Took wheelclamper to small claims court what next...

oscarisalittledog

I got wheelclamped on private land when I had not seen the small hidden in a corner sign. I was forced to pay £260 to the crooks. (i'm sure hundreds of you have been in a similar position)

After advice from Which, RAC and various online forums I began a Small Claim online. I said that the clamping was illegal because the signage was inadequate and in any case, the fine was unreasonable.

The clampers submitted a defence (after the time limit for their response had passed) saying that the signs were adequate and the charge reasonable.
The Judge ordered that the defendant produce photographic evidence of the signs. They did not produce anything by the deadline set by the judge, however they were permitted to submit their photographs in the following month.

The Judge then wrote to say that the court was proposing to strike out the claim on the basis of the photographs and that if I wanted to object, I should do so by a particular date.
At this point, I had not seen the photos. I wrote to the court immediately and stated this.
A week or so later, I received the photos. However, I had very little time to prepare my objection. I called the court and explained. They said that I had to submit something by the deadline.

I did my best to prepare all my evidence and submitted it with my objection to the striking out of the claim (the photos were referring to separate area of land and it was clear that the sign was pathetic and not visible at night).
I requested a court hearing to fully explain the situation.

I was sent a letter telling me that a hearing would take place and that ten minutes had been allocated.

I received no directions at any stage.

I attended the hearing armed with good arguments and well researched evidence (in my layman view). I had the Vine v. Waltham Forest case about signage. I had Trading Standards guidance on signage, I had the British Parking Association Code of Conduct on signage. This was to present what could be considered reasonable signage in order for a person to properly enter into a contract on trespass.

I also had pictures of other local clampers charges as a worst case scenario showing how unreasonable the fine was in order to at least get part of the extortionate fee reimbursed.

I had assumed that the Judge would know about Law of Trespass and Contract law requiring consent and signage issues. However, as soon as I entered the room, she announced to me even before I had sat down that as far as she was concerned it was private land and I shouldn't have parked there. I tried to present my evidence and she kept interrupting and did not listen. At one point, she went quite and seemed to be listening. She then stated that she was not aware of the Vine v. Waltham Forest case and that she was certain that the defendant did not have this same information that I was presenting now. (The defendant did not turn up)

Anyway, at the end she said again that it was private land and that I took a chance and I got caught and that was her final judgement. I asked about an appeal process and she said that she would deny permission to appeal on the grounds that the case had little chance of being successful.

However, this case has been mishandled by the Small Claims Court as far as I can tell. The Judge ignored the relevant case law. I wasn't given directions. I didn't know what I was supposed to do. I thought the Small Claims Court was for the Layperson. Deadlines were ignored by the Defence but applied to me. I was deliberately left with little time to prepare.

Is this right? Anyway, I do want to appeal because these private wheel clampers are crooks who have robbed me. I think there is a Circuit Judge who I appeal to next. But I need to ensure that they know about the relevant case law i.e. Vine v. Waltham Forest and Trading Standards rulings.

Can anybody suggest what what to do next. I do not intend to give up if there is any chance.

Banana23

oscarisalittledog wrote: »

I got wheelclamped on private land when I had not seen the small hidden in a corner sign. I was forced to pay £260 to the crooks. (i'm sure hundreds of you have been in a similar position)

After advice from Which, RAC and various online forums I began a Small Claim online. I said that the clamping was illegal because the signage was inadequate and in any case, the fine was unreasonable.

The clampers submitted a defence (after the time limit for their response had passed) saying that the signs were adequate and the charge reasonable.
The Judge ordered that the defendant produce photographic evidence of the signs. They did not produce anything by the deadline set by the judge, however they were permitted to submit their photographs in the following month.

The Judge then wrote to say that the court was proposing to strike out the claim on the basis of the photographs and that if I wanted to object, I should do so by a particular date.
At this point, I had not seen the photos. I wrote to the court immediately and stated this.
A week or so later, I received the photos. However, I had very little time to prepare my objection. I called the court and explained. They said that I had to submit something by the deadline.

I did my best to prepare all my evidence and submitted it with my objection to the striking out of the claim (the photos were referring to separate area of land and it was clear that the sign was pathetic and not visible at night).
I requested a court hearing to fully explain the situation.

I was sent a letter telling me that a hearing would take place and that ten minutes had been allocated.

I received no directions at any stage.

I attended the hearing armed with good arguments and well researched evidence (in my layman view). I had the Vine v. Waltham Forest case about signage. I had Trading Standards guidance on signage, I had the British Parking Association Code of Conduct on signage. This was to present what could be considered reasonable signage in order for a person to properly enter into a contract on trespass.

I also had pictures of other local clampers charges as a worst case scenario showing how unreasonable the fine was in order to at least get part of the extortionate fee reimbursed.

I had assumed that the Judge would know about Law of Trespass and Contract law requiring consent and signage issues. However, as soon as I entered the room, she announced to me even before I had sat down that as far as she was concerned it was private land and I shouldn't have parked there. I tried to present my evidence and she kept interrupting and did not listen. At one point, she went quite and seemed to be listening. She then stated that she was not aware of the Vine v. Waltham Forest case and that she was certain that the defendant did not have this same information that I was presenting now. (The defendant did not turn up)

Anyway, at the end she said again that it was private land and that I took a chance and I got caught and that was her final judgement. I asked about an appeal process and she said that she would deny permission to appeal on the grounds that the case had little chance of being successful.

However, this case has been mishandled by the Small Claims Court as far as I can tell. The Judge ignored the relevant case law. I wasn't given directions. I didn't know what I was supposed to do. I thought the Small Claims Court was for the Layperson. Deadlines were ignored by the Defence but applied to me. I was deliberately left with little time to prepare.

Is this right? Anyway, I do want to appeal because these private wheel clampers are crooks who have robbed me. I think there is a Circuit Judge who I appeal to next. But I need to ensure that they know about the relevant case law i.e. Vine v. Waltham Forest and Trading Standards rulings.

Can anybody suggest what what to do next. I do not intend to give up if there is any chance.

If there wasn't appropriate signage you are in the right! Excerpt from his article on Consumer Action Group and Pepipoo:

"The Private Parking Company (PPC) must make the terms clear to the user of the car park. Therefore they are obliged to place ample and appropriate signage about the car park to make those persons using the facilities aware of the terms. The signs must be clear and unambiguous and it cannot be obscured, faded, covered up or in any way difficult or impossible to read and understand. Often times those terms will include a provision that if you over stay you will be penalised to the tune of £50, £70 or whatever. They may also include a clause on clamping (I will not be dealing with the issue of clamping in this article). These signs are usually displayed at the pay stations (for pay and display) and for other car parks at the entrance and at intervals about the land. If the car park is improperly signed then immediately the PPC will be in difficulty. Thus when the driver parks the vehicle in the car park and pays or otherwise he accepts by way of his actions and a contract is formed between he and the owner of the land. "


Pete Jones will give you legal advice. His contact details are at the bottom of this page:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?autocom=ibwiki&cmd=article&id=56

I really don't want to sound patronising, but it is never a good idea (I'm sure you are aware of this yourself by now) to defend yourself without a solicitor.
I'm Sure Mr Jones will give you sufficient legal advice and help you sort this out. Good luck and I hope you get your money back of those poo poo heads including the money you had to spend going through small claims!

oscarisalittledog

Many Thanks Banana 23

I will contact Pete Jones and put up an update when I hear back from him.
I don't think it is patronising at all what you say. I suppose I was naive to believe that the small claims court is genuinely designed for the ordinary person. Not everybody (including me) can afford a solicitor. I am still astounded that these muggers are legally allowed to continue operating in this way.

Crabman

oscarisalittledog wrote: »

Many Thanks Banana 23

I will contact Pete Jones and put up an update when I hear back from him.
I don't think it is patronising at all what you say. I suppose I was naive to believe that the small claims court is genuinely designed for the ordinary person. Not everybody (including me) can afford a solicitor. I am still astounded that these muggers are legally allowed to continue operating in this way.

It's surprising to read what happened in court - I thought when the defendant ignores the deadline for filing defence/doesn't turn up then you win by default? I don't know about the small claims process in detail though so just want to say, best of luck! :beer:

Banana23

oscarisalittledog wrote: »

Many Thanks Banana 23

I will contact Pete Jones and put up an update when I hear back from him.
I don't think it is patronising at all what you say. I suppose I was naive to believe that the small claims court is genuinely designed for the ordinary person. Not everybody (including me) can afford a solicitor. I am still astounded that these muggers are legally allowed to continue operating in this way.

You're welcome, no probs at all! Please let us know how you're getting on but I'm pretty sure Pete Jones will sort it for you. Also, if you're on low income you might be eligible for legal aid? Definitely worth looking into contacting Citizen's Advice.

With regards to Crabman's interesting question, I found this info on the justice.gov.uk website:

Non-attendance of parties at a final hearing
If a party who does not attend a final hearing –
a)has given written notice to the court and the other party at least 7 days before the hearing date that he will not attend;
(b)has served on the other party at least 7 days before the hearing date any other documents which he has filed with the court; and
(c)has, in his written notice, requested the court to decide the claim in his absence and has confirmed his compliance with paragraphs (a) and (b) above,

the court will take into account that party's statement of case and any other documents he has filed and served when it decides the claim.

2)If a claimant does not –
(a)attend the hearing; and
(b)give the notice referred to in paragraph (1),

the court may strike out (GL) the claim.
(3)If –
(a)a defendant does not –
(i)attend the hearing; or
(ii)give the notice referred to in paragraph (1); and
(b)the claimant either –
(i)does attend the hearing; or
(ii)gives the notice referred to in paragraph (1),

the court may decide the claim on the basis of the evidence of the claimant alone.
(4)If neither party attends or gives the notice referred to in paragraph (1), the court may strike out (GL) the claim and any defence and counterclaim."

So, if the defendant didn't inform you at least 7 days in advance about his intention to not attending the hearing, you might have a case to appeal?

Tigsteroonie

oscarisalittledog wrote: »

... The clampers submitted a defence (after the time limit for their response had passed)
.. They did not produce anything by the deadline set by the judge, however they were permitted to submit their photographs in the following month
... I had very little time to prepare my objection. I called the court and explained. They said that I had to submit something by the deadline ...
... I received no directions at any stage.
... I tried to present my evidence and she kept interrupting and did not listen.

... this case has been mishandled by the Small Claims Court as far as I can tell.

This sounds so familiar.

My hubbie's car was damaged when driving through a deep water-filled pothole down our single track road. Not wanting to get into an argument about potholes, I shall simply say that he had good reason to pursue the local Council for the costs of repair. When the Council did not respond, he took them to the Scottish equiv of the Small Claims Court.

The court date was delayed because the Council initially didn't respond - they should have been automatically found in default, but they were allowed to re-schedule the hearing. Hubbie received no direction or assistance, and was made to feel a complete novice during the court appearance. In the end, feeling incredibly uncomfortable surrounded by professional barristers, he agreed to withdraw the claim and negotiate a settlement (which was all we wanted the Council to do in the first place).

He did try to complain to the local court about their handling of our claim, but he couldn't face returning to that stuffy atmosphere to explain how he felt they had treated him like the dirt on the soles of their shoes.

It has certainly put us off considering any Small Claims Court action in future.

Conor_3

Q: Was it private land? If so, what made you think you had the right to park on it?

Banana23

Conor wrote: »

Q: Was it private land? If so, what made you think you had the right to park on it?

You asked exactly the same question in another thread yesterday. Have you still not read it and its articles properly? Because if you had, you would know that there needs to be sufficient signage on private land, visible to everyone (see my first reply and its excerpt) and read:

"The Private Parking Company (PPC) must make the terms clear to the user of the car park. Therefore they are obliged to place ample and appropriate signage about the car park to make those persons using the facilities aware of the terms. The signs must be clear and unambiguous and it cannot be obscured, faded, covered up or in any way difficult or impossible to read and understand."

If you have no intentions on helping anyone actually saving some money (which this forum is about) or in this case helping someone who has clearly been unfairly treated DON'T BOTHER ADDING POSTING IN THIS FORUM!! I really am starting to question your motive for being on this forum at all!!

oscarisalittledog

Just to update.
The next stage after a small claims judgement is an appeal. An appeal could only be carried out under particular circumstances of a procedural irregularity or mistake in law. I could have done this because the judge did not know about the Vine v. Waltham Forest case. However it costs £100 to appeal. If the appeal is unsuccessful then the claimant has to foot the defendants legal bills.
Plus, I would most probably have needed a solicitor to have won - more costs. Plus, the first thing a solicitor would want would be a transcript of the hearing - another £100.
So, I have left it to Karma.
Hope this is helpful to someone. Don't be discouraged about taking these people to court just be aware of the process and what is involved.