Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About londoncass

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. don't bother contesting ... just ignore it. What the drivers of your car do is not a problem for you "the DVLA owner of the car" have to worry about!!
  2. why don't you just ask the council to sort it out ... my experience of school run mums leads me to thinking you're wasting your time!!!
  3. It was because the landowner pointed out that they do not pay CES any money or get any money for it, therefore they do not receive any damages etc. The clampers pointed out that these were "reasonable charges" for their services. I would have fought more, but we wanted to get the clampers where it hurts, not the landowner.... though I am writing to their directors to highlight their staff actions.
  4. The property management company denounced all responsibility and employed a barrister to get them off. The judge agreed with the barrister that the landowner had taken all reasonable steps to employ responsible (haha) agents, therefore they were not liable. It is something to do with torts of the land etc etc. Shame the barrister probably cost more than my clamping cost, but thats the problem with housing authorities, they will pay thousands to avoid paying hundreds! Funnily enough, I went back to the site last night to visit my friend, and they have since changed their signs to say "Warn
  5. Well the first cheque never arrived, but a gentle e-mail remider that I will enforce seemed to do the trick! Failing that I had paid by credit card so was happy to take it back to them as they are jointly liable for it!!
  6. I won : (If you can't see it, Tinypic are having issues, but I won a full refund+interest+costs and court costs) My story sounds extremely similar... When you phone up you get a rude response who demand extortionate fees off you and refuse to give you access to the car until the next working day. The sneering continues when you're picking up the car "There were plenty of signs, you chose to risk it" etc. We went to court, Clive the company secretary turned up very unprepared, holding on to one photo of my car next to one of their signs. The judge agreed that the sign
  7. Spend some time on all the posts here, you will a lot of people in your situation who have ignored the invoices and eventually they just go away. It has been stated that 70% of people pay up when they receive these invoices, fortunately, the other 30% are wise enough to realise that a private company can not impose a penalty on anyone! Who is going to stop them? DVLA sell your details for £2.50 a time and make £6million a year from it, it certainly wont be them!!
  8. don't know if its relevant here, but my claim against the PPC (clamping&towing) included all my costs (eg printing, postage and milage)... but when the judge ruled in my favour, she ignored all that and started to work it all out again and just let me claim for what I could under the small claims track (eg no costs for time preparing case + postage etc). Sticking to the facts of the case, they claim you entered into a contract (as per the signs). The signs don't state that you will incurr further costs (eg solicitors or admin fees) therefore they can't add them on as they please
  9. They can't fine you ... they are not the police! Read up on here, but what they are trying to say is that you parked on the land, agreed to a contract (that'll be the signs you didn't see!) and then as you stayed longer than the permitted time, you agreed to pay £100. Quite simple really, if they wanted to get this money out of you, they could sue you for it, and lets say in the unlikely funny world you lost your case and had to pay, the judge would make you pay the £100+interest and court costs, non of these other noddy charges! It is not worth the PPCs time and effort to try and wi
  10. shame he's gone.... I was going to show him the picture of my car and the sign next to it. Strange how I won in court ...
  11. Well I thought so too, but I was told it is all to do with torts?!! Recently went to court and the landowner was discharged because they had contracted the independent contractors and took all reasonable steps to ensure they were legit etc. etc.
  12. Yes and the BBC news said this morning that they are still "thinking" about independent appeals.... Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this just the occasional news story thrown in every now and again. Surely the flooding would be enough for the papers to write about without scraping the barrel. Rather bored of hearing "The government are going to" or "In the new year" etc. etc.
  13. I agree to sue the landowner, but it is not a open shut case. If the landowner states that they contracted the clampers in good faith then they can discharge the responsibility of their actions.
  14. Just saw it too and thought I'd come on here to congratulate the daily mail ... I mean it's their massive campaign that brought this to this today, no one else had anything to do with it at all, oh and I must have been dreaming the day I sent my views to for the home office before the daily mail started their campaign!
  • Create New...