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.
On 29 December I parked my car in front of an empty building at 35 Francis Street, Hull to go City Centre shopping with my wife. I used to work in Hull 4 years ago and parked in the same spot. The property has been empty for a number of years and is at the end of a row of commercial premises.
Francis Street itself has a 2 hour controlled parking limit and is controlled by the Council issuing tickets. The Council policy (on their website) is not to clamp or tow vehilcles from the road (no mention of Council land).
I did not see a sign affixed about 7 to 8 feet from the ground at the far end of the building.
I returned after about an hour and a half to find the vehicle had gone. A motorist stopped and told me it had been towed. I looked on the building and then saw the sign.
The notice gives the usual details but includes only a mobile telephone number and the fact that there is a cash fee of £250.
I telephoned the company (Sector Security Ltd) and was told to meet him in Dock Street (about half a mile away) in 25 minutes. He would only take me for my car and my wife would have to wait. I was subsequently taken to York Street and my car was returned after I paid £250 cash.
The SIA licence owner (he is registered) told me my car was clamped at 4pm and towed about 15 minutes later. He said the sign was that high because others got removed and that it was illegal for signs to be posted elsewhere.
He gave me a receipt and the location is shown as Manor, Francis Street, Hull. This is actually an adjacent property at 27/31 Francis Street. It adjoins the property where I was parked (there is no number 33 Francis Street).
I checked with Land Registry to find that 35 Francis Street is owned by Hull City Council and telephoned the Council the next day. Someone confirmed that they were aware that Sector Security was acting for Hull City Council. I went on to ask a number of other questions and I was told someone would ring me back today - so far no call.
The questions I have are:
Why does the Council allow a private company to tow vehicles from their properties when they operate a fixed penalty ticket system on the roads?
What harm was I doing? (I hadn't avoided a parking charge, the property has been empty for years, no obstruction etc).
Isn't £250 an excessive amount when parking tickets are about £30?
Why isn't there a sign in a conspicuous place (e.g. on a lampost adjacent the site, as a lampost is also Council owned).
I would welcome anyone's advice as to how to proceed and what else I can do. In particular I note the CAB advice that "It may be necessary to tow away a vehicle parked on private land if it is - dangerously parked or causing an obstruction or blocking an emergency access". Has anyone any idea where that comes from as I was certainly doing none of those things?
The BBC are running a proggramme on clamping and towing in Hull.
Contact them about the problem, as the BBC may have the clout to get it stopped.( Humberside and North Lincs BBC.)
I shall look for the contact details and post it up later.
Thanks for that info. I have sent the reporter an email with a link to my post.
I eventually telephoned Hull City Council. It seems they are reviewing their policy on clamping and towing and wants me to email him with details of what happened. Didn't sound hopeful as he said the matter of the money was between me and Sector Security Limited.
Didn't sound hopeful as he said the matter of the money was between me and Sector Security Limited.
Steve
If you were clamped by SSL on behalf of the council, then any clamping action IMO is ultimately the responsibility of the council as SSL are only their agent. So many of these people use that easy card of just saying "nowt to do wiv uz guv, speak to the clamper". The clampers were given their instructions by the council and must therefore be working within the council authorised framework. ego:- it is a matter for the council.
The law (Private security Industry Act) requires that the receipt should show the location (see the clamping sticky for other things that the receipt should show). The wrong location on the receipt ought to be enough to claim back the fee in the courts.
Case law (Vine vs Waltham Forest) is that the clamper has trespassed your vehicle unless it can be shown that you consented to the clamping. The Vine case suggests that "Normally" it would be viewed that you have consented if signs are present and clear (you don't actually have to have read or seen them). I've heard it said before that you ought to be able to see the sign from where you park (not sure where this is stated though - it may be British Parking Association guidelines???)
I do wonder if the towing is unjustified if the carpark is empty and not required by the landowner. I would include a claim that the towing fee was unjustified (even if it were judged that the clamping was).
Might be worth posting up photos of signs.
As stated above, the clamper's act is only justified if he is acting as the agent for the landowner. So you should involve them jointly.
If I were you I'd be making it quite clear to the council that it *is* their responsibility, and I'd be looking to take action against both the council and the clamper under Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 on the basis that the clamping was unlawful because of the wrong address on the receipt, the lack of signs (plus anything else that comes to light).
I am hoping to get some clearer photos tomorrow. The site is not a car park. It is a small piece of land in front of an empty shop, the strip between the shop and the footpath - just wide enough for a car. I cannot see any reason for towing. The shop has been empty for years and I was not causing any obstruction. I asked the man from the Council why they need to take any action and he said that the Council needed to do so for 'insurance purposes' and gave an example of my car leaking petrol and setting fire to the building!
I have requested details (Freedom of Information Act) as to the Council's instructions given to Sector Security Limited and in the meantime will write to the Council and the company giving reasons why the money should be refunded.
Thanks for all the support and will post photos in the next few days.
I have not heard from the reporter yet, hopefully he will contact me soon. My next step is to write to the Council and Sector Security Ltd asking for a refund. I then envisage county court if necessary.
My main grounds are:
The sign is not readily visible (7' 10" off ground)
My receipt states I was parked at Manor, Francis Street, Hull. I was not but I was parked at NRS next door (property empty for more than 5 years).
There was no need to tow the car.
The charge of £250 cash only is excessive and threatening in the way it is to be paid.
Because the council is a public body they have additional obligations under the ECHR. Protocol 1 Article 1 says that they can only deprive you of a possession if it is in the public interest AND provided for by a specific law. Since this is towing from private land and not statutory towing under the Road Traffic Acts, this seems unlikely to be provided for.
If I may comment on this situation.
If this bay is for PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY, it should have this legend painted every 12 mtrs down the dotted line.
It looks to me like a P1028.4 bay.
Looking at the sign on a pole, I think that this sign is non compliant with the rules. It does not conform to Drawing number P660 sheet 1 or 2.To me the wording on this sign is not compliant with the drawing.
My bet is the Hull city council know nowt about this clamping firm and they are just cowboys. As we all know, the road in this case covers the full width of the pavements on each side of the road, and would be subject to a pcn.
The betting is from me that the clampers are not in the employ of anyone, only themselves.
Can someone concur my views on the signs and lines.
If I recall there has been other posts about this.
Sorry if I have caused any confusion and hope the photographs are clear. This link takes you to my Photobucket account where the photos can be seen along with a decriptio of the photo.
The sign on the pole and the lines on the road are on the other side of Francis Street showing that waiting is limited to 2 hours only. I am trying to show that a contravention of on street parking would be a FPT of about £30 and the Council do not clamp or tow away on roads or their car parks.
I am parked off road on a strip of Council owned land in front of a building owned by them. There is one notice some 7' 10" up a wall. I was towed from here at a cost of £250. I feel this demonstrates an excessive charge.
Zamzara - really interested in the Human Rights side of things - anyone know of any 'stated cases'?
2. The sign looks smaller than recommended by the British Parking Association (650mm height by 450mm wide I think). Suggest you measure it, but brick dimensions indicate that the sign is smaller.
(this is a large pdf. Search for the text "minimum size".)
The signs therefore are unlikely to meet the requirement set down in Vine vs Waltham Forest
3. Towing was an unnecessary and unlawful trespass with the vehicle because the towing was done too quickly, because they had no right to tow the vehicle further than getting it off the property, and because no obstruction was being caused. All this renders the fee excessive.
5. Claim the £250 on the basis of 1-3. Also claim £150 (difference between towing fee and blocking in fee) on the basis of 3 alone (as an alternative).
Also, I might suggest researching the following:
1. What does the contract between the council and Sector Security say (FoI request).
2. Is the council allowed to set up such a contract. (Councils could instead set up off-street traffic orders (?) to enable them to issue PCNs can't they). Parking experts here might comment?
I wouldn't take any BS from the council. I'd inform them in the strongest terms that I intended to take action as above and that I would include them jointly liable in the action I take.
You are not causing any trouble what so ever, its all about helping out.
Where did you get the idea they were working for Hull council?
As I have said the road is all public road from wall to wall.
Are all the other buildings owned by Hull in this street?
When they said they were empowered by Hull council to do this move, were signs posted right up and down the street, or only by that building, did they flash any authority from the council
Me smells a rat on this one.
I would put 5p of my ard earned brass that Hull Council will no nowt about this gov, onest.
If these comics are clamping without authority, it then becomes a matter for the Police.
It has been know for clampers getting locked up for various offences within the Theft Act.
In some cases long prison terms have been handed down
I know Hull very well, and this is what happens in large cities, I would not take my car into such a place. When you park do not look at your boots, but switch your radar on and scan for all these people that want to rip you off, as prevention is better than the cure.
I carry in the boot of my car a little battery operated disc cutter, just in case.
(£35 for a set of lectric tools from Aldi.)
Having looked at the pictures, then the clamping is illegal, regardless of who is the principle here.
The sign as shown refers to the private car park (called the customers car park; ignoring the lack of an apostrophe!) relating to the Manor garage - now defunct.
If you were parked in front of the other defunct business (NRS) then duw to the lack of signage, there is no reason for you to believe that the clamping regime extends to this latter area of land.
Without sufficient signage, you could not have consented to your vehicle being clamped; without such consent, the clamping was therefore unlawful.
Claim back the clamping fee, towing fee and any associated costs incurred by yourself because of the unlawful clamping. Sue (via small claims) the clamping company and the landowner jointly. If it is Council owned land, then there has to be a contract/agreement with the Council (as landowner) for the clampers to operate. If the Council (as landowner) deny all knowledge, then you need to take the matter to the Police as fraud/extortion - and demand that the Council support you in this.
I really appreciate your advice but just let me play devil's advocate.
I show the Manor Car Park signs as an illustration of larger signage in the immediate area. Manor Car Park is to the left of their main building, you can just see my car parked on the road in front of the building. The photos of the buildings I show in the photos (NRS, 35 Francis Street and Manor next door both have smaller signs the same as shown on the far wall of NRS. These signs state 'Warning Private Property etc'. I am sure they will argue that the signage covers the car park and the areas in front of the buildings. Steve_M raises some good points as the signage is below the recommended size. I hope this clarifies matters but I'd love to hear from you again if I've misunderstood what you are saying.
In Steve's "Number 1" that shows a car parked, I'm assuming the small sign to the right of the shutters is the close-up sign in the "Number 2" photo (the one that is higher than it is wide).
Yes, the sign in photo number 2 is the same sign as shown in photo number 1. There is a similar sign on the building next door (Manor). The other sign, shown on the car park of the Manor, is shown to give an example of a larger sign at a more readable height.
I couldn't find a way of showing the photos individually in this forum and hope that the photos (and the text attached to them) can be viewed via the link to Photobox.
As the 'receipt' I was given states that I was parked at Manor then I am hoping that it will be in my favour to prove that I was parked in front of NRS, which is only next door. Any thoughts on that particular point?
I think the wrong address is your strongest point as it is an absolute failure to obey statute law, as noted above.
The sign size is secondary because it is based on judgement and guidelines - the judge might decide that the sign was big enough because the property was small.
I have appealed the notice and requested a refund of £250 based on the factual evidence: wrong locaton on notice, sign too small etc and am awaiting a response from Sector Security Ltd (SSL) and Kingston Upon Hull City Council (Hull CC) re the appeal.
Sector Security Ltd
SSL is registered at Companies House as company number 06568009. The company was incorporated on 16 April 2008 by Westco Directors Ltd and occupies an office at 2nd Floor, 145-147 St John Street, London EC1V 4PY. There is no company secretary and the Westco Directors Ltd resigned on 24 September 2008. Companies House have told me that they intend to remove the company from the register. They admit they should have automatically requested new names when Westco resigned. I cannot establish if this means that SSL is operating illegally? Can anyone help with this?
I cannot find any named person to contact at SSL or even a phone number/email address.
Westco Directors are linked to other companies and run ‘Companies Made Simple’ (part of The Made Simple Group): Made Simple Group
Sector Security Services Limited, a national company, has commenced legal action against Sector Security Limited and I have contact details of someone at that company, together with email addresses of national media representatives who are involved. I am also aware that BBC Look North are researching a programme relating to towing and clamping in Hull.
Kingston Upon Hull City Council
The following is a taken from an email I received from Hull CC.
'The City Council employs 2 clamping contractors to help monitor certain vacant sites, car parks, service areas and private roadways across the City. The contractors with respect to vehicle clamping are fully SIA registered and should comply with industry standards and work practices in accordance with the Private Security Industry Act 2001. Our contractors work within the British Parking Association guidelines which stipulate fair charges for clamping to be less than £125 and towing less than £250 but also agree that these sums can be added where a person is clamped and subsequently towed (our contractors do not add clamping and tow charges).
The Council has a written agreement with Sector Security to manage private land at this property together with other sites around the City. All our contracts are nil value agreements whereby the land is managed for a nil fee with all clamping charges being taken by the contractor. The decision to enforce clamping at this site was an estate management decision made in April 2008 and not a decision made in accordance with the Council's Parking section's policy which relates to public highways and carparks as this property is neither.
According to my file the Council has owned this property for at least 50 years but gained possession and responsibility for managing it in 2008 having agreed a surrender of a ground lease from the tenant. The parking of vehicles on this particular site must be controlled in order to manage our insurance exposure and to prevent anyone obtaining third party rights to park vehicles on what is the main access to the unit. It should be noted that in order to gain access to the 10' wide parcel of land abutting the building a public footpath must be crossed and involves driving up and over a proud curb. The enforcement of clamping on this site to together with neighbouring properties is clearly signposted. NPS Humber commenced in December 2008 a review of the work practices adopted by our clamping contractors following similar complaints received from persons being clamped and towed shortly afterwards. We have also discussed at length with our contractors the issue of towing vehicles and they inform us that to leave a vehicle immobilised overnight in a dark industrial or other similar areas would cause at least 2 major problems - 1. increased chance of the vehicle being burglarised or damaged, and 2 potentially threatening behaviour to the clamping operatives when called to release a vehicle in such dark unpopulated areas. The decision to tow vehicles is made not less than 30 minutes after clamping and in this particular instance Mr Watson's vehicle was towed at 16:30 after 1 hour of being clamped.
Having spoken recently to our contractor responsible for this site I'm aware that Mr Watson has lodged an official appeal with Sector Security which is in the process of being dealt with.'
The Hull CC state that 'Our contractors work within the British Parking Association guidelines'. They clearly do not: sign too small, no landline number displayed, cash only fee, no reason to tow etc etc.
I could have parked on the double yellow lines six feet away or on the other side of the road for 2 hours free parking, where my car would have received only a parking ticket. £250 for causing no harm and incurring no financial loss to anyone, other than me, seems totally excessive.
I suspect my appeal will fail and I will then raise more detailed concerns with Hull CC and am quite prepared to take this to the county court.
I believe many others have had problems with SSL and the relationship with Hull CC is, I believe, questionable to say the least. This appears to be a money making scheme but only for whoever is behind SSL.
I would be grateful if anyone who has had experience with SSL, particularly those who have raised their experience with Hull CC, would contact me. As the Hull CC state 'NPS Humber (an arm of Hull CC) commenced in December 2008 a review of the work practices adopted by our clamping contractors following similar complaints received from persons being clamped and towed shortly afterwards.'
I will update this post as and when I have further info.
Car towed from Council property in Hull
, the property has been empty for years, no obstruction etc).
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by aintreesteve
