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.
New to the forum but have scanned over the sticky thread about wheel clamping on private land.
Tonight I took my wife out for a meal to celebrate her 40th birthday, we headed off into the village and parked in a "free" carpark that is in use by the village shoppers all day long.
The carpark, to give some idea, is on a street corner, with a row of shops one side, and a row the other. No previous rules regarding parking(to my knowledge) have ever been laid down, except to say, shoppers may park here basically.
There is no barrier or pay and display system either.
We parked, I noticed a warning sign, had a quick glance and it seemed to just reiterate that parking here was an offence unless you were visiting the shops etc, which we were. We went inside the restaurant and had our meal, came out to find the car had a clamp on it with this sticker attached :
As we were about to call them a chap in a van(parked near us) approached and asked me if I was ok, he introduced himself as the clamper and told me I had been clamped for parking illegally on private land.
After a small arguement ensued he refused to remove the clamp on the grounds that I had parked on private property, but he seemed unable to grasp the fact that, as far as I could see it, there was nothing to stipulate who, and when parking was allowed or disallowed.
The arguement continued further but when I pointed out to him that, based on the signage that was showing(which was very clear I admit) it gave NO definition on what the restrictions to park were.
To my utter amazement his reponse to state "your right, your right" and then to admit freely that the sign is missing the wording to state who can park.
Apparently the car park is only allowed to be used by patrons of ONE of the lines of shops adjacent, NOT the other. This is not mentioned on the signage at all and he seemed to back down completely when I pointed out this wasnt clear at all.
He then shook my hand, removed the clamp and proceeded to remove all the other clamps he'd fitted as well!
I went back a short while after and took this picture :
Now, the statement "Free parking whilst in premises only" doesnt clarify, which one of over 20 premises its referring to, but according to this chap, its only parking for one row of shops which, looking at the wording of the Adviceline PDF is not legal? Ironically, the neon "Mirage" sign in the background of this pic is where we were actually eating.
The Adviceline details make no mention of anything other than a place of work, a block of flats or a pub/restaurant, nothing about a row of shops.
Obviously I got the result I was looking for and firmly feel that unless I had developed ESP, I would not have known if I was or wasnt parked illegally but I wonder how many other poor people have coughed up the £80.
Does anyone have any recommendations on what I should(if anything) do about this to highlight it to someone higher up as I can imagine people are getting clamped left, right and centre.
Sorry for the waffle, but wanted to be clear about the facts.
First thing I would do is bring it to the attention of ALL the shops/businesses that are around there. Then maybe it should be reported to the SIA as illegal clamping being carried out.
Bottom line is they can never apply it with any certainty unless they observe every driver who parks and then note which shop they go in to. What if you go into a shop on one row, and your partner goes into a shop on the other row, would they only clamp 1/2 your car, or only charge you 1/2 the fee?
ps I'm amazed he took the clamp off for free, even after you pointed out he was wrong!
First thing I would do is bring it to the attention of ALL the shops/businesses that are around there. Then maybe it should be reported to the SIA as illegal clamping being carried out.
It would certainly be illegal if the land-owner has not engaged the clamper. distress Feasant is a remedy for trespass only and not for a breach of contract. Damages for trespass can only be claimed by the landowner. If you want to take this further it would be worth contacting the landowner and seeing they have authorised the clamping.
BTW was the clamper wearing his SIA ID as required by law?
Originally Posted by crem
Bottom line is they can never apply it with any certainty unless they observe every driver who parks and then note which shop they go in to. What if you go into a shop on one row, and your partner goes into a shop on the other row, would they only clamp 1/2 your car, or only charge you 1/2 the fee?
It is a bit woolly but they have met the basic legal requirements warning that clamping will take place. However as they have placed conditions a legal challenge may well succeed. The question is how many people will take it to court? I suspect they will be playing the numbers game.
Originally Posted by crem
ps I'm amazed he took the clamp off for free, even after you pointed out he was wrong!
Wow. A clamper with scruples - surely as rare a Bristish Tennis player winning a major tournament. :grin: A good result.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This does not constitute legal advice and is not represented as a substitute for legal advice from an appropriately qualified person or firm. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nip over to ALDI and buy a battery powered angle grinder, jig saw, drill and hand lamp set comes with 2 big 18 volt power packs and is ideal for the unexpected DIY chores around the house, all for £35.
I have found that these tools are highly portable and easy to use on any manner of household tasks.
The Vine vs Waltham Forest case says something along the lines that "Normally" the driver will be regarded to have consented to the clamping if adequate signage were present.
I'd say this case wouldn't fit the "Normally" definition, because a normal person would believe the sign allowed them to park without risk of clamping.
I don't think later statutes have changed this basic requirement, but I'm not a lawyer.
maybe the clamper has pending cases for unlawful clamping. or is new to the job, or is about to leave the job. which ever, nice to see it happening once. Thanks for the brandy
Hi all, its nearly 3 years since I started this thread and the signage STILL hasn't changed but I noticed this in one of the shop windows the other day and thought it might amuse some :
Unscrupulous wheel clampers?
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by crem
