers.

2 We have in 5 year period lawfully immobilised over 2000 vehicles, the vehicles have unlawfully trespassed on our clients land. Our sites give clear warning to people not to park or wait, with terms and conditions of the landowner displayed.

3 Our sites are not pay and display car parks, where people are invited to park.

4 Our landowners specifically warn people not to park or wait, our sites include industrial estates, commercial operated car parks with licensees, and dock distribution parks.

5 In 2006 we were instructed by The Master, Fellows and Scholars of the College of the Holy and undivided Trinity within the town and University of Cambridge of King Henry V111,S Foundation, to enforce their regulations at Trinity Distribution Park, Felixstowe. Our instructions resulted from the unsatisfactory service they had received from the then criminalised traffic warden service. Our service is paramount to the safety of visitors and occupants to the distribution park, we have a specific protocol in place for the site, which has been designed and developed by our client, together with ourselves to stop trespassing vehicles and trailers through immobilising, removing and the issuing of notices for trespass. The Distribution Park has a specific problem with foreign vehicles that visit there, we have attempted to issue parking (trespass) notices in the past, however, we stopped issuing them following instructions from our client as none were ever paid.

6 In and around the Port of Felixstowe we are constantly called out by a number of landowners at various sites including the distribution Park in order to remove trailers that have been left to trespass on their sites. Trough experience it is not possible to issue penalty notices on trailers as they do not have a registration plate. The only means of detecting the owner of a trailer is via the last company that test plated the trailer, and invariably they do not have the owner’s details, this will be the same problem for the police.

7 The proposed legislation has not taken into consideration the freedom of the landowner, who does not permit anybody without lawful authority to park or leave vehicles on their land, they rely solely on companies such as ourselves to police their sites, without help from other agencies.

8 Enforcement is not solely reliant on a remedy, the threat of the remedy usually prevents the action, by removing the remedy there is no treat of action.

9 Our clients licensees who pay for the peaceful enjoyment of their car and lorry spaces, will not be able to protect the use of their space by issuing a ticket, furthermore if they need to use their space, where do they go if it is being occupied by a trespasser, we are called some 10 times per week relating to such incidents.

10 With the reduction in policing and council budgets neither agency will be willing or able to assist in the removal of trespassing vehicles at short notice, I am assuming this is why the proposed legislation in Clause 55 provides the power (NOT A DUTY) to remove vehicles in the circumstances described in section 99 has been submitted.

11 In the legislation there needs to be a clear definition between parking and trespassing. The Bill does not attempt to define the difference between trespassing and parking, they are fundamentally separate issues that require separate forms of enforcement. If you are invited to park on private property then it is a parking issue, if you are told not to enter, park, or wait, it is then an issue of trespass.

12 As the bill does not criminalise parking and trespassing on private land, it therefore leaves private property open to abuse from selfish individuals, who ignore landowners requests not to enter or park or wait without legal authority.

13 Clause 54, subsection 2 refers to the use of an affixed barrier that can be lowered if the driver had not paid the requisite parking charges. Am I to assume this clause has been submitted taking into account? large companies that operate barrier controlled car parks. This submission will create further complications rather than elevating the problem that it is intending to solve. Our clients do not advertise parking charges, they are charges for trespass, we do not enforce regulations at pay an display car parks, we issue penalties for trespass, there is no provision for this in the legislation. The barrier suggestion will create

volatile, confrontational incidents.

14 I have heard many comparisons to how the banning of clamping in Scotland has worked since 1992. The current population in Scotland is 5168500, there are 7668304 people living in London alone, there are currently over 50 million living in England, this means 84% of the total population of the United Kingdom live in England, England’s population density is more than treble the European average. Taking into account the sheer numbers of the population and the density, together with the numbers of built up areas in England, where as in Scotland the density is low due to the fact that many parts are unsuitable to live or occupy, it would therefore be reasonable to assume the problem of trespass would be far less.

15 How will the proposed changes in legislation enable us as a company to enforce our landowners rules on their own property.

April 2011