Car clamped in own space!!

chrisspectre

esmerobbo wrote: »

@chrisspectre


There is no such thing as a justified clamp!!!!! Why do you think the Government is putting an end to it?
The only reason these low life clamp is because once its on the car they have the upper hand. If their argument for car park management is so strong then why don't they ticket and pursue through the courts if not paid.
Why because they will almost always certainly lose! The same as most clamper's lose when they are sued for the return of the clamping fee.
I find it difficult too understand why you believe a clamper can act in such a way and think its justified, yet you defend your friends Park force who have never paid a CCJ.

Your arguments are nonsense the lack of a permit does not make your presence on property you lease trespass. Plus trespass is a civil matter settled by a civil court not some cretin placing a clamp on someone's car.

If you came home to property you lease to find there was nowhere to park because unathorised vehicles were parked there, you would want to know what to do about it.
The police and council would not help you because they are not authorised to act on private land, but they would advise you to call in a private clamping company.
If you call in a private company, should you pay them or should the person who parked their car where they shouldn't pay them?
A private company can only clamp and tow under two conditions, one is that they have been given a contract to do so, in which case they would have to display signs with terms and conditions, and they could also stipulate their conditions for operating that land, such as permits MUST be displayed.
The other is if a landowner has requested them in writing because they believe the vehicle to be causing an obstruction or has been abandoned.
Obviously option two is less desirable, which is why landowners or head leaseholders go for option one.
Anyone who has accepted a permit to exempt their vehicle has also agreed to the terms and conditions laid down by the clamping company.
It's then really not difficult to co-operate.
In option 2, your comment about trespass is valid and demonstrates why option 2 is less desirable. In option one, the law of contract applies and protects the clamping company as long as signage is adeqaute. The bottom line is clamping companies operate on private land to protect the landowners rights, and this often includes leaseholders who have agreed to that company operating that site. It is right to expect permits to be displayed.

chrisspectre

jkdd77 wrote: »

You're completely wrong; if the lease gives the resident the exclusive right to park in a specific space there can be no trespass, and if there is no trespass the victim cannot have consented to the risk of being clamped and therefore the clamping is unlawful.

As for the wholly false suggestion that I am suggesting 'breaking the law' by cutting off the clamp, read section 5 of the Criminal Damage Act, and read the official West Midlands Police Guidance on "criminal damage" to PPC wheelclamps. In brief, a person only commits "criminal damage" if they do not have a 'lawful excuse' for committing the damage, and in this instance the victim almost certainly would have a lawful excuse.
http://www.west-midlands.police.uk/foi/publication-scheme/policies-procedures/policy-MVWC.asp?id=102

"3. Where damage is caused to the clamp, deliberately or recklessly, by a motorist attempting to remove it, this may render the person doing so liable in civil law for any damage caused. This may also amount to an offence of criminal damage. However, if the person took the action because they genuinely thought they had a right to do so, as opposed merely to trying to avoid the fee, then it is likely that such a criminal prosecution would not succeed."

and see these links;
http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/8980822.Woolworths_developer_who_cut_off_wheel_clamp_wins_court_battle/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2924617.stm
for examples of where a court has upheld the 'lawful excuse' defence

In any case, there is often no realistic alternative to 'self-help; given that so many clamping firms ignore CCJs with impunity, paying and suing is simply throwing good money after bad, as acknowledge by the Government in their consultation document on banning clamping.

You're confusing the law of trespass with the law of contract, see my other post for example. Although the leaseholder may have rights to park, that same leaseholder relies on clamping companies to protect his/her space, without such companies there could be chaos.
In order for the clamping company to always be at hand and to do their job it is far better for that company to have a contract on the land in question. The leaseholder then gives the right to that company to stipulate its terms and conditions, and it is right for the company to insist the leaseholder sticks to the agreement.
The part you seem to be missing is that the leasholder has given the clamping company that authority, either directly or indirectly, i.e through a tenants association or even simply by agreeing to accept a permit. In either case the permit holder will be aware of the terms and conditions for parking there, so there really is no arguement.

Also, i checked one of your links regarding the builders who won. What everyone here seems to misunderstand is that there has never been adequate regulation of clamping companies. This means that every single court case will be different, and can have different outcomes. The original poster of this thread was someone who's daughter had been clamped for not displaying a permit, i.e. someone who knew parking restrictions were in force and who knew the terms and conditions and had agreed to them. That is far different to someone who was clamped in an area where there was no adequate signage.
You cannot take the outcome of one case and apply it to all, you need to look at the individual circumstances, and in this case the person who was clamped had agreed to it.

hillcats

It is always useful to own / have access to a generic clamp removal tool, AKA an angle grinder.

Coupon-mad

Oooh look, 'chrisspectre' has got his posts right up to mid-twenties now.

Obvious trolling like this reminds me of eBay sellers who build up their reputation by buying e-books at a penny a time.

Dunno why you bother though Perky, everyone here knows who you are and what your agenda is. And as for the Freedoms Bill, Schedule4 is not happening - in your dreams maybe but not in reality.

esmerobbo

chrisspectre wrote: »

You're confusing the law of trespass with the law of contract,

Which are both covered by a claim for the recovery of any loss!
Any payment to a clamper is for applying and removing the clamp! Which is the reason if the contract is correct, the signs are correct, the clamper is licensed, and the fee is deemed fair, then they probably would get away with it!
Unfortunately the greedy gits could not help but rip people off so the gravy train is being derailed!

robredz

esmerobbo wrote: »

Which are both covered by a claim for the recovery of any loss!
Any payment to a clamper is for applying and removing the clamp! Which is the reason if the contract is correct, the signs are correct, the clamper is licensed, and the fee is deemed fair, then they probably would get away with it!
Unfortunately the greedy gits could not help but rip people off so the gravy train is being derailed!

As to the law of contract, the ppc's loose interpretation of PRIVITY is where they fail, as their attempts in the signage to include the world and its dog, cat, and everyone else into the contract the driver agrees to when they park, make it unfair under UCTA, and foul of the basic law of contract anyway.

jkdd77

As robredz says, any clamping based solely on "contractual agreement" (as opposed to trespass) would almost certainly fall foul of Regulation 5 of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, Regulation 3(4c) of The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 absence of privity and consideration, and the case law from Dunlop v New Motor Co. that bans "penalty charges".

Furthermore, the case law from Arthur v Anker and Vine v Waltham Forest London Borough Council is clear that any "agreement" to be clamped must be knowingly and willingly given and this can hardly be said to apply to a permitholder who genuinely forgot to display a permit, and who is not a trespasser.

I would say, that given Park Direct's notoriety for clamping unlawfully, demanding extortionate sums and always ignoring CCJs, and the practical and legal difficulties in holding the managing agent (if any) responsible for the actions of the clampers, the use of an angle-grinder on a Park Direct clamp is likely to be covered by the 'lawful excuse' provisions and therefore not be criminal damage.

chrisspectre

robredz wrote: »

As to the law of contract, the ppc's loose interpretation of PRIVITY is where they fail, as their attempts in the signage to include the world and its dog, cat, and everyone else into the contract the driver agrees to when they park, make it unfair under UCTA, and foul of the basic law of contract anyway.

True, as i mentioned before clamping and towing is actually a needed and valuable service, but only if the ppc runs a fair and professional operation. There have always been too many rogue clampers and the government is to blame, it was (is) crying out for regulation but the most it got was the BPA.
As for the original post, i have pointed out the reasons why cutting off the clamp would have been deemed illegal in this case, and also why the ppc would probably win in court, the driver had agreed to the clamping and the charge was in accordance with the guidelines as set down by the BPA.

vax2002

if clamping is based on a contractual agreement then what happens if the motorists places this contract on the dashboard.

Contractual agreement: Any item left in contact with this vehicle shall become the sole property of the registered keeper of this vehicle this includes clamps, chains, locks or any type of immobiliser device attached or left in contact with this vehicle, this includes leaflets, parking notices or any item intentionally placed in contact with this vehicle in any way shape or form.
If you do not consent to passing title of ownership of items placed in contact with this vehicle to the registered keeper you must desist from placing such items, failure to do so shall render you in agreement to the conditions set out in this contract.

chrisspectre

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Oooh look, 'chrisspectre' has got his posts right up to mid-twenties now.

Obvious trolling like this reminds me of eBay sellers who build up their reputation by buying e-books at a penny a time.

Dunno why you bother though Perky, everyone here knows who you are and what your agenda is. And as for the Freedoms Bill, Schedule4 is not happening - in your dreams maybe but not in reality.

Do you think i give a **** about points or reputation? And if you call my posts trolling then what you mean is anyone who disagress with you is a troll.
As for Perky, no you've still got it wrong. If you must know, I'm a web developer not a bloomin clamper, but i have worked for the appeals department of a ppc in the past.
I have read through hundreds of appeals such as this one, some even worse, then just when i thought i was able to approve the appeal, i've looked at the photographs taken at the time of clamping, and they tell a different story. In about 75% of cases, the apellant has lied, but you guys only get to hear about one side of the story.
The 'permit slipped' story is rarely ever true and in most cases the permit holder never even had it in the car. The clamper (as i mentioned before) is a sub-contractor and cannot know who is or who is not a permit holder, and once he has done his job correctly is entitled to payment.
You see you go on about fairness, but only listen to a one sided story.
This is not to say that most ppc's aren't rogues, but to point out that even those who operate correctly will always be put in the category of rogues.