All It seems Royal Mail has lost my mail to the company. I was also at fault coz I thought I had scanned the receipt of all things before sending it off but unfortunately I didnt. I guess I have to rest my case at this point then and surrender to London leechers... Thanks for all your help.

Thanks for the link Transport and streets:Ask Ron. I've checked Westminster's list of car park and apparently it's not one of theirs. I've also directed them the question if the pavement is part of their enforcement area. Anyone who has any idea to confirm this jurisdiction is very much welcomed. Thanks!

Sharpman Thanks. I do agree with you that they are not entirely in compliance with the guidelines. I do believe as well that there was no other sign than the one in the photo I'd taken.

Hi Will, I've added the link above for you. Thanks for the reply. I would try to do this but any idea where I can get in touch for the one for Queensway/Bayswater? I actually live in Newham so I was completely oblivious to the threat when I went there. As far as I can remember, there was only one sign at the car park and there wasnt one at the entrance. The moment you turn into the car park, you really need to look up to search for the sign really. I do believe that signage is in fact inadequate. One more thing, the sign does not have be only visible but understandable as well (Vine vs (one borough that I cant remember). So, I would argue that was the way I understood the sign. Car park means "CAR" parks. I was reading the PTW guidelines, and it did mention Pay and Display parking is not suitable for PTWs. Also, the sign does not indicate that it's a private land clearly not in accordance with BPA's guidance. I think they are really rogue car park enforcers. I just found out that my letter has not reached the company. I've kept a copy of the receipt and the letter so will have to resend in the next coupla days. Thanks everyone.

Basically stick the clamp to one side of the tire and pull the chains across the tires/disc brakes, then padlock them all up. I had the same wish.... see my post on 2nd September 2008 00:39 or read the sign in post 25th August 2008, 04:32.

I think he's a rather an experienced SIA licensed clamper. He just kept on holding to his clamp, not letting it go and claimed that I was moving his property too if I were to move my scooter. He also said I was being physical and he would call the police if he had too. My only retort (lame), "By pulling that clamp against my scooter, you are damaging my scooter and I can sue you for that so take off your clamp!". That of course could be counter sued with any damage to the clamp. Completely extortionist Londoner...

The clamper had only one clamper and he was waiting next to my scooter for me to pay up. At the same time, 2 more potential victims just parked within the area. A m/cycle in a crossbox and a prius in a carpark. I tried to move the scooter to the busy pavement area but he wont let me let alone to move it into a van. That's the problem, there wasnt any signage to indicate which is private land. Normally, I would expect to see a clamping sign for private land. I've not seen a sign where they could clamp scooter or even bicycle on pavement area. Based on the signage, it didnt specify if the pavement was a park & display carpark. My understanding is as such that I did not enter into the parking contract.

Bunch of thanks for sea-sidelady!!

Exactly rob! They are just unbelievable..

I've just sent the letter today - trying hard within 10 days stipulated in the receipt (strange enough to give a very short timeframe for any representation). Keeping my fingers crossed now! I know.. they could probably come back saying that they own the pavement too but simply enough, it's not within the contract.

sea-sidelady Sorry for that. I've started a new thread and would appreciate if you could move all the posts and replies to the below: Scooter clamped while parked on pavement adjacent to carpark I just tagged on Fei's coz I thought our case was almost similar ie arguing the validity of car parking bay related clamping warning to a motorcycle/scooter parked in the vicinity. Anyway, sorry for that Fei! postggj Indeed mate. They are really highway crooks. What Im going to do next is to visit the area again and warn other non alerted motorists about this. That should shrink their revenue for a bit at the expense of my time.

Hi, Im a newbie and this is my first new thread on this forum! I just have a sad case when I had my scooter clamped on a Sunday afternoon in Queensway despite parking it on a pavement rather than a car park bay. The car park employs pay & display ticket system which obviously not designed for motorcycle. There was no sign whatsoever to indicate that it was a private land with severe parking restriction. I parked on the pavement right next to the closed solicitor office, with no pedestrians walking around as it was away from the busy main street. I went out to check on forex rates for about 5 minutes then came back to see my scooter clamped right on the pavement! I had a telephone conversation with the company's representative claiming that they were rightful to clamp vehicles on pavements! I had no choice but to pay GBP150 to get my scooter released (didnt think of unbolting the front wheel at the time but could have done it). The rest of relevant posts would be moved here from another posts by the moderator. Stay tuned...

Coming from a foreign country, Im hoping that you would use Amex but I guess not so much in the UK. Amex would give you a chargeback almost instantly just over the phone. My experience with Lloyds required me to write to the bloody company first and sent them a copy with request for chargeback. You could contact the customer service and they'll let you know what to do. Anyway, if they never send the goods but just charge for it, you can claim it as a fraud and Mastercard/Visa should cover this on your side as part of credit purchase protection (I think there's an act to cover this but cant remember at this hour). Nothing to worry I would say.

Thanks mate! Here's the sign and location of my fateful incident after the scooter was removed of course (and yes, the prius was clamped after he released a bike (not visible on photo) . The scooter was parallel on the pavement right next to the closed solicitor's office. After the incident, I noted only one sign and not at the entrance. In my view, I only understood as applicable to the car park bays not pavements (Vine). What do you think?

Still trying to figure out..

I dont understand why I need to post 5 posts before posting URL for my pix that is important for my case.

Im a newcomer! I will make the best of this forum!!

How can I upload a pix on this?

Hi This is my first post and I would like to thank everyone in support of CAG. I believe this is the only way we consumers could strike back at unscrupulous traders/crooks. I have the same concern with respect to my recent case. Sometimes, it is not clear from the sign if it's applicable to motorcycle on pavements or not. Take my case for example, in a park&display car park, would you expect to park your scooter in the parking bay and display the ticket? You'd leave it for the cars coz they need the space and you cant display a ticket on a scooter. Thus, you'd park on the pavement. I've crafted a 5-point letter to argue for my case against Retail Parking Solutions Limited (operator of the Queensway carpark) based on some examples I've gathered from this site (credit goes to the individuals). I've pasted the main body of it in here and further copying I suppose is possible. I would appreciate any feedback if any to improve my case further coz this Retail Parking Solutions Ltd is just a bit too much. 5 minutes after he declamped me, he got another bike parked on no parking lines (he cant even see the sign from that spot) and after that a Prius (the driver was just too ignorant of myself arguing with the clamper 5 feet away from his car). Excerpt: I have paid, under duress, for the declamping charge of £150 on that day but now demand for immediate refund of it to me at the above name and address. I DO NOT ADMIT to this illegitimate charge as: i) I have parked my scooter on the pavement and not on any of the Park & Display car park slots thus not covered by the sign available for the parking area. I DID NOT see the sign as I entered the car park but used common sense to park my scooter on the pavement. The sign was shown to me by Mr Angus after he clamped my scooter with a 5 minute time span after I securely parked my scooter on the pavement adjacent to the car park. The sign clearly states “By Parking and Stopping within this car park you are required to pay & display a valid parking ticket from pay machines” thus clearly not referring to the pavement which are for pedestrians. Otherwise, the pavement should have been clearly marked as designated parking bays with clear lines for identification purposes, if it were ever to fall under the Park & Display contract. This is my understanding of the contract after reading the sign subsequent to the clamping. It’s important to point out at this juncture that in Vine v. Waltham Forest London Borough Council’s case, even if signs are prominently displayed, they have to be read and understood. ii) the vehicle in question is a scooter which if I have had it parked in the empty car slot as per the contract and paid for the parking, the ticket would not hold as it would under the car windscreen. Therefore, there was no way for any scooter owner to display parking ticket urging myself to park on the pavement which was not visited by any pedestrian as the only shoplot was closed on Sunday afternoon and the area was away from the busy main streets. I had also left ample space for pedestrians to walk past without suffering any difficulty. iii) With respect to the clamping of my scooter, without my permission or prior consent and under the English Law of Torts (INTERFERENCE WITH GOODS) ACT 1977 (1977 c 32), I could charge you with trespass to my goods (my scooter) under the Wrongful Interference to Goods Act 1977. In April 2000, Lord Justice Roch, Lord Justice Waller, And Lord Justice May upheld that “The act of wheel clamping a car which was unlawfully parked is a trespass to goods irrespective to the fact that the car was unlawfully parked”. Even if you are able to classify the pavement as car parking with “clear markings and designation”, £150 is unreasonable for a 5 minute parking time on a pavement and is clearly conflicting i) the “Fair Parking Fine System” you are championing on your website XXX. I must also highlight that one sign and the fact that it is not placed at the entrance, is insufficient for the whole car park and this is clearly in contravention of BPA and potentially legal guidelines. ii) the legal perspective as this charge is illegally excessive. The money in question would be classed as liquidated damages. A liquidated damage clause will not be enforced if its purpose is to punish the wrongdoer in breach rather than to compensate the injured party. In order for a liquidated damages clause to be upheld there are conditions which must be met. The amount of damages identified must roughly approximate the damages likely to fall upon the party seeking benefit of the terms. I fail to see how it would realistically cost £150 for Mr XXX to attend my scooter or any other vehicle and apply a clamp which takes a matter of minutes. When I telephoned your office to request release of the vehicle, it took less then one minute for the clamp to be removed after the £150 was paid. I fail to see how this can have incurred costs of £150. Within 2 minutes, he has managed to clamp another motorcycle parked on a “No Parking” area much to my disbelief. iii) Unfair Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999. The Unfair Terms in The Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999) states very clearly in Schedule 2 , and underlines the following - Indicative and Non-Exhaustive List of Terms which may be regarded as Unfair; and makes clear that it is unfair and thus unenforceable by law to require any consumer who fails to fulfill their obligation to pay a dis-proportionately high sum in compensation in a civil dispute over a breach of contract. This is the same law that was used in 2007 when people started to reclaim their bank charges and is still being upheld today (2008) in civil matters of parking disputes. I look forward to either a response or a refund of the above amount within 7 days from this date, failing which a warning letter to raise the matter to the Small Claims Court would be issued. In your response, please indicate the employing agent whom I shall name as the co-defendant should the matter be proceeded further. Should no response be received, I intend to raise court proceedings in the Small Claims Court of Her Majesty’s Courts Service for the illegal declamping fee and relevant costs including interest as stipulated above against you without further notice.