Clamping

System

Can you also include the clamper as well as the 2 main parties?

System

vax2002 wrote: »

what was the point then ?
Moral support ?
The money is gone.

No the point was that the question was asked before other developments occurred such as a stupid CSO saying he had a right to clamp and tow away

give_them_FA

Well, now you know that you shouldn't have paid. You will probably get your money back if you handle it right but it would have been easier not to have paid in the first place. To sue, you are going to need to know who hired them. Suing the clamping company would be chucking good money after bad. They are resigned to going out of business in four months anyway, so you won't get anything from them. The landowner is your real target. If it turns out it was on a public road take it to the Police.

HO87

@OP If you are actually going to sue the clampers then the procedure to follow is to issue a Notice before Action letter before you issue proceedings via MCOL. The letter setting out the basic facts - minus any emotion or emotive comment and making you demand for the repayment of the charge and any other expenses you incurred as a result should be sent to the clamping company (if a Ltd company to its registered office); the landowners or their agents - whoever instructed/contracted with the clampers and the individual clamper himself.
Sending a MCOL without the NBA will almost certainly result in an own goal. Be prepared for the clamping company to simply ignore everything - and don't expect them to pay up even if you get judgment. That is why it is important to sue the landowner/agent a well. They will have far more assets you could get distraint on in due course and ar far more likely to pay up.

System

@HO87: I am aware of that. I still have to get the details of the landowner.

One thing that puzzled me was a comment made by the clamper. The council own one side of the road and the owner of the land and building that adjoins the road owns the other half, Can this be the case?

ManxRed

Something doesn't add up here.

The lack of a proper clamp, (in favour of a chain), the fact that the road might well be council adopted.

You may have been scammed by a rogue clamper out to max his takings before he becomes unemployed in October. I hope I am wrong though.

Did he have an SIA badge on display the whole time? Were there any signs nearby warning of clamping in operation? If so, can you get some pictures?

Were you given a receipt? Can you post up the SIA number on the receipt?

LincolnshireYokel

I helped friend remove a clamp years ago, by taking off the front wishbone and then replacing it all. The clamp we gave to a lorry driver friend who took it up to Aberdeen and handed it in to the police station. We then phoned the clampers and told them where there clamp was. I have no idea if they ever drove the 1200 mile round trip to collect it.

Coupon-mad

!!!!!! wrote: »

Can you also include the clamper as well as the 2 main parties?

One party is the firm of clampers...in my reply above I referred to the clampers and also the person/company who contracted them! The ones who let them in!

On pepipoo, which is where you need to go now, they sometimes also suggest a third party (clamper himself, personally). And they don't recommend MCOL for a 3-way claim - I think the forms you get from the County Court have more space so are better for this, even though it costs a few quid more than online.

HO87

!!!!!! wrote: »

@HO87: I am aware of that. I still have to get the details of the landowner.

OK. But your account seems to suggest you had gone straight to an MCOL claim.

!!!!!! wrote: »

One thing that puzzled me was a comment made by the clamper. The council own one side of the road and the owner of the land and building that adjoins the road owns the other half, Can this be the case?

It could well be. Your description doesn't help work out whether it is the case or not. The local council should be able to help.

I agree with the others that something doesn't quite add up here. I can find absolutely no trace whatsoever of this company under the name you have suggested but a similarly initialled company - Crows Nest Security Ltd that was connected to an address in Meeting Street, Wednesbury have been involved in slightly odd clamping in the past.

Aretnap

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Anyway, make sure in your claim you also cite the recent decisions of HMRC -v- VCS and VCS -v- Ibbotson.

As well as rubbish signage, the important point is that, in any case, the clampers almost certainly won't have sufficient rights to the land to make a contract containing an offer to park. And they cannot claim for trespass - only a landowner can do that - nor for breach of contract as that would be a penalty (unlawful).

The principles behind clamping are completely different to those behind PPC tickets, so those cases aren't really relevant. Clampers don't rely on contract law, or even on their rights over the land, assuming they're agents for the occupier, but on the (alleged) fact that the clampee knew full well that by parking there he might get clamped, so he can hardly complain that it happens. They then charge him a fee for the "service" of removing the clamp, which must be "reasonable" (whatever that means). The key case is Arthur v Anker - full judgement here, summaries here and here.