Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
Have just heard on our local news station that ABLE PARKING have been fined £1800 in Court.
The background to this is that Mr & Mrs Hood parked their car in a private car park in Bristol last year. There was a smallish sign advising the charges. They returned back in the evening to find their car clamped.
They called the company, ABLE PARKING and agreed to pay a release fee of £150. The clamping co advised that they had to pay instead approx: £700 to cover tow fees. Mr Hood argued that this was not right as the car had not even been towed it was still in the car park !!
The clamping co advised him to go to his cash machine. Mr Hood refused and his car was taken and remained in the pound for approx: 3 weeks before they had to pay £750 approx for it to be released.
The couple sued and the Judge agreed in Court today that the firm ABLE PARKING must pay £1,800 to include costs as THE COMPANY WERE NOT PROPERLY REGISTERED.
The companies phones are apparently not working and the signs in the car park have been removed...........BUT they have been replaced with another sign with a different company name: ABLE PARKING & SECURITY.
ABLE PARKING are owned are a person called PETER MAY who is also know in the business as "HAPPY CLAMPERS".
PS: If there are slight errors in the above it is because I was writing shorthand while listening on television news.
A clamping firm has been ordered to pay a motorist £1,800 after it illegally towed her car away and made her hand over £725 to get it back.
Janet Hood, from Clifton, decided to take a stand against the clampers, Able Parking Services, and took the company to Bristol Small Claims Court.
The 68-year-old and her husband Jim represented themselves at the hearing before Judge Louise O'Neill yesterday.
Mrs Hood said she parked her Honda Jazz on derelict land beside the Pro-Cathedral in Park Place, Clifton, on March 27 last year while she and her husband attended an event at the Royal West of England Academy.
It was dark and they saw no signs relating to parking but when they returned they found the car had been clamped.
Mrs Hood, who used to run the Vintner Wine Bar in Bristol, found a notice on the windscreen which had a telephone number and stated the release fee was £100.
The couple returned home and Mrs Hood rang the company and offered to pay the £100 fee by cheque.
She said: "We went back and sat in the car and clamper Peter May came at about 9.30pm.
"I offered him a cheque for £100 but he wouldn't take it. My husband offered him £100 in cash and he said he wanted £250. He said this was a tow-away charge, but the car had not been towed away.
"We were prepared to pay £100 to unclamp the car but no more."
The clamper told Mr Hood he should go to a cashpoint to get more money but he refused. Mr May drove away leaving the couple beside their still-clamped car.
The following day Mr Hood took photos at the Pro-Cathedral site, which was owned by developer Urban Creation. He found a "no parking" sign which had the name Metro Parking on it, a company which no longer exists.
Mrs Hood's car was taken away two days later and she had no idea where it was.
She and her husband spoke to a police officer who telephoned Mr May. The clamper said it would now cost the couple £350 to get their car back.
Eventually Mrs Hood's car was delivered on a low loader to Trinity Road police station after she agreed to pay £725. The extra money was for storage.
Meanwhile the Hoods' solicitor had been investigating and found that Able Parking Services was not incorporated as a company until September 2006.
The company sent a document to the court which it claimed was a contract authorising it to clamp cars on behalf of the land owners Urban Creation. The document was dated April 2005.
Judge O'Neill said: "It is very clear that the person who put the notice up was not authorised by anyone to clamp cars and it is not clear whether the person who did the clamping had any authority.
"He needed to have legal authority from the landowner or someone properly authorised."
She said the disparity between the date of the Urban Creation contract and the date the company was incorporated coupled with Able Parking Services' failure to attend the hearing caused her some consternation.
Ruling in Mrs Hood's favour, the judge said: "The defendant did not satisfy the court it had any legal authority to trespass upon Mrs Hood's vehicle. By that I mean applying a clamp to it. It is unlawful for anybody, without authority, to have clamped or towed away Mrs Hood's vehicle."
She ordered Able Parking Services to pay £1,803.25 within 14 days. The amount includes the £725 release fee, £587 solicitor's fee, court fees, interest, and £350 for the loss of use of the car for 13 days. Afterwards Mrs Hood said: "I'm thrilled. Someone has to stand up to these people."
Her husband said: "Their attitude was very intimidating. We feel it was serious harassment, particularly being told to go to a cashpoint. It's just not on for these people to think they can do that."
The Post tried to contact Able Parking Services for a comment but a recorded message on the firm's telephone number says that it is no longer in service.
Able Parking Services can appeal against the judgment but only if a mistake has been made in law or the proceedings.
If the company does not pay, Mrs Hood will have to go back to the Small Claims Court
If the company does not pay, Mrs Hood will have to go back to the Small Claims Court
Tomtubby thanks for heads up on the story.
I'd also speculate that this crowd aren't licensed by the SIA either. I wonder whether she's checked them out. Both the landowner and the people involved can be done. As this is in my neck of the woods I've put a comment to that effect on the story in local paper.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This does not constitute legal advice and is not represented as a substitute for legal advice from an appropriately qualified person or firm. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I assume that other people who have paid this company in the past can claim a refund.
Assuming of course that the company is still around......
It really depends on the circumstances of each case. The existing case law Vine vs LBC Waltham Forest and Arthur V Anker make a lot of issue about the signage. It must be clear and visible and able to read and understood. But by the sounds of things I'd yes they would be eligible and able to sue for refund.
However recovering is going to be fun. I don't think the landowner will be culpable (from the Evening Post story) and if the Company has ceased trading then they'll have to go after the directors. They can be sued for the amount of their investment in the company. The concept of limited liability comes into play here. However if the Company wasn't properly incorporated then the directors may have unlimited liability.
I think the key thing here is to know your rights so that if you are clamped you know what to do and do it quickly - a lot of these companies are fly-by-night. That was my motivation in writing the Clamping Guide.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This does not constitute legal advice and is not represented as a substitute for legal advice from an appropriately qualified person or firm. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
She said the disparity between the date of the Urban Creation contract and the date the company was incorporated coupled with Able Parking Services' failure to attend the hearing caused her some consternation.
The Post tried to contact Able Parking Services for a comment but a recorded message on the firm's telephone number says that it is no longer in service.
I reckon that Able Parking have already folded up their tent and have done a phoenix thus the Hoods will never get their £1800. I don't think there is recourse against the directors of a limited company.
not necessarily - when pursuing clampers one should always cite the landowner as well as the clampers, something that seems to have not been done in this case regrettably. If they have to go back to small claims they should cite the landowner. Also pursue through Companies House or the CIB action against the directors including getting them disqualified from future directorships.
Besides that there is section 51 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, the court has discretion to make a costs order against a person who is not even a party to the court proceedings. A key factor, according to the Privy Council, is whether the third party does not merely fund the proceedings, but substantially controls them or will benefit from them; in such cases, the third party is the ‘real party’ to the litigation.
I don't think there is recourse against the directors of a limited company.
Directors can sued. The amount of liability depends on the capitalisation of the Company. Simply put if I start a business with £100 then I am liable for company debts up to £100. After that there can be no comeback hence the limited liability.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This does not constitute legal advice and is not represented as a substitute for legal advice from an appropriately qualified person or firm. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
not necessarily - when pursuing clampers one should always cite the landowner as well as the clampers, something that seems to have not been done in this case regrettably.
A key point in the case was that the landowner had not given Able permission to clamp. The letter of authority was dated prior to Able being set up so could not be valid. If the permission had been correctly granted the case would have gone in Ables favor.
Judge O'Neill said: "It is very clear that the person who put the notice up was not authorised by anyone to clamp cars and it is not clear whether the person who did the clamping had any authority.
"He needed to have legal authority from the landowner or someone properly authorised."
The landowners therefore cannot be held liable as they are legally entitled by law to clamp.
The landowners therefore cannot be held liable as they are legally entitled by law to clamp.
But they cannot increase the release fee, so there still would have been a cause of action here.
Post by me are intended as a discussion of the issues involved, as these are of general interest to me and others on the forum. Although it is hoped such discussion will be of use to readers, before exposing yourself to risk of loss you should not rely on any principles discussed without confirming the situation with a qualified person.
Regarding Able Parking Services Limited, Company No. 05928261. Following disolution of this company today I would welcome any sightings of the Black Nissan Navara Pick-up vehicle registered as a 57 plate and previously used in the clamping/removal of vehicles.
They won't get a penny. Didn't anyone see the dit on Watchdog a little while ago. A man had his car towed from his own land, twice, it went to court and he won but they refuse to pay out.
Trading Standards wants your help
Dubious website businesses Conterfeit alcohol and cigarettes Illegal sales of alcohol, tobacco, knives & fireworks to children Cowboy builders or tradesmen Car clockers Counterfeiters Aggressive selling
Never phone or accept phonecalls from debt collection companies.
If you don't believe you can win, there is no point in getting out of bed.
_________________________ ________________ _________________________ ___________________
They won't get a penny. Didn't anyone see the dit on Watchdog a little while ago. A man had his car towed from his own land, twice, it went to court and he won but they refuse to pay out.
I am aware of the difficulty of recovering money too from clampers, even with a court order (not happened to me but others I know of) so what is the worst one can do through the courts. For example, if the company refuses to pay out on an order, cannot a warrant of execution be applied for and the ballifs sent in - how would it work. Very curious, but lacking knowledge.
TFT
09/07/09 Business Studies BA(Hons) 2:1
eCar Insurance overpayment - £325
Settled in full - 15/09/08 NatWest Student A/C bank charges - £260
Settled under hardship scheme - 08/06/09 Natwest Business A/C bank charges - £60
Settled in full as GOGW - 20/04/09 Santander Consumer Finance late payment fees - £60
Part settled for £48 - 01/03/08 Peugeot Finance late payment fees - £50
Settled in full before county court hearing - 01/09/09 Peugeot Finance overpayment of £247
Settled in full - 01/12/08 Valley Leisure - complaint about collections agent
£160 part refund of gym membership in compensation - 01/02/09 HFC Bank - complaint about payment deducted from my account on wrong date
GOGW £10 - 01/05/09
You can apply to have a judgement enforced against a third party
You can apply to have property seized
So there a number of tracks you can down.
In general terms a limited company is treated as a seperate Legal entity. The company officers become liable for any wrong doing - directors and/or company secretary.
However for liability purposes then a director is generally limited to the amount of capital in the company. (e.g. if the company is set up with £1000 then the director(s) are personally liable up to £1000.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This does not constitute legal advice and is not represented as a substitute for legal advice from an appropriately qualified person or firm. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is persuasive argument from the privy council as to 'controlling minds' but you would have to be in the right venue to use it - and its only persuasive. Email Betty Boothroyd about the issue of them skipping court judgments with ease and the need for real teeth so that the law has 'bite'.
Court Victory......able Parking....fined £1800
Reply With Quote
Re: Court Victory......able Parking....fined £1800
Originally Posted by green_and_mean
Business Studies BA(Hons) 2:1