private clamping thoughts!!

[nero12]

Hi all,

Right Ive done some research on the clamping issue and after a lot of digging
Around and asking a few people in the know so to speak this is what have been told.


There are no set laws on heights and sizes of ‘no parking’ signs on private property
But there is clear law about these signs on public land, therefore you should use ‘public rules’ as a reference to determine these

So under the road traffic act 1991 the rules are

The ‘no parking sign’ should be ‘three car lengths of your vehicle’
The ‘no parking sign ‘should be at a ‘reasonable height ‘so you can observe it.

So if you have been clamped and you are more than three car lengths from any sign


Always pay with a credit card to have the clamp removed then cancel the payment next day if you can, tell the card company the payment is in dispute.

Take photos of your car in relation to said sign (or move it after you’ve had the clamp removed … Ahem) then take photos, show measurements

Write to the issuing company and state the following

The Road Traffic Act of 1991 specifically states that a vehicle can be clamped only if parking restriction notices are located within “three car lengths” of that vehicle and the notices are at “a reasonable height” to allow the vehicle owner to see them.

My vehicle was parked outside these parameters when it was clamped. This makes the clamping of my vehicle, and the charge applied illegal under the Road Traffic Act of 1991.

I have supplied the following supporting evidence to prove my claim:

1) photographs which show that my vehicle was clearly not within the aforementioned vicinity of a parking restriction sign.

2) A copy of my original notes which show the measurements I made at the scene. These show that the sign was placed illegally / I was outside the vicinity of the restriction sign that legally warrants a wheel clamp being applied.

I request that you provide a refund of my payment and that you inform me, in writing, of your decision.

if you don’t get a result the first time then threaten to sue

Now I don’t know for sure but im told this works, and has been tested although I haven’t seen the proof.


Any comments brilliant forum by the way

[battyboomboom]

The Court of Appeal (I think it was the Vine vs Waltham Forest case) ruled that you must see, read and understand the signs, so it is more strict than the RTA 91. Personally, I wouldn't bother with RTA, because it doesn't apply to private parking, for it needs to be DPE and have a TMO.

And that letter above should be a LBA, and you don't need to get a decision from them - give them 2 weeks and then sue.