Car clamped in own space!!

esmerobbo

Its not worth prolonging the argument, shall we just agree to disagree?

Coblcris

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.

Poppycock

spikyone

chrisspectre wrote: »

Any respectable ppc would...

And you've lost me - that's an oxymoron if ever I saw one. PPCs pretend to have legal authority by using terms that sound like they're from an official source - like PCN for "Parking Charge Notice" - or by giving the debt collector that's part of the same company a name like "Judges Demand", when in fact their invoices have little legal basis. Their entire business model is based on deceiving people into thinking they are the law.

chrisspectre wrote: »

PPC's can win in court

In which case tell us when that has happened, in a sentence that doesn't use the words "Stephen" or "Thomas", or rely on a case where the defendent didn't bother to show up.

Oh, and this is quite special:

chrisspectre wrote: »

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

...so it's OK to clamp people because the pub toilet is a bit busy?:rotfl:
A legitimate customer who didn't realise the car park had charges will be put off returning to that pub forever if their car is clamped or towed, so who wins from this? The [STRIKE]thugs[/STRIKE] clampers, and nobody else.

fb1969

I gave up reading chrisspectre's posts when I read this

chrisspectre wrote: »

When I worked for the appeal team of a ppc,

We all know that there is no such thing!

AlexisV

Chris seems to be confusing many issues of trespass, consent, contract law and tort.

robredz

AlexisV wrote: »

Chris seems to be confusing many issues of trespass, consent, contract law and tort.

As in attempting to cherry pick the bits he think will apply to his mythical scenarios.

jkdd77

robredz wrote: »

As in attempting to cherry pick the bits he think will apply to his mythical scenarios.

His actions show just why clamping itself is fundamentally unjust in allowing people like him to effectively act as "judge and jury" as to whether an "offence" [sic];) has occurred and on the amount of punishment to be inflicted by one private citizen upon another private citizen without any due process whatsoever and no effective remedy (given that clampers routinely ignore CCJs).

robredz

jkdd77 wrote: »

His actions show just why clamping itself is fundamentally unjust in allowing people like him to effectively act as "judge and jury" as to whether an "offence" [sic];) has occurred and on the amount of punishment to be inflicted by one private citizen upon another private citizen without any due process whatsoever and no effective remedy (given that clampers routinely ignore CCJs).

Random clamping and the shenanigans of ppc's is merely a throw back to a lynch mob Wild West mentality, where they will get away with it due to inculcating a culture of fear on the innocent drivers who have no option but to park where these "Cowboys" prowl.

chrisspectre

Coupon-mad wrote: »

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'.


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.

Yes...I have already mentioned that each individual case is different, but i also mentioned that in THIS case it would have been criminal damage because there is no need for signage when someone has already signed an agreement, which is exactly what all resident permit holders do. It is only necessary for the ppc to demonstrate that a contract had been entered into, and the resident permit holder had already given her consent when accepting the permit.

Also, as i already mentioned most appeals are lies and the photographic evidence demonstrates that clearly.
Where there is a genuine appeal, people do win...only they don't then run to the internet sites and broadcast it.

chrisspectre

Coblcris 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.

Poppycock

It's absolutely NOT poppycock and a good percentage of clamped vehicles are those parked in homeowners private drives.