In the case in question, it was not done correctly. If someone is imprisoned in their car through fear and intiidation - single woman, late at night, dark car park, thugs demanding release fee through a closed window, and they cannot drive it away because it is clamped . . . . just think about it.

Nonsense. If you commit an offence, then you suffer the consequences. Clamping is a civil matter. These people choose to step outside their boundaries.

The only consolation I can offer is he result of our own court case this afternoon. It didn't get as far as the towing issue, but the court accepted that if an offer was made to pay a clamp release fee, then the car must be released. There are no grounds for demanding payment ahead of release. “Nor might the clamper justify detention of the car after the owner had indicated willingness to comply with the condition for release: the clamper could not justify any delay in releasing the car after the owner offered to pay”. Our case continues in the next few months to re-claim the release fee and "virtual" towing charge as well as breach of human rights (false detention) .

Hi Vince, I can't offer a total solution, but what I can suggest is that there is no requirement to pay before they release the clamp. Arthur and Another v Anker (1995). “Nor might the clamper justify detention of the car after the owner had indicated willingness to comply with the condition for release: the clamper could not justify any delay in releasing the car after the owner offered to pay”. Therefore, if they detain YOU after you make the offer to pay, they are in breach of European Convention on Human Rights. Article 5. Basically - false imprisonment. Indicating willingness to pay is not the same as actually paying before they take the clamp off.

OK - this is useful. I have been in court today in respect of my partners clamping. The nuts and bolts come down to Arthur and Another v Anker (1995). Basically, the clampers cannot hold you after you AGREE to pay a release fee. quote from the judgement “Nor might the clamper justify detention of the car after the owner had indicated willingness to comply with the condition for release: the clamper could not justify any delay in releasing the car after the owner offered to pay” So the driver does NOT have to pay there and then. Failure to release the clamp at the time of agreement to pay is an offence in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 5: Right to Liberty (1) Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: So, if you OFFER to ay a release fee, you must be released. Failure to do so (Arthur and Another v Anker (1995).) does not state you have to actually pay there and then and therefore any detention is in breach of Article 5. Go for small claims or MCOL compensation of £5000 if they don't release the clamp within 3 minutes.

OK - this is useful. I have been in court today in respect of my partners clamping. The nuts and bolts come down to Arthur and Another v Anker (1995). Basically, the clampers cannot hold you after you AGREE to pay a release fee. quote from the judgement “Nor might the clamper justify detention of the car after the owner had indicated willingness to comply with the condition for release: the clamper could not justify any delay in releasing the car after the owner offered to pay” So the driver does NOT have to pay there and then. Failure to release the clamp at the time of agreement to pay is an offence in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 5: Right to Liberty (1) Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: So, if you OFFER to ay a release fee, you must be released. Failure to do so (Arthur and Another v Anker (1995).) does not state you have to actually pay there and then and therefore any detention is in breach of Article 5. Go for small claims or MCOL compensation of £5000 if they don't release the clamp within 3 minutes.

Hi all. We went to court today and the case has been postponed as the Judge felt that our claim under the Human Rights Act was not phrased sufficiently strongly. We accepted that the claim should stay in the small claims court (£5000 limit), but accepted the judges offer to re-phrase for a more specific claim in respect of the false imprisonment aspect. What I assume he is alluding to is the judgement in Arthur and Another v Anker (1995). “Nor might the clamper justify detention of the car after the owner had indicated willingness to comply with the condition for release: the clamper could not justify any delay in releasing the car after the owner offered to pay”. Basically, the clamper must accept an offer to pay, and cannot keep you there as a hostage UNTIL you pay. You may not be able to pay at that particular time, (no credit card??) and therefore keeping you there until they get the money amounts to false imprisonment. We now have to wait for July, but things are looking quite positive.

Well, I think you are right about the bank. I've sent letter #3 in the last few days, so let's see what they say. I also contacted the banking onbudsman and quoted the banks' letter to them. They have agreed the bank seem to have led themselvs up a blind alley, but of course they need to have a proper investigation. As to Mr Clamping Co. I thought this was total rubbish about sign sizes. I've given up with trying to appeal with them, and so have completed statements for court this morning. Just a matter of deciding if MCOL or County Court action is the best bet. BTW. I had a great letter back from the Home Office. They confirm that UTCCRs 1999 is enforceable by Trading Standards. That came as a total surprise to my local TS office, who were previously claiming it was the consumer, not them who had to take action. I sent a copy of the Home Office letter to them, told them I was making a formal complaint about unfair t's & cs in Mr Clamping Co. signs (contract?) and suggested they go and enforce.

Sorry to keep this one going, but I would like some more advice please. We got another letter from Clamping Co today. I can quote freely, as they did not send it "without prejudice". There are a couple of statements that are patently rubbish, and one sentence that is very strange - as follows "The signage within in this carpark has signs that are twice the legal size (the smallest signs) and signs that are four times the legal size". Either English is not his first language, or maybe I've got him rattled!! Now, I'm not aware of any legality about the size of signs in car parks. I'm sure it's not a legal thing. Or is this guy saying I am shouting twice as loud as someone else who got away with this nonsense, therefore, I made a contract with you because I say so? Can anyone help please?

Thanks Zamzara. It makes me feel more enthusiastic about chasing this down. I've had another "pop" at the bank today, advising them that their reasons for not upholding S75 of the 1974 Act are wrong. I do not have to prove Misrepresentation AND Breach. Either is satisfactory. I feel confident I have proved misrepresentation. You may like to know (if you didn't already) that the SIA are completely useless as far as the Consumer is concerned. I called them on their premium rate telephone number today (cost me over 6 Euro listening to a daft announcement and music on hold). I asked if I gave them evidence of a firm of clampers acting outside the terms of the licence they would help get the money back. They told me they would take the matter up with the company concerned and may take action against them if proven. They would not help me get back money that was taken by the clampers. They would not tell me what action, if any, they took. Told me to go to court. I challenged the guy on the logic of this i.e. I get them (SIA) involved, they act and close down the clampers, I go to court and there is no one to take action against as the clamping company is in receivership, or bankrupt as closed down by the SIA. So the only "safe" course for me is to let them carry on what they are doing, and act against them after we've got our debt recovered. In the meantime they do the same to other people on a daily basis. He put the phone down on me.

Thanks Zamzara. It makes me feel more enthusiastic about chasing this down. I've had another "pop" at the bank today, advising them that their reasons for not upholding S75 of the 1974 Act are wrong. I do not have to prove Misrepresentation AND Breach. Either is satisfactory. I feel confident I have proved misrepresentation. You may like to know (if you didn't already) that the SIA are completely useless as far as the Consumer is concerned. I called them on their premium rate telephone number today (cost me over 6 Euro listening to a daft announcement and music on hold). I asked if I gave them evidence of a firm of clampers acting outside the terms of the licence they would help get the money back. They told me they would take the matter up with the company concerned and may take action against them if proven. They would not help me get back money that was taken by the clampers. They would not tell me what action, if any, they took. Told me to go to court. I challenged the guy on the logic of this i.e. I get them involved, they act and close down the clampers, I go to court and there is no one to take action against as the company is in receivership, or bankrupt as closed down by the SIA. So the only "safe" course for me is to let them carry on what they are doing, and act against them after we've got our debt recovered. In the meantime they do the same to other people on a daily basis. He pt the phone down on me.

Thanks Lookinforinfo. I'm still not sure there was a contract though. As I understand it, for a contract to exist, there must be an offer, consideration, acceptance and intent to create a legal relationship. The fact that the car park looked to be a public car park, and that the signage in the street implied it was, led my partner to drive in. The fact that it ceases to be a public car park at certain times was not shown on the street signs. To see this, it would have been necessary to read the signs in the car park. Signs that were not in the expected "highway code" style and font. Not something that one is inclined to do on a dark and damp evening, when you don't think there is a problem anyway. I feel inclined to do the County Court or MCOL thing, once I understand the risk in respect of possibly losing and costs.

Thanks Barnsley Boy, but what I wrote to the ban was virtually the same. I quote from my letter "I enclose for your attention and reconsideration of the matter, copies of correspondence between myself, and the Merchant [Clamping Company] Ltd. The actions of the merchant were a misrepresentation of the Laws of England. They were not entitled to clamp my vehicle in the first instance, and they were not entitled to act the way they did by failing to remove the clamp from my vehicle once I had reluctantly and under threat, menace and duress agreed to a charge to have my vehicle released. There was no lawful contract between [Clamping Company] and myself." I started by setting my perception of the position in view of S75 Consumer Credit Act 1974. The bank replied as per my original post. So, it seems that either there was a good contract - which they acknowledge was unlikely. OR The transaction was not legal and I would have expected protection as per theft. But, the fact that my partner allowed the theft to take place (by giving the card details over the phone) is a lawful transaction as far as the Consumer Credit Act is interpreted it seems.

Don't forget, it is a regular car park during the day. So I don't think that will get me very far. It is just at night the clampers get free run of the place. I've discussed with a friend who is a barrister (not practicing at the moment) and he thinks the defence should be the punitive release fee for the clamp. He asks, why is it not £15000? He thinks the clampers should have to justify the amount they charge, as it is merely to mitigate the trespass that was caused by parking there. In this case, there was no harm caused to the landowner. Had it been the last Saturday before Christmas, they could possibly calculate the amount of their loss, but in this case, there was no loss, there may technically have been a trespass, but the entrapment aspect would seem to take centre stage. The land owner, when they closed the car park could reasonably have fitted a chain, rope, barrier even placed a couple of road cones across the entrance indicating the car park was closed, but instead chose to employ a firm of charlatans and rogues to be their enforcers.

I am not sure if MCOL or going direct to County Court is a best bet. The situation is that we appealed using their standard procedure, which of course they rejected. However, if we use MCOL, I'm not clear if the matter comes down to was there or wasn't there a contract, or the level of additional charge (tow truck etc) is unreasonable, if MCOL can deal with it. Also you ask "So what's the status of the sign on the (presumably) council street furniture. Was it put there by the council? does it have operating times on it? Is there another council car park it could refer to? etc" The sign looks just like a council (highway code style) sign. No other car park it could refer to. No operating times on street sign. Like I say, there were signs in the car park - if you looked for them, but they didn't particularly look like anything. In the dark you would really have to go up and read them close up. Hardly likely to happen goiven the circumstances.

It is a private car park, not council. The Clampers themselves don't have to be registered, but the ticket had a current SIA licence number on it, but of course we don't actually know that the person who issued the ticket is who he says he is as they didn't openly display SIA badges and my partner was scared stiff of two burly thug. It wouldn't have helped one bit to ask to see their badges - even if she had thought of it in the intimidating situation she was in. The SIA are particularly useless as if I ask them to take up the matter of identity, they will not let me know the outcome of any enquiry they make.

New member here looking for suggestions please. My partner was clamped on private land. She drove into a car park that was signed from the street with a conventional highway code parking direction sign. It was dark and raining. She parked her car and on return 3 hrs later it was clamped and it cost £350 to be released. Release fee plus tow truck charge plus credit card handling fee. Not forgetting the £1 per minute phone calls to the clampers office. I took photgraphs of the signs from the street, and noted the lack of "Permit Holders Only" signs outside the car park. There are "clampers" signs in the car park, as I say it was dark, raining, unlit and she had the presumption she was parking in a public car park. The clampers signs do not look anything like a "higway code" advisory signs, so why would anyone look to read them? They could be advertising a night club or any other business. It is a conventional pay car park until apparently 7.00 p.m. when it is handed over to a gang of clampers to practice their bullying and intimidation procedures. To cut a long story short, we gathered all the evidence of "entrapment" and claimed a refund of the charges from the bank under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The bank have agreed that there was effectively entrapment. We claimed that payment of the exorbitant release fee was a breach of contract of the terms of the credit card because payment was made under threat, intimidation and duress. The bank now claim there was no contract between my partner and the clamping company. QUOTE "In your case you were forced under duress and with no alternative to make a payment. With this in mind, there was no acceptance or intention to create a legal relationship present and as a consequence of this no contract existed". UNQUOTE Therefore they say S75 dos not apply. Further, they go on to say that the misrepresentation aspect of the section cannot apply QUOTE "a valid claim for misrepresentation involves any statement made prior to entering into the conract that entices the customer into entering that specific contract" UNQUOTE. I am obviously looking at county court action against the clampers, but there is the chance they have a better solicitor than me and we could potentially lose out to the tune of their costs. Any advise please?