Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

78 Excellent

1 Follower

About jkdd77

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Exactly, which is why the only remedy at present for a unlawful clamping is to cut the clamp off on the basis that no viable alternative exists- since paying and suing is simply throwing good money after bad. If the vehicle is towed then the owner is completely out of options.
  2. For £1600, I'd have cut the clamp off, (especially given the blatantly criminal nature of the clamping) but it's too late now...
  3. It might have been the 'evidence bundle' they intend to rely on in court, but others will be able to advise you better than I can.
  4. Unfortunately, many clampers (such as LBS Security) clamp without the authority of any landowner (and the police aren't interested). Even where they have been contracted by a landowner, there appear to have been several cases where ignorant county court judges rule that the landowner is not responsible for the actions of their agents. I think lamma has hit on the best [some would say, only realistic] solution to cowboy clamping, but, as we know, it is of dubious legality so those who choose this option must be very careful...
  5. I'm pleased you won, but I'm very concerned that the judge was about to award them the amount of the "fine", when there was absolutely no basis for this unlawful penalty charge- it shows the ignorance of many county court judges.
  6. If they do sue (which they won't), don't forget to counterclaim for their tortious trespass to your vehicle and for circa nine days loss of use, including the time you had to spend removing the clamp. Additionally, in making false statements when writing to you, they have themselves committed a criminal offence under section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006, by making a false statement of law with intent to make a gain for themselves, namely by wilfully and dishonestly claiming that "unauthorised" clamp removal is itself criminal damage. Furthermore, their letter to you is also criminal blackmail,
  7. It sounds very much like the clamp was fitted on the authority of the DVLA-if so, they do have the authority to clamp and "fine" for SORN'd vehicles in most car parks to which the public have access. Others will provide greater details.
  8. I'd say that's an implicit warning of arrest- and entirely wrong in law. I think the OP could potentially have a case to have the police held liable for the clamp release fee, although it would be complicated to bring such a case.
  9. Realistically, he'll only end up having to cut it off in a week's time anyway after the cowboy clampers ignore this "offer"- if it really is "criminal damage", then it is criminal regardless of whether the chain is cut off now, in a week's time, or in a year's time. If the chain is cut off by a friend, without witnesses, the chain disappears without trace, and nothing is admitted, then the chances of being convicted are less than the chances of winning the lottery. What's the alternative, anyway- paying a wholly unlawful ransom demand with absolutely no chance whatsoever of ever seei
  10. Be warned that, although it is without question whollly unlawful to clamp over alleged past debts, many cowboy clampers do so anyway, and in almost all cases the police will insist "it's a civil matter sir". If this does happen, you may find yourself with a choice between cutting off the clamp on the one hand, and paying an unlawful ransom demand with no chance whatsoever of ever seeing your money again on the other hand. In this case: Car towed illegally? - FightBack Forums a car was unlawfully towed over alleged past debts, with the cowboy clampers demanding £1,500 for its ret
  11. I really wouldn't want to give these criminal goons your home address- they could re-clamp your car, tow it away, or even assault you (indeed, this could also happen if you arrange to meet them anywhere else). Just cut it off, or, better still, get a friend to cut it off for you- it's a safety hazard, it unlawfully prevents you from driving your vehicle, and they wouldn't be able to prove the identity of the cutter beyond reasonable doubt in either case. If the chain disappears completely after being cut off they'd have difficulty proving it was damaged at all. They can't prosec
  12. Endorsed- they (unlike letshelp) don't know what they're talking about.
  13. A summary of case law: Going equipped for stealing etc - CrimeLine from Andrew Keogh. I'm not entirely sure how any of these fit this situation, though. In R v Ellames [1974] 3 All ER 130; 60 Cr. App. R. 7 (CA) the court said that: "In our view, to establish an offence under section 25(1) the prosecution must prove that the defendant was in possession of the article, and intended the article to be used in the course of or in connection with some future burglary, theft or cheat." This suggests that the defendant would not be wholly without hope of an acquittal, particula
  14. You can guarantee they'll just ignore the CCJ- so you need to sue the landowner as well.
  15. I like your thinking. Using bump keys would be easier still (and difficult to prove), but of course I couldn't possibly suggest or condone their use in any way.
  • Create New...