My employer was actually pretty good about the situation. My main concern was not losing my job and being able to pay my mortgage. He assured me from the outset that no matter what the outcome, my job was secure. I have also used the company vehicle to get to and from the 'appointments' and used the company Credit Card to pay for parking. The last minute requests for time off (a word of warning to the weary, if you are in a position to force a matter to go to Crown, they only advise you of your hearing the day before at around 3pm) were allowed without a problem, and the partial or full days lost here and there have either been allowed as paid holiday or "forgotten about". TBH, I'm just glad it's over with.

Hello All, Well, it's been a while. Never-the-less, I thought I would post something on here to draw a line under this one so people may be advised of what can happen in situations like this. I'll try not to cover old ground, but it's been so long since I started the thread, I may inadvertently do so. A couple of months or so after the payment was made for the removal of the clamp (or damaged clamp, or missing clamp depending on where you read), I received an Accident Claim Form through the post. I had no idea what this was for having not had an accident in my vehicle, so reported back to my Office that this was the case. After another couple of weeks, I was contacted by the lady at my Office that deals with the vehicles. She told me she had been advised by our insurers that the Accident Claim was with reference to the 'incident' on the date the clamp was removed. Still at a loss, I did not know what to put on the form as I had nothing to report. Eventually I arranged to chat to a representative from our insurers to discuss the non-event. It turns out the clamper had claimed I had "run him over" with the car after removing the clamp and he was seeking to claim against the vehicle insurance for an easy pay out. During this period, I also received a telephone call from someone claiming to be from the Police who "wondered if I could come in for a chat", although he would not advise what it was about. Having checked that the number I received the call from was in fact a number registered with a Police Station, I went in for my "chat" and was promptly arrested, put in a cell for 5 hours, and then charged with RaciallyAggravated Assault. The interview was one sided to say the least. I had no idea what was going to happen before I walked in the door, and was subjected to a barrage of accusations and questions. The upshot was the clamper had claimed I had verbally racially abused him, punched him, and pushed him to the ground. I must say the thing that really riled me about this was that the gentleman had chosen to use his race as leverage for the accusation. Fortunately for me, as the initial claim was against me running him over with the vehicle, my vehicle insurers took the claim on. 2 'visits' to the Police Station, 2 Magistrates Court attendances, 2 Crown Court attendances, one withheld witness, one withheld claimants interview, one withheld recorded telephone conversation with the claimant, misplaced 'evidence' and 14 Months on, I was acquitted as the Prosecution admitted there was no evidence to support the claim, and that the claimants story changed every time he was spoken to. What a disgusting waste of Tax payers money and Police resources. It's been a tough 14 months. I wonder what the gentleman is doing now. I hear private clamping is illegal these days.

Thanks to everyone for their advice. I've decided to gain the funds back via 'ahem' overtime hours over the next few months. ...Plus a little extra for my troubles.

Unfortunately it is not my vehicle, it is a company vehicle registered to the company at our business address. The simple fact is that although I in no way wanted to agree to this (nor have I) it is not worth bad relations with my employer, and I know he knows this. I am considering sending an email to my Manager stating that following our discussion, I would like it noted that I did not agree to paying the charge at any time. The decision was made by the Director to protect possible action against the company, so effectively I am being asked to repay the payment under duress. I need to tread carefully when wording this mind you, as I do not wish to rock the boat. At least this way, in the unlikely event of me wishing to chase this up at a later date, everyone is aware where they stand. They can then choose to deduct from my wages after my email and risk it, or decide it is best not to. My company is such that (it has been known) in the past, if someone falls foul of the Directors, they gather ammo to force the employee from their position. This, I suspect, happens more often than most employees realize.

Well Ladies & Gents, my M.D. returned from Annual Leave today to the story of 'The Clamp & I' and I was hauled into the Office. Unfortunately his stance on it was that although he saw my point of view and appreciated that I wanted to stand up for what I felt was right, it's his car and this is not something he wants his company to be apart of. He was also concerned that it would be the good name of the company that may have a County Court action against, and this he cannot have. He has therefore paid the 'Speculative Notice' even though I stated I did not wish to. I'll be paying it off over my next 3 months, so it takes the sting out of it a little. This is (clearly) not the way I wanted this to go, but I don't wish something as trivial as this to muddy my relationship with my employer. This time, I guess, I will have to roll over and accept defeat. Thank you for your assistance up to now. BTW, apparently the clamper has lodged a complaint of assault with the local Police. 'sigh'.

Once again the users of CAG are doing me proud. Thanks for the advice & comments. I'll update when/if I receive further 'arm chancing' letters.

Yes, my number one priority is remaining employed. Agreed. I hope it holds some water with them the fact that I am willing to go to Court to defend myself. Hopefully being proved innocent in a Court of Law is good enough for them that the incident did not occur as it is depicted.

Thanks for that. It's still a worry (as you'd expect) when you're going through something like this, but having been through it before i'm a little less concerned. Just a little. I'm just about to send an email pretty much saying i dispute the claim and if you want to take me to court i'll see you there. what do you think?

Ladies & Gents, My employer received a letter as expected. Their stance on parking 'issues' is usually to pay it without even contesting it and take it out of the employee's wages. However, I sent an email straight away to those concerned at my place of work saying that I wish dispute the claim. As requested, they emailed me a scanned copy of said letter. I have removed certain details and replaced them with red text for obvious reasons. Your input on how best to proceed would be very much appreciated. Please note the use of the 'bartering' technique within the content, and the fact they have said payment 'may' not 'will' stop proceedings. In any case, I have just received an email from my Office to advise they must have my response by close of play today, else the fine will be paid, so please respond quickly if you can! Here's a link to the letter... http://i1203.photobucket.com/albums/bb391/thelilo/EDITED1stNotice21stDecember2011.jpg Thank you in advance

Hello All. I thought I would post this on the CAG Forum to raise awareness for those who use Pay by Phone Parking (including by SMS Text Message) within the Borough of Westminster, London. Having had difficulty paying for parking after my initial 4 hour maximum stay, I thought I would send an email to Westminster Council, to ask about where they stand on the matter of moving a vehicle from one set of bays to another, and paying again for parking. The reply was quite informative, although open to interpretation in parts. Firstly, I'll show the email I sent, and then below, their reply. I'd like to add, this wasn't a complaint, and I had not received a PCN, I just wanted to know what the deal was... Dear Sir/Madam, Having parked my vehicle in Curzon St at the corner of Chesterfield Gardens today (location 8831) for 4 hrs, i then attempted to move to the opposite side of Chesterfield Gdns for another 4 hrs. Unfortunately i could not do this as although the road markings show a double-white border signifying the end of a run of bays, the locations both sides of Chesterfield Gdns are 8831. Either one of these areas needs to be given a different location number, or the road markings need to be changed to show it as one run of bays either side of Chesterfield Gdns. Regards Thank you for your correspondence of the 8 December 2011, in which you have described an issue in Curzon Street, on the corner of Chesterfield Gardens, involving the location numbers of the paid-for parking bays. You state that you had parked your vehicle in Curzon Street, on the corner of Chesterfield Gardens, in location 8831, for 4 hours. You then attempted to move your vehicle to the opposite side of Chesterfield Gardens for a further 4 hours, but found you were unable to do so, as the location number for this bay was the same as the one you had moved from, despite the road marking clearly identifying them as separate paid-for parking bays. You believe, therefore, that the location numbers should be different to allow motorists to park on one side of Chesterfield Gardens for up to 4 hours, and then move their vehicle to the other side of the street to park for a further 4 hours. Failing that, you believe the road markings need to be amended to reflect that these bays are a continuation of one another and that motorists can only park for one session of up to 4 hours, with no return within 1 hour. I should explain that the 4 hour maximum stay and the no return within 1 hour rules are applicable to the location, not just specific parking bays. So in this instance, by moving your vehicle from one side of Chesterfield Gardens to the other, your vehicle would still be parked within the same location, and these rules would still apply. Therefore, no changes to the location numbers, or to the road markings, are required as they are compliant with the relevant legislation. Nevertheless, the City Council has chosen to only apply the maximum stay and no return regulations in locations where there is an acute shortage of available parking, coupled with a very high demand at certain times. As a result, these rules are not actively enforced across all locations. Whilst Parking Services still retain the option to enforce these rules where required, currently there are only a limited number of locations, such as St John’s Wood High Street, where these rules are actively enforced. If and when Parking Services need to enforce these rules in other locations, they would do so initially by Warning Notices, advising motorists that they may receive Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) in the future. This does not mean the City Council condones the practice of staying beyond the maximum stay period, or returning to the same location within 1 hour. In fact, the City Council’s Pay by Phone service will prevent any motorist from creating a single parking session which exceeds the maximum stay period for that location. However, because not all payment periods, even when added together, will equal more than the maximum stay for a parking location, the Pay by Phone system still needs to accept further payments. As a result, motorists can successfully pay for more parking time than is allowed, but not as a single payment. However, it should be noted that motorists do so at their own risk, as this is in contravention of the maximum stay parking regulations clearly signposted within the parking bays. Thus, subsequent Pay by Phone top-ups, or separate parking sessions, can be made for the same location even after the maximum stay has been exceeded, but the system will remind the motorist that a maximum stay exists. Whilst I appreciate the reasons behind your request, I should explain that there is nothing to prevent you from paying to park on one side of Chesterfield Gardens (location 8831) for 4 hours, and then move your vehicle to the other side of Chesterfield Gardens (also location 8831) and pay for parking for a further 4 hours; the Pay by Phone service will allow you to do this, though your vehicle may be subject to enforcement action. Thank you for bringing this issue to my attention and affording me the opportunity to address your concerns. I trust I have clarified the maximum stay and no return rules to your satisfaction and how they are currently applied. Yours sincerely

Thanks for the comments so far. Will update further when I receive notification in the post. Please feel free to add further comments in the meantime.

Hello All. I found this site many moons ago and received some fantastic advice at the time which resulted in the cessation of a payment chase after a parking on private land for longer than allowed (McDonalds, Gatwick Airport). Hence, I thought I'd come back again to see if i can gain any (hopefully law-based) help with my current 'problem'. Please read on!... To cut a very long and stressful story short, a clamper on private ground clamped my sign-written company vehicle. I was authorized to work on site, and I had not seen any signs, else I would have asked the customer for a Permit. I said I would go and get a permit and had no idea that I needed one, he said he would wait while I spoke to the customer. By the time I had got back out to the vehicle, he had gone. The customer phoned the clamping company explaining he was a resident and that he had failed to notify me of parking restrictions. He even added on the phone without prompting that "the signs really aren't very clear either", but he was told the no doubt usual "there's nothing we can do". In any case, a passing tradesman not known to me took pity on me and cut the clamp off. Unfortunately, the clamper returned during this time (no doubt having waited around the corner) and began to hurl abuse and take photo's of the clamp being removed. I was there, and clearly in shot, although not the one holding the saw, or doing the 'damage', which by the way, was cutting through one link in the chain. The clamper then started to attempt to add a clamp to the other wheel, but I removed it before it was secure and moved the vehicle to an on-street location approximately half a mile away (nearest I could find), returned to the job (the clamper was no longer around at this point), completed my work and left. I am concerned for many reasons as you would be. Firstly, as my company is the registered keeper, they will be contacted directly, not me. I am aware that their stance on this would be that they cannot be seen to deem this kind of behaviour acceptable. My defence i believe is to categorically state that I personally did not damage their clamp in any way what-so-ever. I am obviously very concerned that my company may take action against me by way of dismissal without waiting for the process of the clamping company issue to come to fruition. Are they allowed to do this? As far as I'm concerned, it was not secure, so I simply removed it, put it to one side, and left the scene. Can anyone offer any positive advice where this is concerned? 'Criminal Damage' was mentioned by the clamper at one point, which I assume would (if found guilty in a Court of Law) mean a Criminal Record, which would mean I would without question have my employment terminated. I believe he also may have called the Police, although I cannot confirm this. Are they really interested in cases such as this? ...and finally, are they actually likely to follow up by taking me to Court? Any and all help and advice, greatly appreciated. Lilo72

Dear all, Just wondering if anyone can help?... I have recently received a ticket for driving while being on the phone. Please don't boo too loudly... i wasn't actually on the phone at the time, but was holding it in my hand (in the process of switching it off). Yes, i should have waited... isn't hindsight a wonderful thing? However, much though i tried to argue my point to the officer concerned, he just wasn't interested and was happy to write me a ticket for 3 points and a £60 fine. My queries are these... Firstly, i was not on a public road when the officer actually stopped me, i had pulled into a private car park at work. Secondly, while producing my documents, my licence was taken from me. It is only upon reading the ticket at a later date, i realized it should only be taken from me "if i agree to it". ...and lastly, and hopefully most importantly, the officer did not complete the form correctly. That is to say, he had neither signed, nor entered his 'PC' details in the boxes provided. Well, you can see where i am going with this... is an offence form which has not been filled out correctly actually valid? or will it be thrown out if i appear in court? Any help, greatly appreciated. Best Regards, Lilo72

*removed*

*removed*