Thread: Clamping - your comments

I have before stated I work for a clamping company in Birmingham - we do not mess around with parking charges/tickets as our clients want a quick solution to their problems.

I saw this comment earlier:

Originally Posted by fridgedoor

Maybe that's why he's down here, earning his "easy money" off the backs of decent, hard working people?

My question is this ... A landowner/business/shop etc.. has a right to protect his/her land and can do a variety of things.

A typical small shop-owner/business cannot afford to install automatic barriers (in a perfect world maybe they would, but in the real commercial world they cant).

They can either issue parking tickets or wheel-clamping to prevent people who park without permission on land they are simply not entitled to park on ..

Parking is an expensive business these days and no one should automatically think they have a right to park anywhere, they should always look around for signage and never presume somewhere is free.

There is no such thing as a free car-park, I saw a judgement recently of a case which detailed a courts finding of this .... This is below:


15. I turn now to the main thrust of the defence. The main thrust of the defence is a legal one. Is there a contract? I hear the argument made by [personal details removed] and it is an interesting one. I am not with him on this point as to a contract, I must say. It seems to me that, if one goes back to basics, and if [personal details removed] will forgive me for doing it in this way, but it is important that I explain my rationale: what is a contract? A contract is effectively, I suppose one could describe it, as an agreement giving right to obligations which are enforceable or recognised by law. That is what a contract is. Normally, a contract involves offer, acceptance and consideration, and I think this is mentioned in [personal details removed] client's statement. Normally, that does not pose a problem. If you have got a car park where one pays to park, there is not a problem at all. You divide it up into its constituent parts. There is an offer: "You may park here within time limits but on condition you pay." There is an acceptance of that by parking your car. The consideration is that you put your 50p into the meter or whatever. There can be no argument about a contract, and [personal details removed] accepts that. This case is different because in this case there is not actually any, on the face of it, consideration, in the sense that this is a free car park. However, nothing in life is free. How often have we heard that? And how true it is. It is not free. Car parks are hugely expensive things to create and to run, I have no doubt. I know they are hugely expensive to create. I was horrified when I was chairman of an NHS Trust, and we put in a car park in place, as to how much it cost. It was a thousand pounds a space to build. It was hugely expensive and that was not an unusual figure. Car parks are expensive to build and maintain and, in my view, whilst this free parking is described as "free," it is on the basis that it is encouraging people to use the shops in the area, particularly, in this case, to use the shops on the retail park. That is what it is designed for and that is what it is intended to do.

16. In my view, that amounts to consideration because it is giving something of value - it is free parking, you are not paying for the privilege of being there - to the consumer and it is superficially to the detriment, I suppose, of the landowners, because the landowner is aware that he is not receiving any payment from the consumer directly. In my view there is consideration. I think it falls within that class of consideration that is not in money but is in money's worth in the sense that it is anticipated that people will go into the shops, the landowner does not own the shops but he rents the shops out and, obviously, if it is a successful site, then the amount of rent is reflected in that. So, it is basically a win-win for all concerned. The consumer gets free parking, which is valuable to them, the landowner attracts customers to the development and reaps higher rents. So, I am not of the view that there is not any value in this. There is, in my view, value.

17. We therefore have the constituent parts of a contract; we have an offer, we have acceptance and we have consideration. So, I am not with the defendants when they say that there is not a contractual claim. There is. It seems to me that the contract quite simply was that [personal details removed] was allowed to park within time limits at this site, she agreed to do it by parking and, as I say, the consideration was that she would use the shops, hopefully spend some money in those shops, generate profits for the shopkeepers and therefore they would be able to pay their rents. That is the theory. It does not always work, I know, but that is the theory. That, I think, disposes of that first point. It is a contract. I do not think I need to consider licences and whether or not it is a bare licence or whether or not it is recoverable. It is, in my judgment, a contract.


Most wheel clamps (and I would suspect tickets) are given because someone has been caught out fair and square - they have taken the chance and been unlucky.

In wheel clamping the clamp is attached, for us we remain with the vehicle until a tow truck arrives (no more than 30mins and also ensures the clamp is not tampered with) .. If the person arrives back before the tow truck arrives they pay to get it released ... and they do not ever come back.

We have the law on our side, and our standard wheel clamp charge is 75.00 - we get almost 100% payment .. parking companies who issue tickets do not get that return.

If a tow truck has started to remove the vehicle then they pay the towing fee of 135.00 plus 18 per day for storage.

This is clearly on the signage .. we take photos and also video of us attaching the clamp to show signage .. then when the tow truck arrives to detail any damage to the vehicle (yes, people accuse us of damaging their vehicle)


With ticketing, the problem is getting the money - I know a few parking companies who have the same vehicle 10,20,30 times because the keeper/driver keeps ignoring the charge and they do not enforce.

If someone stickes their 2 fingers up and the law is in essence allowing them to do it, a client needs to be more hardline - and that is where wheel clamping comes in.

The government wants to ban wheel clamping and the way they want to do it is by companies issuing tickets that are non confrontational but they only went half way.

In my personal view the law will change on private parking to make the keepers responsible for the charge - I may be wrong but the alternative is more wheel clamping which the government is 100% against but they also acknowledge parking is a massive problem and illegal/unauthorised parking needs to be tackled.

I am interested in knowing your views on this .. I am not talking or interested in someone parking on land in total darkness where there are no signs but in the general principle of a person parking on private land .. such as this one who posted to another thread:

Originally Posted by chocolatelover1

This might seem a wee bit selfish but I work next door to a big shop with a large car park atthe back. This car park is used by a lot of people (more non customers than customers - ie there is a church, mother toddler group next door and it is always extra full when there is a funeral/ playgroup days) and I have parked there for the last few years as it is the only place to park nearby for more than an hour which is handy for work. There are no signs saying that it is for customers only, just a sign warning that you park there at your own peril etc. Was recently told off for parking as am not a customer (although i do pop into the shop at least 3-4 times a week! - its a clothes shop im a girl!) by a member of staff but continue to park there as I am not the only one (I recognise all the car owners from surrounding businesses) (and its convenient!)but apparantly the only one asked not to park. It is a free unmanned car park and just need to know is there anything they can actually do like have my car clampedetc or can i (selfishly at the cost of customers) still park there and put up with the dirty looks ? lol!

The poster has been asked not to park but will still do so ... if we put signs up tomorrow and she was clamped the next day .. would you be helping her get out of it or say "tough" ????

Or if she was issued a ticket would you just say "Ignore it" ??

What about the landowner/Shop Keeper ??

Similar Threads:

• Clamping
• clamping appeal help!
• private clamping
• Wheel Clamping!!!
• clamping justice

You quote this from an unreferenced and unnamed judgement

17. We therefore have the constituent parts of a contract; we have an offer, we have acceptance and we have consideration. So, I am not with the defendants when they say that there is not a contractual claim.

If this is valid, then parking on private land is contractual (In fact, I don't think that anyone here has ever argued otherwise - it is PPCs who attempt to muddy the waters by referring to trespass)

Then you say this

In my personal view the law will change on private parking to make the keepers responsible for the charge

So in your view, the government (well, actually Parliament) will overturn centuries of law on privity of contract. The truth is, very basically, that you can't enter a contract on behalf of somebody else.

I somehow doubt that this will ever happen.

As for this

the alternative is more wheel clamping which the government is 100% against but they also acknowledge parking is a massive problem and illegal/unauthorised parking needs to be tackled.

I don't believe that the government actually give a tinker's cuss about the issue - there are not exactly a large number of votes in it. In fact, the opposite is true - wheel-clamping got such a bad name that the government have regulated and licensed it. Also, don't forget the government usually gets income from wheel clamping - most clamping companies are charging VAT.

Also note, that in Scotland wheel-clamping by private persons/companies is illegal.

Hmmm.. the very first sentence... " we do not mess around".. right!!. You mean, you just go ahead and do what you think is within the law, whether proved right or wrong. And of course, when you're wrong, you whinge and moan about it, and you don't give two hoots. If more people sued for loss of use, harrassment etc etc, something "might" change, but I doubt it... all those pounds are too good to pass up.. pure greed!!!

ANY clamping that does not follow SIA rules is illegal and the police should be called immediately. Check out the SIA website for what should happen and what information should be presented by the clamper. NEVER assume the SIA number etc is valid - always verify.

Removing a private (non council) clamp is not an offense. In most cases as long as no damage is done. There are instances where forcible removal is the appropriate 'self help'

On the ASSUMPTION that the private clamping is lawful (i.e. authorised by landowner, warning signs and reasonable - these conditions are often NOT met)
then removal and return of the clamp undamaged is reasonable self help since this is the best way to move the clamped vehicle and so end the tort of trespass.
whether or not the clampers can claim some form of fee or damages for their time is moot.

The purpose of clamping should not be profit but prevention of trespass.
Damaging the clamp is probably not reasonable self help provided the fee
is reasonable and the unclamping process is reasonable - if not then the clamping is unlawful anyway. Many instances show that fee is UNreasonable and the process is UNreasonable - e.g. "we have called the lorry so you have to pay for that"
If the clamping is manifestly unlawful then damaging the clamp is reasonable self help.
In summary
Clamping needs to comply with fairness and requirements of the
private securities industry act which now regulates it

If not then the clamping is an unlawful tort to property which
can be remedied by self help - including an angle grinder.

if 'forced' to pay seek redress through the courts against the landowner AND the clamper. You can end with a court warrant that restrains a few clamper assets !

correction999

Here's a question. You arrive at a carpark and park your van behind someone. They return before you have got out of your van and say "Do not clamp me. Move your van and let me out". What do you do?

Originally Posted by Steve__M

correction999

Here's a question. You arrive at a carpark and park your van behind someone. They return before you have got out of your van and say "Do not clamp me. Move your van and let me out". What do you do?

You cannot clamp whilst a person is inside a vehicle, so this person would not be clamped.

Originally Posted by gni03349

Hmmm.. the very first sentence... " we do not mess around".. right!!. You mean, you just go ahead and do what you think is within the law, whether proved right or wrong. And of course, when you're wrong, you whinge and moan about it, and you don't give two hoots. If more people sued for loss of use, harrassment etc etc, something "might" change, but I doubt it... all those pounds are too good to pass up.. pure greed!!!

If the signs say 'permit holders only' .. and a car is parked without a permit - it will be clamped, I struggle to see what is wrong about that !

The reason people dont sue is they dont have any chance of winning, it is that simple ... If you are not supposed to be there then you are not supposed to be there.

Originally Posted by patdavies

So in your view, the government (well, actually Parliament) will overturn centuries of law on privity of contract. The truth is, very basically, that you can't enter a contract on behalf of somebody else.

I feel it will have to do something if it wants landowners to adopt a more 'non confrontational way' of managing their land.

The clamping industry was hurt by people issuing tickets - most companies offer both, I for one would be happy to go back 5yrs when only clamping really existed.

Originally Posted by Zamzara

As for shop keepers, you can sue the owner of the vehicle for tresspass, and receive actual damages or nominal damages.

The reason no one does this is it deals with problem without making a profit.

Nope, in the REAL commercial world shop keepers do not have the time and I suspect the same issues would be experienced as those involved with chasing non payment of tickets.

The Anker case on clamping stated a company is allowed to charge a fixed fee that covers costs + an appropiate element of profit.

The reason people dont sue is they dont have any chance of winning, it is that simple ... If you are not supposed to be there then you are not supposed to be there.

Sorry, that's absolute rubbish. We're always helping people take clamping firms and the landowners to small claims on here.

Clamping should only take place when there are clear and obvious signs, with correct legal language. And should a car be clampled, the release fee must cover their costs plus a reasonable amount of profit. £250 is not acceptable. £70, maybe so. Calling tow trucks and being threatening is also not acceptable.

The general advice is:

• Remove the clamp without damaging it
or
• Remove the clamp forcefully in the knowledge that the police probably won't give two hoots and the worst case scenario is probably a caution.
or
• Pay by credit card and claim a refund from the bank under the 1974 Consumer Credit Act
or
• If the clampers are there, just sit in your car so they can't tow. I wouldn't mind waiting a few hours until they went and then call for backup.

If the signs say 'permit holders only' .. and a car is parked without a permit - it will be clamped, I struggle to see what is wrong about that !

There's often a difference between what's right and what's legal. If you park where you shouldn't, is it acceptable to be forced to pay vast amounts of cash by threatening men in a clamping van?

Originally Posted by correction999

You cannot clamp whilst a person is inside a vehicle, so this person would not be clamped.

And if the driver that just arrived has not got into the vehicle ? (the original question made no mention of getting in the vehicle),

The OP is acting as if the clampers are ALWAYS right, with his "defences".

Originally Posted by correction999

You cannot clamp whilst a person is inside a vehicle, so this person would not be clamped.

However, you demonstrate your lack of knowledge of the law.

Blocking a vehicle in is, in the legal sense, exactly the same as clamping or towing - all are referred to as immobilising the vehicle. All require an SIA licence.

Originally Posted by lamma

And if the driver that just arrived has not got into the vehicle ? (the original question made no mention of getting in the vehicle),

If we had just turned up then we would probarly not clamp it (depends, if it is a person who we have noted before or the client has told us about .. but a 1st timer then no).

if we had started the clamp process then we would continue (by this I mean actually placed the clamp next to the vehicle, as opposed to it still being in the van)

Originally Posted by correction999

I feel it will have to do something if it wants landowners to adopt a more 'non confrontational way' of managing their land.

Feel what you like.

The government really, really doesn't care.

Originally Posted by patdavies

However, you demonstrate your lack of knowledge of the law.

Blocking a vehicle in is, in the legal sense, exactly the same as clamping or towing - all are referred to as immobilising the vehicle. All require an SIA licence.

Correct ... I didnt think I had mentioned blocking a vehicle in ??

A question was asked, I parked behind someone - Supermarkets and the same often have 2-car bays where you can park behind someone.

Have you/I misread/misunderstood the original question ??