Car clamped in own space!!

chrisspectre

vax2002 wrote: »

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.

It would be interesting and amusing to find out.

chrisspectre

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!

'Which are both covered by a claim for the recovery of any loss! '

No. This is where you keep getting it wrong, under the torts law the landowner would be claiming for losses incurred due to trespass and would be entitled to end up in the same position as if the trespass had not occured.
Where a contract is in place which clearly states the charges should a contravention occur, the claim is for those charges to be paid.
A permit holder is generally a person who wishes the clamping company to protect his/her space and in order to let them do their job he/she agrees to their terms and conditions, which would be clearly written not only on notice boards but also on the back of the permit, plus most 'distributors' i.e. the tenants association which gives them the permit, usually has them sign an agreement saying they agree to those terms and conditions.
Where a person who is entitled to a permit fails to display it, they have broken the terms and conditions of that permit, and the clamping company is within it's rights.
Losses are incurred by the ppc when a sub-contracted clamper does his job correctly, but the permit holder doesn't comply with the T&C's. Who should pay the clamper/tow truck when the permit holder is clearly at fault?

robredz

chrisspectre wrote: »

'Which are both covered by a claim for the recovery of any loss! '

No. This is where you keep getting it wrong, under the torts law the landowner would be claiming for losses incurred due to trespass and would be entitled to end up in the same position as if the trespass had not occured.
Where a contract is in place which clearly states the charges should a contravention occur, the claim is for those charges to be paid.
A permit holder is generally a person who wishes the clamping company to protect his/her space and in order to let them do their job he/she agrees to their terms and conditions, which would be clearly written not only on notice boards but also on the back of the permit, plus most 'distributors' i.e. the tenants association which gives them the permit, usually has them sign an agreement saying they agree to those terms and conditions.
Where a person who is entitled to a permit fails to display it, they have broken the terms and conditions of that permit, and the clamping company is within it's rights.
Losses are incurred by the ppc when a sub-contracted clamper does his job correctly, but the permit holder doesn't comply with the T&C's. Who should pay the clamper/tow truck when the permit holder is clearly at fault?

This is becoming tiresome as the charges would largely be unenforceable, due to being outrageous compared to any ACTUAL loss and imposing these terms in the absence of any viable alternative may well fall foul of the Unfair contract Terms Act, now let me see, who would pay for the electricity for the angle grinder, or the clamp I would put on the clampers motor?

chrisspectre

robredz wrote: »

This is becoming tiresome as the charges would largely be unenforceable, due to being outrageous compared to any ACTUAL loss and imposing these terms in the absence of any viable alternative may well fall foul of the Unfair contract Terms Act, now let me see, who would pay for the electricity for the angle grinder, or the clamp I would put on the clampers motor?

Yawn, the charge is not for loss...the charge is as agreed in the terms of the contract the resident entered into.
All the clamping company has to do is demonstrate to a court that the resident was aware of and agreed to the terms and conditions of the contract.

Also, the BPA recommendation is £150 for clamping, £250 for towing, if the ppc is in line with those charges it will be upheld in court.
As for cutting the clamp, you would face criminal charges, and clamping without an SIA licence is a serious criminal offence.

esmerobbo

chrisspectre wrote: »

Yawn, the charge is not for loss...the charge is as agreed in the terms of the contract the resident entered into.
All the clamping company has to do is demonstrate to a court that the resident was aware of and agreed to the terms and conditions of the contract.

Also, the BPA recommendation is £150 for clamping, £250 for towing, if the ppc is in line with those charges it will be upheld in court.
As for cutting the clamp, you would face criminal charges, and clamping without an SIA licence is a serious criminal offence.

"Yawn" yes this is becoming boring I agree. A loss can not be a term of an unfair contract! Just for a clue look at bank charges I think you will find the OFT thought they were an unfair contract, and we all signed up to them!! It would seem the Government agree that clamping is unfair because they are not regulating it, they are banning it!!

Also I think you will find a lot of Judges disagree, remember Park Forces unpaid CCJ's and every other clamping company, you would be hard pressed to find one that has not been taken to court and lost! [Undefended is lost]:p

As for your second paragraph regarding the BPA recommended charges, who do the BPA represent? Who regulates them? Its a members club, would you ask Mugabe to regulate human rights?? They are about self interest nothing else.

Let me make clear my position, people should respect others property, they should not be allowed to just park were they want because they believe they can. I would not have much sympathy for someone who was abusing someone's land getting clamped, but is parking for 5 mins abusing someone's land? and that's what we see. Clampers ambushing people, blocking them in to clamp them. Refusing to remove a clamp from a residents car when it is proven they have the right to be there!

I cant really understand your support for these people, if you have no interest?

Have you ever nipped into a pub, cafe, shop or anywhere just to use a toilet? If you have, would you agree the owner had a right to place a clamp on you until you paid £150 for abusing their property?

Coupon-mad

chrisspectre wrote: »

If you must know...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.

You work(ed) for an 'appeals dept' of a private clamper?! :rotfl:

Can you tell us about even one 'appeal' that you've allowed WITHOUT pressure being put on the clamping company by the landowner/managing agent? Just one appeal that you allowed only on the basis of the individual victim writing in? Don't be daft, let's be honest now! Your so-called 'job' did not involve any more than having a chuckle at people's credulous and typically-British 'belief' that there was an 'appeals process' (LOL!) then hitting the button in the web-page you designed to send that template letter out with a message along the lines of 'computer says NO'.

chrisspectre wrote: »

As for cutting the clamp, you would face criminal charges...

Nope, not necessarily but then you would say that wouldn't you?

You could face criminal damage charges but not all Police forces would pursue such a case, and even cases that go to Court can be found in favour of the motorist so let's show the other side of the coin:

Jengiz Ali cleared in April this year

Peter Cartner cleared on same basis a few years ago...

...there are loads more old cases - yes, including some where the scumbag clampers actually won the case - it would be down to the defence and the judge. I know personally that I would NEVER pay a clamper, I would definitely sit in the car and call a friend who has an angle grinder (it's never happened - hopefully never will - but I would categorically NEVER pay a clamper). I love vax2002's contractual notice! :T

In support of my statement that not all Police forces would pursue a case against a motorist for cutting off a clamp, this link to the West Midlands Police website is interesting and worth carrying around perhaps for those of us on here with zero tolerance of parking parasites (obviously I mean PPCs):

http://www.west-midlands.police.uk/foi/pub...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.

...

9. Where clamping has taken place on private land where signs are not clearly displayed, then the act of clamping a vehicle may be unlawful, leaving the clamping company liable in civil law.

10. In such a situation, legal action to recover the unclamping fee may not be successful. Any action taken by a person who uses reasonable force to remove the clamp would not render that person liable in civil or criminal law."




HTH debunk the myth that to cut off a clamp 'would' result in criminal damage charges. As we get closer to a clamping ban I would hope/suspect that most Police forces would be less likely to take the side of clampers anyway.

chrisspectre

esmerobbo wrote: »

"Yawn" yes this is becoming boring I agree. A loss can not be a term of an unfair contract! Just for a clue look at bank charges I think you will find the OFT thought they were an unfair contract, and we all signed up to them!! It would seem the Government agree that clamping is unfair because they are not regulating it, they are banning it!!

Also I think you will find a lot of Judges disagree, remember Park Forces unpaid CCJ's and every other clamping company, you would be hard pressed to find one that has not been taken to court and lost! [Undefended is lost]:p

As for your second paragraph regarding the BPA recommended charges, who do the BPA represent? Who regulates them? Its a members club, would you ask Mugabe to regulate human rights?? They are about self interest nothing else.

Let me make clear my position, people should respect others property, they should not be allowed to just park were they want because they believe they can. I would not have much sympathy for someone who was abusing someone's land getting clamped, but is parking for 5 mins abusing someone's land? and that's what we see. Clampers ambushing people, blocking them in to clamp them. Refusing to remove a clamp from a residents car when it is proven they have the right to be there!

I cant really understand your support for these people, if you have no interest?

Have you ever nipped into a pub, cafe, shop or anywhere just to use a toilet? If you have, would you agree the owner had a right to place a clamp on you until you paid £150 for abusing their property?

When I worked for the appeal team of a ppc, I saw the other side of the coin, but don't mis-understand me...there's far too many cowboy clampers....but that doesn't mean they all are, though they all get tarred with the same brush.
A typical incident for example was when a woman woke up one morning to find a van parked in her garden. She lives on a red route so someone took a chance and left it there for a day and a half.
She enquired with neighbours and called the police, who told her to call in a ppc because they are not authorised to remove it.
The ppc removed it and charged the woman accordingly, but this cost would obviously be borne by the driver.
Now if clamping and towing is banned, drivers will have free reign to park anywhere without fear, you yourself could come home to find a vehicle parked in your drive and not be able to do anything about it.

Your comments about popping into a pub to use a loo is exactly the attitude that drivers have, which clamping and towing is supposed to deter. 50 people popping into a pubs loo for 5 minutes in succesion is a large intrusion on the pub, but only 5 minutes to each individual.
What exactly is wrong with insisting that drivers watch where they park?

The apparent support i give to ppc's is more of a balanced view having seen the other side of the coin.
Another example is a private estate with several leaseholders, all of them have the right to park there. They find that they are constantly having to fight for space because of vehicles that are not supposed to be there. They look at the costs of all the options to control parking, and find it will be a heavy burden on them, no parking control comes cheap. But a ppc offers their service for free on condition they stick to the rules. The head lessee or person in charge of making decisions regarding communal areas or management of the estate would have the power to contract a ppc and the residents would be bound to accept this, especially as most decisions of this type are made through residents votes.
Then, each resident signs an agreement with the ppc.
That's the real facts behind all cases where someone is parked in their own space without a permit. They knew they needed to display the permit, and they knew that if they couldn't they would simply need to telephone the ppc.
Over 75% of appeals i dealt with were lies, and the photographic evidence showed a different story. The problem with forums like these is that they mis-advise the OP.
PPC's can win in court, but the problem has always been because the governemt never clearly defined the industry, which led to abuse and horror stories such as the ones you hear on this forum. But...most of the 'horror' stories these days are actually false, and the story teller has got their 'story' from forums like these.
Instead of respecting a property owners rights, these forums tend to encourage people to violate those rights, especially the ticketing side of things.
Any respectable ppc would show sufficient signage stating regulations were in operation, and any driver clamped there only has themself to blame.
Although the government is banning it, it was supposed to be regulated, but one person decided to ban it.
If that happens still remains to be seen, it has already been postponed at least twice, and i know for sure that many MP's are in favour of clamping.
The 'flavour' of these forums is that every clamper is the enemy, and the advice given to the OP is more from hatred than from any consideration of the actual facts.

jkdd77

This sets out the situation nicely with regard to clamping victims in their own spaces:
http://www.ticketfighter.co.uk/Clamping.htm

"You cannot be deemed to have trespassed if you have proper authority or consent...

If you find yourself in the position of being clamped in a space that you own or rent then it is my opinion that you would be in a position to persue a self-help remedy to remove the clamp".

http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/Stand-ground-clamping-firms-pounce/story-11221895-detail/story.html

"Furthermore, it is perfectly legal to remove the clamp, provided you do not damage it – for example, by disassembling the front suspension.

Even then, if you honestly believe you have been clamped unfairly and illegally, you are still entitled to remove the clamp by whatever means, under the general legal principle of "self-help"

The only "bad advice" being given to the OP is from chrisspectre. On the facts as stated, the clamping is blatantly unlawful and he/she would have almost certainly been within his/her rights to cut off the clamp.

Coupon-mad

chrisspectre wrote: »

Now if clamping and towing is banned, drivers will have free reign to park anywhere without fear, you yourself could come home to find a vehicle parked in your drive and not be able to do anything about it.

The 'flavour' of these forums is that every clamper is the enemy, and the advice given to the OP is more from hatred than from any consideration of the actual facts.

Nope Trevor (or Trevor's mate) you are not telling the truth AGAIN. I see you couldn't defend your view when I picked you up earlier for spreading the myth that cutting off a clamp 'would' result in a criminal damage charge.

Here we go again, you are bringing up the old chestnut about someone being parked on your drive! As if a flippin' metal clamp would help that almost unheard of situation anyway, you and I both know that the fictitional person in your yawningly tedious example would then have a useless car, and a useless lump of metal, and a useless lump of a bouncer/crim/clamper on their drive too!

How about actually listening to what Lynne Featherstone has said?

Clicky House of Commons debate re Protection of Freedoms Bill


QUOTE
Lynne Featherstone:
I draw the hon. Lady’s attention to the fact that the Bill will give landowners explicit permission to move a car sufficiently to get it off their land. That will still be legal under the Bill, because they have no intention to stop the owner driving the car away; they will simply be moving it off their land.
QUOTE


Maybe clampers aren't clever enough to be able to read and decipher Hansard (no apologies, they are as thick as their own necks generally). But I think that on this forum we have posted clearly and often enough to show that we CAN read and decipher a Bill and can challenge it vociferously!

Ergo clampers are not needed and the sooner they are put on the scrapheap (clamps, towtrucks, thugs and all) the better.

trisontana

chrisspectre also fails to mention that private clamping has been banned in Scotland for several years, and they seem to cope OK there. I don't think there has been a plague of cars parked on driveways north of the border.