Shoal Enforcement Wheel clamping

RENEGADE_2

torontoboy45 wrote: »

my take: 'volunteering' is IMO not the same as 'volunteering under duress'.

My concern is not so much the nature of the volunteering so much as that what it was Woodwag volunteered. There is no way the courts can rule "the driver consented to the authority" when the antagonist NEVER HAD the legal authority in the first place. The citizen's rights are outlined in a number of acts by parliament, but which section and chapter determine the actions of a citizen that may waive these rights? None.

esmerobbo

RENEGADE wrote: »

My concern is not so much the nature of the volunteering so much as that what it was Woodwag volunteered. There is no way the courts can rule "the driver consented to the authority" when the antagonist NEVER HAD the legal authority in the first place. The citizen's rights are outlined in a number of acts by parliament, but which section and chapter determine the actions of a citizen that may waive these rights? None.

Unfortunately the courts allow this to go on and it has been argued in the appeal courts. Were Judges found clamping was legal under "volenti non fit injuria" or in English "to a willing person, no injury is done".

The claim against any clamping has to be fought on technical issues not law. That is why I and others have pointed the OP to Pepipoo were there are members who possibly could assist in forming a winning able claim.

RENEGADE_2

esmerobbo wrote: »

The claim against any clamping has to be fought on technical issues not law.

"No injury to a willing person" so say the courts. Is this condition set in any of the protocols, or is it simply the defence lawyer showing off his Latin? The company has clearly denied its target his rights according to statute, and erecting signs which threaten with illegal behaviour is not a disclaimer. I mean, if we tip the first domino in the chain, let's see where it takes us:

A clamper is on the brink of immobilising a vehicle when suddenly the driver arrives and moves the vehicle in time. However, I contend that if two minutes later this driver would have owed £250, he STILL owes £250 but the clampers do not have the goods to hold should the would-be offender refuse. So they take him to court, and naturally, if they win their cases against those whom they have clamped, they will also emerge triumphant when chasing the money. If this were to happen, it would also have been going on with the PPCs and their pseudo-penalty charges; except it doesn't, and the final argument that anybody can throw is the "no financial loss" in any case. Woodwag need first use the obviously legal arguments and then challenge the amount which cost him more than the company had lost through his parking on the space. I swear I would have sat in my car until someone brought me the Wheel clamp remover (known to some as an angle grinder) and that would have been the end of the episode. All right, they may have got the hump and reported me for criminal damage but on top of my arguments, I won't be saying "I paid subject to pressure" because I won't have paid at all.

esmerobbo

Here is the press article.

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2094690_godalming_mum_falls_victim_to_clampers

RENEGADE_2

Nice to see the story reported and it is good that there is some feedback from the public. For the company to urge the poor lady to reclaim the money from charity is absolutely shameful. Charity is for those that need it, it is not to subsidise the squalid money-grabbing campaign of fuсkwit vampires like Shoal. I still desperately beseech that Woodwag fight the legal battle in court, I mean one of the rights that seizing goods before trial violates is the Human Rights Act!! The others may have predated mechanised vehicles but this act is political...it means you can even take it to Strasbourg. It won't need to go that far, we already have the Amy Taylor report on our side which can be used for petitioning purposes. It may be a bit slanted or distorted as I know the press have a tendency to do this but on this one occasion, I'd happily add a few lies of my own to discredit the Shoal litter. Suffice it to say that I don't care whether the information in the report is true or not, I am convinced they clamped a blameless woman and that to me warrants death by drowning in boiling acid.

RENEGADE_2

There is some justice in this world:
http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/8980822.Woolworths_developer_who_cut_off_wheel_clamp_wins_court_battle/

By the way, for everyone's information: Volenti non fit injuria does not stretch to matters where the antagonist breaches statutory law, it is merely for cases such as professional contact sports whereby a competitor will not only allow his opponent to preside over moves which could otherwise be deemed harmful, but where the very same regulation is extended to him in his own task. The matter has been dismissed from court in the past because of shallow petitioning and indolent judges.

Sirdan

RENEGADE;44573294, I mean one of the rights that seizing goods before trial violates is the Human Rights Act!!

No it does not there are plenty of examples where such action is allowed some statutory and some civil.

A good example in the civil arena is" possessory lien" ,not the same as clamping, but it does allow for your property to be held by another until a debt is paid.
Garages can do this to your car if you won't pay the bill EVEN if you think the bill is wrong ..you can't have the car back until you pay up and then you have to sue them through the County Court for any amount that you dispute ..shocking but true.!

Statute law is full of legislation that allows for seizure of goods before a trial..it is in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act , the Customs and Excise Management Act , the Proceeds of Crime Act, to mention but a few ..

HO87

RENEGADE wrote: »

There is some justice in this world:
http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/8980822.Woolworths_developer_who_cut_off_wheel_clamp_wins_court_battle/

By the way, for everyone's information: Volenti non fit injuria does not stretch to matters where the antagonist breaches statutory law, it is merely for cases such as professional contact sports whereby a competitor will not only allow his opponent to preside over moves which could otherwise be deemed harmful, but where the very same regulation is extended to him in his own task. The matter has been dismissed from court in the past because of shallow petitioning and indolent judges.

Ah, in a word - bolleaux. With respect violenti may just be a common law concept but it extends some considerable way beyond the field of contact sports and your assertion is entirely misleading - indeed wrong - from that point of view. The area of contract law that PPC tickets and clamping rely upon is also firmly based on common law and violenti applies equally in that field as it does with other torts.

As for your assertion that violenti does not apply to a statutory breach, surely that is exactly the defence a boxer would rely on to a criminal charge of ABH - s.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 - if he was accused of giving his opponent a black eye during a professional fight?

RENEGADE_2

Sirdan wrote: »

A good example in the civil arena is" possessory lien" ,not the same as clamping, but it does allow for your property to be held by another until a debt is paid.

A "debt" needs to be proven in court before one can accuse another of having one. I think we can all agree one thing, it is far better and easier to have the money and be chased by vampires than to be the petitioner. Another reason I could cut the clamp.

The laws you also mention are specific to authorities (customs are authorities too). The laws which cause clamping to be illegal by nature are those that are specific in that one citizen cannot penalise another.

RENEGADE_2

HO87 wrote: »

Ah, in a word - bolleaux. With respect violenti may just be a common law concept but it extends some considerable way beyond the field of contact sports and your assertion is entirely misleading - indeed wrong - from that point of view. The area of contract law that PPC tickets and clamping rely upon is also firmly based on common law and violenti applies equally in that field as it does with other torts.

As for your assertion that violenti does not apply to a statutory breach, surely that is exactly the defence a boxer would rely on to a criminal charge of ABH - s.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 - if he was accused of giving his opponent a black eye during a professional fight?

Bоllocks is the correct spelling! But I'm not saying it to you at this point.

If volenti applies to PPC tickets, let's see a list of cases where the PCN has been proven lawful and the respondent was forced to pay. The business of the clampers seizing the vehicle until an alleged debt is paid is merely a starter. Where in the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 does it state that where clamping is an issue, the fee to release and charge notice can be any price the antagonist chooses to charge.

The problem is that law is ambiguous, and judges are just not up to the task.