Car Park Barriers

RENEGADE_2

So you've been up that path as well. You know the ropes then don't you? Remove all other keys such as house, work locker, garden shed and whatever else...and it is best if your car, like mine, has no immobiliser, just a no-frills vehicle that runs when you turn the key. Obviously I kept the central lock device because I knew they could enter the vehicle with the key I left them...provided the last action was with that same key. Obviously I left it unlocked for them.

But my curiousity is this: you wouldn't order new parts and pay hundreds of pounds for repairs unless your car were worth considerably more. Now in light of this fact, can they be justified in holding onto something evidently more expensive than their demand? And given that they take this option, are you even obliged to pay them for any part of their work? I see no reason for them to make a fuss over the vehicle's location if their claim were payable as they state.

Sirdan

Although we digress I believe they can hold the vehicle even if it is worth far more than the debt.
Ultimately a court can order the sale of the vehicle and the cost of the repairs and any legal costs go to the garage , the remainder to the owner of said vehicle.

The issue of location is relevant because the address you give may not be the address where the vehicle is kept or more to the point where you actually live , this makes recovery by county court claim somewhat more tricky ..keeping hold of the vehicle is just an easier option for them ...unless they are dealing with you or me of course !!:rotfl:

RENEGADE_2

Aretnap wrote: »

No it isn't.

Clamping (as was ruled legal by the Court of Appeal, at least) has nothing to do with non-payment of debts. It was what you could expect to happen if you parked on someone else's land, knowing that clamping was in operation, and that prevented you from suing the clamper for the otherwise unlawful interference with your goods (a most ingenious extension of the principle of volenti non fit injuria). It did not create any obligation on your part to pay any money to the clamper... but the clamper was entitled to charge a reasonable fee for the "service" of removing the clamp, so if you didn't want to pay him for that service and you couldn't get the clamp off yourself you'd be a bit stuffed next time you wanted to use the car.

Arthur & Another v Anker & Another = Absolute cobblers. Badly defended; poor behaviour by Arthurs did not help.

The judge was evidently not worth his salt and if it were down to me, he'd be claiming jobseekers. Neither £40 nor 40p is reasonable unless the claimant can provide evidence that this was his expense and that the figure is not a penalty. The judge merely accepted the sum was "reasonable" per his opinion but failed in every other aspect to relate this to the protocols of Contract Law.

Sigs or no signs. The vehicle is not the property of the person seizing it and therefore it is black and white, the clampers only had as much right to seize the car until demand be satisfied as you plastering your windows to tell the clamper that by immobilising your vehicle, he agrees to pay you £1,000 before releasing the car immediately and you be allowed to punch his head. And if he proceeds, well, volenti not fit injuria eh? He knew the consequences.

All he has to do is subtract the landowner fee from your one grand, release the car, stand and let you twаt him one, Happy Days. That's what the signage he agreed to said. Contracts are a two-way enterprise, are they not? Or was the judge partial to the clamping firm?

The Arthurs desperately needed two thigs: 1) a decent solicitor, 2) a competent judge. It seems they had neither.

RENEGADE_2

Sirdan wrote: »

The issue of location is relevant because the address you give may not be the address where the vehicle is kept or more to the point where you actually live

I've never been asked to provide an address.

dggar

Aretnap wrote: »

Plod wouldn't be interested - it's not their job to enforce CUPTR for a start - but maybe one of the more enlightened Trading Standards departments could be persuaded to take an interest...

.

Manchester don't seem very enlightened

see here

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4227127

RENEGADE_2

With prats like Judge Thompson in the courts, I'm surprised the PPCs don't all go crying to him - he'd stick him tongue right up their rear holes. After all, a motorist gets a ticket, he doesn't pay, he ignores the debt collection letters, surely by Thompson's reasoning he should award the claimant here too.

Thompson should have known that nobody has the right to touch your possessions without a court order, that a landowner may only legally seek losses and that a citizen has a right to a hearing before the allegation against him be registered. With his sardonic judgement, he defied the Magna Carta which was never repealed, the Bill of Rights 1690, the Act of Settlement 1701, and the Human Rights Act 1998 Article 6.

Never mind MOTs for vehicles, some senile County Court judges could do with their own MOTs. Thompson backed the rogues, he was a write-off.

Furthermore, court cases are not about setting precedents. Acts of Parliament are, the judge only has the right to act according to prescribed laws - not invent them.

Sirdan

RENEGADE wrote: »

Thompson should have known that nobody has the right to touch your possessions without a court order, that a landowner may only legally seek losses and that a citizen has a right to a hearing before the allegation against him be registered. With his sardonic judgement, he defied the Magna Carta which was never repealed, the Bill of Rights 1690, the Act of Settlement 1701, and the Human Rights Act 1998 Article 6.

A sweeping statement indeed ,there are plenty of circumstances where seizure of goods is permitted without a "court order" however in the context of parking and contracts you are mostly correct. I'd forget the Bill of Rights though ..a total red herring ..we don't encourage Freemen of the Land here ..except for laughs

RENEGADE_2

Sirdan wrote: »

there are plenty of circumstances where seizure of goods is permitted without a "court order" ...

Of course. Well not seizure, that is very much illegal but holding onto what you have already been given in good faith yes. We established one of these though the vehicle with unpaid repairs at the garage. No doubt on similar lines there are others, but if you've just fitted new timing belts, fan belts, seat belts and the like and it has taken you and your staff hours then you have to be a little bit fair!

But I don't shed a tear for clampers now the new bill is in effect, Long Live The PFB! :T:j

Sirdan

RENEGADE wrote: »

Of course. Well not seizure, that is very much illegal

By a private enterprise / individual yes by the state decidely not !

Aretnap

RENEGADE wrote: »

Arthur & Another v Anker & Another = Absolute cobblers. Badly defended; poor behaviour by Arthurs did not help.

The judge was evidently not worth his salt and if it were down to me, he'd be claiming jobseekers. Neither £40 nor 40p is reasonable unless the claimant can provide evidence that this was his expense and that the figure is not a penalty. The judge merely accepted the sum was "reasonable" per his opinion but failed in every other aspect to relate this to the protocols of Contract Law.

Sigs or no signs. The vehicle is not the property of the person seizing it and therefore it is black and white, the clampers only had as much right to seize the car until demand be satisfied as you plastering your windows to tell the clamper that by immobilising your vehicle, he agrees to pay you £1,000 before releasing the car immediately and you be allowed to punch his head. And if he proceeds, well, volenti not fit injuria eh? He knew the consequences.

All he has to do is subtract the landowner fee from your one grand, release the car, stand and let you twаt him one, Happy Days. That's what the signage he agreed to said. Contracts are a two-way enterprise, are they not? Or was the judge partial to the clamping firm?

The Arthurs desperately needed two thigs: 1) a decent solicitor, 2) a competent judge. It seems they had neither.

<Shrugs> Arthur v Anker isn't some small claims court case which can be written off as badly defended, it's a decision of the Court of Appeal and as such is binding case law (The Law, in other words). Obviously you're entitled to your opinion that the CoA got it wrong (I don't think much of it either), but unless you're a Supreme Court judge you'll find that your opinion doesn't count for very much.

PS It has nothing to do with contract law - by mentioning contracts you're showing that you don't understand the principles behind the judgement.

PPS There was more than one judge.