Urgent help - clamped in Southall (Iceland Car Park)

makara

(I posted this latest update on the Pepi website - am pasting here also as an update)


I have just had 3 long telephone calls with Barclays - the long and short of it is that Barclays said although the money has left my account, it has not yet been "taken" by the Clampers' bank. They have said there are 2 possible outcomes -


1) If the money is not claimed by the other party's bank by 10 working days of the transaction (so Friday 23rd July) - then the money automatically returns to my account on Monday 26th July.


2) If the money IS claimed, then I will need to phone Barclays back and speak to their Disputes team, who will then post out a form to be filled in by me - I will need to send this back, along with supporting documentation

(in this case it would be a photo-copy of the SIGNATURE-MISSING receipt - plus a print out of this link, highlighting the part where it states BOTH a name AND a signature (from the Clamper) are required on his receipt

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2007/uksi_20070810_en_1


The other part worth mentioning is hardly any of the people I spoke to in Barclays (even the helpful chap I got today) were aware of the "Visa Debit Chargeback" rule - the only people who seem to have heard of it are those in Barclays Debit Card FRAUD department - but unfortunately they can't get involved in Disputed Transactions.

I had to tell the guy in Telephone Banking a couple of links about Visa Chargeback - and reading on Google, it seems 99% of Banking staff across ALL the UK banks aren't aware of it - as they haven't been informed by the Banks!!!

So that's the story so far - any more input or feedback gratefully welcomed.

peter_the_piper

It really does not surprise me that the banks are not telling the staff about the deit chargeback. Much easier to deny a repayment this way than argue against it.

makara

peter_the_piper wrote: »

It really does not surprise me that the banks are not telling the staff about the deit chargeback. Much easier to deny a repayment this way than argue against it.

Hmm, good point - I originally was cynically thinking they don't care about it as it's not THEIR money they need to recover.

But what you say makes sense - more time and effort spent in Dispute action = more man-hours cost to the Banks in disputing procedures.

makara

Hi, Guys. Here is my "Notice Before Action" draft to the Landowner and Clamping company.

Please let me know if this is good to go, or if you would change anything on it? Thanks a ton.

========

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



NOTICE BEFORE ACTION AGAINST MR. S***** AND PARK DIRECT LTD.





From -



Mr. xxx



To -

Mr. S*****

Quality Foods

118/126 Ilford Lane

Ilford

Essex

IG1 2LF



To -

Park Direct Ltd.

Unit 7 Tomo Estate

Packet Boat Lane

Uxbridge

Middlesex

UB8 2JP



Date - 22nd July 2010



Dear Sirs,



Details of claim:





On the 10th of July 2010, I parked my vehicle at 22:00 in the (virtually unlit by night) Quality Foods / Iceland customer car park (Address - 47 - 61 South Road, Southall, Middlesex, UB1 1SQ) to pay a restaurant on the opposite side of that road.





As I was entering the Car park, I noticed what appeared to me to be a Breakdown truck parked and stationary a short distance (about 10 feet) away from my car. There were two men with that truck (who I later found to be the Clampers). They both *clearly* observed me parking my vehicle near their vehicle, but they did not say anything to me - nor did they give me any warnings not to park there.





I returned 1 minute later, i.e. at 22:01 to find that my vehicle had been clamped - literally within 1 minute of my getting out of the car and returning to it. When I asked

one of the two men why my vehicle had been clamped, he replied "Because it's a Pay-and-display car park, so you need to display a ticket to park in it".



However, the reason he gave for clamping my vehicle was not valid - since "Pay and Display" parking is only operational up to 20:00 in that Car Park.



I remarked I needed my car released, to which I was told it would cost me £250 "For *unclamping* it". I was also told that if I paid by Credit Card (as opposed to Debit Card) a further fee would be added - and if I did not pay there and then, the car would be towed away and the release fee would increase substantially.



Under duress, I paid via Debit Card using the "Chip and Pin" machine supplied by the Clampers - and was asked to sign their "Receipt" before they unclamped my

vehicle - which I did.



I have since discovered that the "Receipt" paperwork is illegal due to several points - thereby rendering the Clamping illegal - and rendering the Fee taken also illegal.



In light of this, I have taken legal advice and am hereby notifying yourselves of my intention to pursue an action of a full refund of the "Clamp release fee" of £250 (plus costs) in a Civil Court against those parties to whom this Notice is addressed (namely the Landowner, i.e. Mr. S***** and the Clamping company he has hired to operate in that car park, i.e. Park Direct Ltd.) - both of whom I consider jointly and severally liable for the return of the sum - unless the full £250 is returned to me within 7 days of receipt of this letter, which I am sending by Recorded Delivery to both parties.





I have attached a copy of the afore-mentioned "Receipt". It is illegal due to these points -



Point 1) Neither of the two Licensees (in this case the Licensees being the Clampers) SIGNED the Receipt I was given upon paying the Fee. The PSIA Act (Private Security Industry Act (2001)) specifically states that Licensees providing a Receipt for "Release fees" for immobilised vehicles must provide their Names *AND* Signatures on said Receipt.



Also, the Clampers wrote the "location" part of the receipt as "Quality Foods", which is not detailed enough a location to be meaningful. No actual address of the

location was written on the Receipt at all. The same below PSIA Act specifies a location must be given. "Quality Foods" on its own does not constitute any meaningful location.



The specific Act is pasted below for your benefit. Please note that my additional points continue under that Act.



++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2007/uksi_20070810_en_1

Statutory Instruments

2007 No. 810


SECURITY INDUSTRY

The Private Security Industry Act 2001 (Licences) Regulations 2007


Made


13th March 2007


Laid before Parliament


16th March 2007


Coming into force


6th April 2007

The Secretary of State makes the following Regulations in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 8, 9 and 24(1) and (5) of the Private Security Industry Act 2001(1), having regard to the definition of "prescribed" in section 24(1) of that Act.

In accordance with section 24(4)(2) of that Act he has consulted with the Scottish Ministers and the Security Industry Authority.

6.—(1) The granting of a licence to a person to engage in front line licensable conduct which involves the carrying out of any activities specified in regulation 4(4)(b) or © (immobilisation, restriction and removal of vehicles) shall be subject to the conditions specified in paragraph (2).

(2) The conditions specified for the purposes of this paragraph are—

(a) the licensee shall not immobilise, remove or restrict a vehicle in accordance with paragraph 3 or 3A of Schedule 2 to the 2001 Act if the vehicle is an invalid carriage or if a valid disability badge is displayed on the vehicle or if the vehicle is an emergency vehicle which is in use; and

(b) the licensee shall, on collecting any charge for the release of a vehicle that has been immobilised, removed or restricted in accordance with paragraph 3 or 3A of Schedule 2 to the 2001 Act, provide a receipt which contains the information specified in paragraph (3).

(3) The information specified for the purposes of this paragraph is—

(a) the location where the vehicle was immobilised, removed or restricted;

(b) the date on which the vehicle was immobilised, removed or restricted;

© the name *and signature* of the licensee; and

(d) the licence number of the licensee.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++





Point 2) The Clampers have filled in the £250 release fee on the Receipt as being for "Tow or Cancellation" - this is unlawful, since no Tow truck was called out (nor called out and then cancelled) specifically for my Vehicle. As mentioned above, the Tow truck was *already* in the Car Park when I arrived. The box that the Fee should have been filled in for should have been the "Clamp Charge" box.





Point 3) The Pay-and-Display machines in that car park obscure the large warning sign behind them, which is itself unreadable at night. Part of the warning that is obscured by said Pay-and-Display machines I have since found details the exact "Clamping hours". In other words, it is not possible to see that warning on that sign

- more so at 22:00 at night, when it is too dark to see.





Point 4) There are a few small warning signs detailing the Rules and Penalties if one has parked in that Car Park, which are totally unreadable at night - and no other light falls on those detailed signs. They are placed nowhere near where I had parked my Vehicle, so I could not have seen them.



Additionally upon returning to said Car Park even in Daylight hours, I have observed that these same signs are placed too high up on walls to be readable - and the fonts used are too small to be able to read.



Point 5) Further after taking close-up photos of said Signs in order to be able to read them, I have found the wording of said Signs is vague and confusing, leading to the reader being confused in trying to interpret said rules in forming any "contract agreement" - specifically -



"VEHICLES STOPPING OR WAITING ON THIS LAND NOT DISPLAYING A VALID PERMIT OR TAX DISC WILL BE CLAMPED AND OR TOWED AWAY AND OR ISSUED WITH A FIXED PENALTY CHARGE IMMEDIATELY WITH NO NOTICE".



Since my vehicle had a Valid Tax Disc on display, I had fulfilled one of the above criteria to park there - and should NOT have been subjected to this illegal action of clamping my vehicle.



Also the same Detailed signs say the Clamp release fee for a private vehicle is £125. I however was charged £250 for the Clamp release. The same sign mentions the £250 release fee is for vehicles that are TOWED AWAY. Since my vehicle was left by me for 1 minute, there is no practical way any vehicle could be lifted on to a Tow truck and towed away in that 1 minute.





Further, no Tow truck was called out (nor was any Tow truck called out and then subsequently cancelled) to remove my vehicle. As said above, the Tow truck in question was *already* in the Car park when I first arrived in my Vehicle.



To further reinforce the above point - the Receipt itself states the "Time" (i.e. Time of Clamping) as 22:00, and "Release time" as 22:04



- as mentioned above I left the vehicle at 22:00, and returned at 22:01 to find my vehicle clamped. BUT MY VEHICLE WAS STILL ON THE GROUND - NOR WAS IT ON THE TOW TRUCK - NOR DID IT HAVE ANY HOISTING EQUIPMENT ATTACHED TO IT.



3 minutes took place between my giving my Debit card to the Clamper, and him processing the payment through his "Chip and Pin machine" - plus he had to write out the release Receipt. Hence the times of 22:00 and 22:04 being written on said Receipt.





Since I arrived in the Car Park at 22:00, and returned to it at 22:01 there is no practical way my Vehicle could have been in the process of being towed away. It was merely clamped by two clamps. The actions of putting on the two clamps (one clamp on my vehicle's back-left wheel, and the other clamp on my vehicle's front-right wheel) would have taken up the whole of that minute - leaving no time to start the process of either hoisting it for towage nor for towing it away.





Point 6) The fee of £250 is entirely unrepresentative of any "work" carried out by the Clamping company, and is clearly a Penalty. The Law states private companies or individuals cannot exact a Penalty on another individual.



Please note that there will be no further correspondence from myself to you following up this Notice Before Action letter.



If I do not receive a full reimbursement from yourselves within 7 days of receiving this letter, I will be initiating Court Summons to yourselves, which will incur additional costs I will pursue you for on top of the £250 clamping fee (including - but not limited to - any loss of earnings for my attending court, and any postal fees and administrative and legal fees).





Yours Faithfully,

AlexisV

Far too complicated and long.

Just say you parked up, no signage was visible because it was hidden by the van and you did not consent to being clamped. Therefore you require a refund within 7 days or you will commence action in county court.

Keep it brief.

They're not to refund you anyway, so don't trip yourself up by going into too much detail.

daveyjp

I parked at (address), on (date and time). I was parked for x minutes
I was clamped unlawfully due to contraventions of (Insert Acts)
You have 7 days to reimburse me the release charge of £250.
No further corrsepondence will be entered into.
Signed

peter_the_piper

I see nothing wrong with going into the detail above, when (not if) it gets to small claims court it will show that you have reasonably tried to give them the opportunity to cough up. Every little helps, even better if the judge had been clamped.

makara

peter_the_piper wrote: »

I see nothing wrong with going into the detail above, when (not if) it gets to small claims court it will show that you have reasonably tried to give them the opportunity to cough up.

Thanks - any parts you would alter (have I written anything confusing or written anything that may work against me?) - or does it all make sense when you read through it?

Coupon-mad

It is a little bit long I think. Personally I would lose anything quoted 'for their benefit'.

So if it were me I wouldn't quote that part of the Act in full - that would be for your Court Claim later I think. It seems perfectly sufficient for you to quote from the Act as you have done higher up, about the need for the signatures. 'Nuff said = illegal clamp!

Also I would lose the sentence that points out which part of the receipt the £250 'should' have been written under. Why try to put right their mistake and give them the answer, just point out their error in that the £250 was receipted as a 'tow/cancellation' which cannot be fair or justifiable in your case at all.

And I like this paragraph but it's a bit lost in the middle of the letter:

'...I am hereby notifying yourselves of my intention to pursue an action of a full refund of the "Clamp release fee" of £250 (plus costs) in a Civil Court against those parties to whom this Notice is addressed (namely the Landowner, i.e. Mr. S***** and the Clamping company he has hired to operate in that car park, i.e. Park Direct Ltd.) - both of whom I consider jointly and severally liable for the return of the sum - unless the full £250 is returned to me within 7 days of receipt of this letter, which I am sending by Recorded Delivery to both parties.'

I am wondering, could that paragraph be best used as the first one in the letter?

It gets the point across pretty well if you start with 'I am hereby notifying you' as I have clipped it to above. You could just try cutting and pasting it to the top, above 'details of claim' and see how that reads.

HTH and best of luck, I think you will see them in Court (as I have read your case on pepipoo and can't see the clampers or the landowner caving in without Court). No worries, pepipoo will advise you when you submit your claim form and prepare your case for the judge.

makara

Many thanks, I have now trimmed and re-arranged the letter - better? Do let me know if any more refinements required.

+++++++++++++++++

Dear Sirs,


Overview of claim:


I was clamped by Park Direct Ltd. on the 10th of July 2010. Under duress (all details below), I paid via Debit Card using the "Chip and Pin" machine supplied by the Clampers - and was given a "Receipt" for the "Release fee", after which they unclamped my vehicle.



I have since taken legal advice, and have been advised that the "Receipt" paperwork given to me is illegal - thereby rendering the Clamping illegal - and thereby rendering the Fee taken from me also illegal.


I am hereby notifying yourselves of my intention to pursue in a Civil Court an action towards a full refund of the wholly illegal "Release fee" I paid of £250 against those parties to whom this Notice is addressed (namely the Landowner, i.e. Mr. S***** and the Clamping company he has hired to operate in that car park, i.e. Park Direct Ltd.) - both of whom I consider jointly and severally liable for the return of the sum - unless the full £250 is returned to me within 7 days of receipt of this letter, which I am sending by Recorded Delivery to both parties.


If I do not receive a full reimbursement from yourselves within 7 days of receiving this letter, I will be initiating Court Summons to yourselves, which will incur additional costs I will pursue you for on top of the £250 clamping fee - including - but not limited to - any loss of earnings for my attending court, and any postal fees and administrative and legal fees.



Full details of case:


On the 10th of July 2010, I parked my vehicle at 22:00 in the Quality Foods / Iceland customer car park (Address - 47 - 61 South Road, Southall, Middlesex, UB1 1SQ) to pay a restaurant on the opposite side of that road.


As I was entering the Car park, I noticed what appeared to me to be a Breakdown truck parked and stationary a short distance (about 10 feet) away from my car. There were two men with that truck (who I later found to be the Clampers). They both *clearly* observed me parking my vehicle near their vehicle, but they did not say anything to me - nor did they give me any warnings not to park there.


I returned to said Car park just 1 minute later, i.e. at 22:01 to find that my vehicle had been clamped.


I spoke to one of the Clampers to ask him to unclamp my car - to which I was told it would cost me £250. I was also told that if I paid by Credit Card (as opposed to Debit Card) a further fee would be added - and if I did not pay there and then, the car would be towed away and the release fee would increase substantially. Under duress, I paid £250 by Debit Card and was given a "Receipt" - whereupon my car was unclamped.



I have attached a copy of the afore-mentioned "Receipt". It is illegal due to these points -


Point 1) Neither of the two Licensees (in this case the Licensees being the Clampers) SIGNED the Receipt I was given upon paying the Fee. The PSIA Act (Private Security Industry Act (2001)) specifically states that Licensees providing a Receipt for "Release fees" for immobilised vehicles must provide their Names *AND* Signatures on said Receipt.


Also, the Clampers wrote the "location" part of the receipt as "Quality Foods", which is not detailed enough a location to be meaningful. No actual address of the
location was written on the Receipt at all. The same below PSIA Act specifies a location must be given. "Quality Foods" on its own does not constitute any meaningful location.


The specific Act is pasted below for your benefit. Please note that my additional points continue under that Act.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2007/uksi_20070810_en_1


SECURITY INDUSTRY
The Private Security Industry Act 2001 (Licences) Regulations 2007

Made

13th March 2007

Laid before Parliament

16th March 2007

Coming into force

6th April 2007

6.—(1) The granting of a licence to a person to engage in front line licensable conduct which involves the carrying out of any activities specified in regulation 4(4)(b) or (c) (immobilisation, restriction and removal of vehicles) shall be subject to the conditions specified in paragraph (2).

(2) The conditions specified for the purposes of this paragraph are—

(b) the licensee shall, on collecting any charge for the release of a vehicle that has been immobilised, removed or restricted in accordance with paragraph 3 or 3A of Schedule 2 to the 2001 Act, provide a receipt which contains the information specified in paragraph (3).

(3) The information specified for the purposes of this paragraph is—

(a) the *location* where the vehicle was immobilised, removed or restricted;

(c) the name *and signature* of the licensee;


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Point 2) The Clampers have filled in the £250 release fee on the Receipt as being for "Tow or Cancellation" - this is unlawful, since no Tow truck was called out (nor called out and then cancelled) specifically for my vehicle. As mentioned above, the Tow truck was *already* in the Car Park when I arrived.


Since I arrived in the Car Park at 22:00, and returned to it at 22:01 there is no practical way my vehicle could have been in the process of being towed away. My vehicle was still on the ground when I returned to it. It was NOT on the tow truck. Nor was it in the process of being hoisted on to the tow truck. In fact, there wasn't even any hoisting equipment attached to it. In short, there was no evidence it was in the process of being towed away.


3 minutes took place between my giving my Debit card to the Clamper, and him processing the payment through his "Chip and Pin machine" - and then he wrote out the release Receipt. Hence the times of 22:00 and 22:04 being written on said Receipt. Again, not long enough a time frame to start any sort of towing procedure.


Point 3) The fee of £250 is entirely unrepresentative of any "work" carried out by the Clamping company, and is clearly a Penalty. The Law states private companies or individuals cannot exact a Penalty on another individual.


Please note that there will be no further correspondence from myself to you following up this Notice Before Action letter.



Yours Faithfully,