Please help! Private residents' parking £300 fine!

peter_the_piper

Are you able to access it? If so look at the relative time frame, they may well have shot themselves in the foot.

give_them_FA

mark_dumpleton wrote: »

Right - I spoke to the team leader and they told me that as the payment was made using chip and pin I made the conscious choice to get my car released and so it was not under duress at all - I made the choice to release my car, I wasn't held at knife point or anything.
She said there's absolutely nothing they can do as it was not under duress and as I firstly made the choice to have my car released (she said I could have simply let them have it) and secondly used chip and pin so authorised the transaction myself that they couldn't do a chargeback.

Very disappointed!

The usual inertia/we can't be bothered that you get from banks as soon as the situation drifts even marginally away from the usual.

Of course you were under duress you were being told (lied to, but you didn't know!) that your car would be taken away and crushed if you didn't pay. To make you pay by threatening you IS duress.

You need to renew your complaint and keep taking it higher until someone decides it's easier to do what you ask than to argue with you. And take it to the Financial Ombudsman if needed. And tell them that if this is the level of their service you will be changing banks (I take it you don't owe them?)

Is it Santander? That would explain everything, lol.

I am wondering from your signature whether you are quite young? What you will learn (and you won't learn it from university) is that to get what you want in this country you never take no for an answer.

peter_the_piper

One other threat to use as a last resort is that to take them to the ombudsman will cost them £400. whether they are at fault or not. Ask them to put their refusal in writing as you want to take it to the ombudsman, they often cave in then, if they don't then do so.

angel_islington

give_them_FA wrote: »

I am wondering from your signature whether you are quite young? What you will learn (and you won't learn it from university) is that to get what you want in this country you never take no for an answer.

Don't want to take the thread off track but this is so true. What you are actually entitled to is irrelevant when you are dealing with banks and large institutions. They basically make their own laws and will only deviate from them if it's easier for them.

Making a nuisance of yourself should be taught at school.

big_malc

mark_dumpleton wrote: »

Right - I spoke to the team leader and they told me that as the payment was made using chip and pin I made the conscious choice to get my car released and so it was not under duress at all - I made the choice to release my car, I wasn't held at knife point or anything.
She said there's absolutely nothing they can do as it was not under duress and as I firstly made the choice to have my car released (she said I could have simply let them have it) and secondly used chip and pin so authorised the transaction myself that they couldn't do a chargeback.

Very disappointed!

I would suggest she was talking nonsense. I would definitely be on the phone to the police:



The offence of blackmail is set out in s.21 Theft Act 1968 Under the Act, blackmail consists of making an unwarranted demand with menaces with a view to making a gain or causing a loss. By s.21(3) Theft Act 1968, the maximum sentence for blackmail is 14 years.

Elements of blackmail

To be liable for blackmail the defendant must:

Make a demand
With menaces
The demand must be unwarranted
have a view to make a gain for himself or another or have intent to cause a loss to another

Demand

The demand for the purposes of blackmail may be express or implied:

R v Collister & Warhurst (1955) 39 Cr App R 100

Where a demand is made by post, the demand is deemed to have been made, the moment it is posted:

Treacy v DPP [1971] AC 537

Thus there is no requirement that the demand be communicated to the victim for liability for blackmail to arise. A demand could therefore be made by an e-mail that is unread, a text message not read, left on an answer machine or spoken but not heard.

The demand is a continuing act and continues until the threat is withdrawn:

R v Hester [2007] EWCA Crim 2127


Menaces

For liability for blackmail to arise, the demand must be accompanied by menaces.

The menaces may be express or implied:

R v Lawrence and Pomroy (1971) 57 Cr App R 64

It has long been held that 'menaces' for blackmail, extends beyond threats of physical violence:

R v Tomlinson [1895] 1 QB 706

Thorne v Motor Trade Association [1937] AC 797

However, 'menaces' is a strong word suggesting a high degree of coercion to give rise to criminal liability for blackmail:

R v Harry [1974] Crim LR 32

The phrase 'menacing pressure' is often used to demonstrate the level of severity required to amount to blackmail:

R v Jheeta [2007] EWCA Crim 1699

There is no requirement that the one who is making the demand is to be the one carrying out the menaces nor is it a requirement that the person making the demand is in a position to carryout the threatened action.

R v Lambert [2009] EWCA Crim 2860

The test as to whether a particular threat amounts to menaces is objective:


R v Clear [1968] 1 QB 670

However, where the victim is particularly vulnerable or of a timid nature the jury may find menaces existed, where the defendant was aware of the affect of his actions on the victim.

R v Garwood [1987] 1 All ER 1032

Unwarranted demand


Under s.21 (1) Theft Act 1968, for the purposes of blackmail, a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making the demand believes both:

(a) that they had reasonable grounds for making the demand and

(b) that the use of menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.

It is the defendant's belief that matters, not whether in fact they are entitled to the money or property demanded. This is decided by a purely subjective test. However, where the defendant threatens criminal action and knows their threatened actions amount to a crime, they can not believe the demand was 'proper.'

R v Harvey (1981) 72 Cr App R 139

An example of a warranted demand:

Thorne v Motor Trade Association [1937] AC 797

With a view to make a gain or intent to cause loss

S. 34(2)(a) Theft Act 1968 defines 'gain'and 'loss' as including only gain or loss of money or other property. This would exclude from the remit of blackmail demands of a sexual nature. However, generally property of some kind can be found to exist:

R v Bevans (1988) 87 Cr App R 64


The gain or loss need only be temporary. Gain includes keeping what one has and loss includes not getting what one might get.

mark_dumpleton

I had a reply from the residential management company today telling me they've instructed the clamping company to refund £150 for the 'skate out' fee that was charged as it was not on their signs, and that I should contact them directly to arrange the refund.

Should I take this, or continue with small claims court etc?

Coupon-mad

mark_dumpleton wrote: »

I had a reply from the residential management company today telling me they've instructed the clamping company to refund £150 for the 'skate out' fee that was charged as it was not on their signs, and that I should contact them directly to arrange the refund.

Should I take this, or continue with small claims court etc?

Remind us how much you are claiming altogether? If £150 is the tip of the iceberg then refuse unless the £150 is offered with no strings and NOT as full and final settlement.

give_them_FA

Take the £150 as the refund for the skate out fee. If asked to sign do so as "reimbursement for moving fee."

Then press for the other £150 as refund for the clamping.

Easy.

ppc_guy

Any update? been away for a few days

On a side note should have secured a site from these guys in the next door county (not enforcement just P+D)

mark_dumpleton

Apologies for the lack of an update:

I received £150 refund for the fee for moving of my car, straight to my card and with nothing needing to be signed. No mention of full and final settlement.

I haven't done anything to get the other £150 back yet - shall I; is it worth it?

Since this, the clamping company have put up around 6 additional signs in the car park - could this be perceived as an admission that the signs were not visible enough and an admission of guilt, helping any claim if I decided to make it?