I would argue that in most cases when people get clamped that there is some free and legal parking a short walk away which wouldn't have got them a clamp. You only have to look at the pictures posted for the thread which started this thread. Specifically look at the picture marked 'This is it from the opposite wall, you can see how high up it is.' You can clearly see that there is a parking space on the main road. So here is another assumption! The guy went to subway, all the on street parking was taken and so he chanced it on some private car park - afterall it was outside thier opening hours and no clampers were in sight and it was only going to be for a couple of minutes. If it had been me, I would have driven around the corner and left it on a side street and walked back to Subway - but that takes effort.

In the pictures relating to to this the signs can be clearly seen - so that doesn't apply here. They had tried the approach of putting leaflets on the cars with no joy. I would say things would have to get serious for a business to have to resort to employing the services of clampers simply because it could deter their own customers. I don't buy the bit about 1000's being caught out by some tiny little sign. If I was trying to park, I simply wouldn't use somewhere which 'could' belong to another company - unless I was specifically dealing with that company. I'd find some on street parking somewhere - it really isn't hard to do. If you leave it on a patch of land that could belong to somebody then you run the risk of this happening to you - if you don't then that risk drops to 0.

"It is specious to suggest that people are clamped because they are lazy. You are extrapolating from your own experience, which is entirely fallacious." Whoose experiance do you expect me to extrapolate from? I can hardly use yours as, fortunately, I'm not in your head. But it isn't rocket science. The way I look at it is : my car is reasonably expensive so why put it somewhere where it could get vandalised or incurr a fine when legit parking spaces are easy to find. Yes it might involve driving around for a couple of minutes or perhaps walking a little further to your end destination, but the end result is that my car is safe(ish) and free from tickets. However that requires a little extra effort on my part, although not a lot. If you are not prepared to put in this extra effort that that does make you lazy. As I said earlier I would clamp peaple for parking in disabled spots as to me that is the height of lazyness. I had an argument a while ago with somebody who did this when I was out with my disabled son. The person was rushing to the gym! There were literally 100's of parking spaces away from the disabled ones, but this idiot had to take a disabled one because it was right outside the gym doors. Obviously walking an extra 50 yards on top of the excercise he was about to do would have would have been just too much.

Just a really quick couple of points 1 - on the picture of the 'space' you can clearly see that the marker at the end of the 'space' is L shaped and not T shaped. That would indicate to me that this isn't a valid parking space. 2 - relating to the footpath which you are clearly blocking. If somebody in a wheelchair struggling to get past your large car managed to scratch it in the process my guess is that you'd be complaining about how somebody could have done that you your car. Personally, if I'd have seen that car parked there I would have thought that you were taking the p. It clearly isn't a parking space.

Taking specious as meaning..... Apparently right; superficially fair, just, or correct, but not so in reality; appearing well at first view; plausible; as, specious reasoning; a specious argument. Could you please tell me why it is so? I've had 2 parking tickets in 15 or so years driving. Ive never been clampled but drive around 20,000 miles per year. I'm careful and considerate when it comes to where I leave my car. If I find a bit of wasteland or a patch of ground behind some shops I'll continue on until I can find a more suitable place to leave my car which won't get me a parking ticket. My only parking tickets related to overstaying my permitted time in a pay and display. While I was annoyed at getting these, I knew how long I had paid for and overstaying this was my fault. I fail to see how a private car park is a treat while a private driveway is not. I will let people visiting me park on my drive. I wouldn't let somebody park on my drive I didn't know. I fail to see how one bit of land owned by somebody can treated differently simply because one is a commercial property. As I said before - most people get parking tickets because they are either too lazy to find a place where they can leave their car without getiing a ticket or simply inconsiderate of others. You see it all the time with disabled spaces. People who drop leave their car in them because they can't be bothered to walk an extra 50 yards to the shop.

I'm not a clamper and I've also never been clamped. I've had 2 parking tickets in my 15 years of driving, both of which I paid because both times I was in the wrong. The reason for my low number of parking fines is that I take it upon myself to check that it is ok to leave my car. If in any doubt I move it to somewhere else. In most cases people get parking fines because they are simply too lazy - too lazy to walk an extra 100 yards, choosing to inconvenience others. In this case it seems that the land owner gets little or no sympathy which I feel is wrong. I know I'd be pretty hacked off if I found somebody parked on my drive (i don't have a carpark). Why should the land owner go to the expense and hassle of fencing off his land, the land is for his customers use, not for anybody to use as they see fit. Surely setting land aside for the convenience of his customers and then making it difficult for them to use defeats the object. Personally I'd extend clamping to people using disabled bays also - and anybody with ginger hair!.

I might be appearing thinck here, so just wanted to check this. My LBA letter should just ask for the £343 only. When I make the claim at the courts, I should ask for the £343 plus the 8%? So I only get the 8% (making it up to £420) if it goes to court. If, after my LBA letter and before the court step they offer me the £343 I should take it as I cannot ask for the 8% before that point.

Blimey that was quick. I'll check out the link you specified. Just one more quick question. The £343 is just the cost of the charges and does not include any interest. When should I apply the interest? Is it the standard 8%?

Hi all. I sent my letter notifying them of my charges and a breakdown of the charges applied on my card. Not a huge amount all told, £343, but something I would like in my account and not theirs. Today I got the letter shown below .......... I refer to your letter received in this office on 21st June concerning the default charges applied to your account. Whilst I appreciate your comments, American Express maintains that the charges applied to your account were clear, properly disclosed to you and could have been avoided, provided you complied with the Terms and Conditions of its agreement with you. In April 2006, the office of fair trading (OFT) issued its statement of position regarding default charges in Credit Card contracts, which considered default charges more than £12 to be unfair. In making its statement, the OFT identified legitimate costs for assessing default charges as including “staff costs, premises, telephone, letters and postage, IT systems, depreciation of assets related to running collection systems pre default notice, IT support and other central services such as human resources”. Had the OFT believed that a minimal sum of £1 or less represented a reasonable charge, no doubt it would have not set its threshold at anywhere near £12. Following publication of the OFT’s statement and in line with its recommendation, American Express carried out an assessment of its default charge policy. Although the OFT’s statement position only concerned Credit Cards, American Express also voluntarily assessed its default charge policy in respect of Charge Cards. With effect from 1st July 2006, the default charge applied to American Express Credit Card accounts has been £8. This figure is significantly lower than the threshold set by the OFT and indicates the thorough and fair nature of the assessment carried out by American Express. However it does not affect the default charges applied by American Express prior to 1st July 2006 and therefore our previous default charges will not be amended I trust this deals with your queries and that I have clarified the position of American Express. Yours sincerely Paul Greenfield Executive Customer Relations Manager .......................... OK iy looks like they don't want to play ball. I have not seen too many Amex stories on here and so wondered if anybody has had any joy with this lot. I must admit that they are very quick to respond. My points are that it isn't about if Amex feel their charges are fair, I thought it was about the charges being illegal. All but one of my charges were before the lower rate was introduced. Also, by their own admission, their costs are now £8 regarding late payments. If this is the case, then surely their previous charges were unfair and so illegal. Also, it is worth noting that they recently changed things with their card regarding missed payments. I missed a payment in September and was charged £8. Then in January, they increased my APR to 25.9%. I had £2.5k on the card and so could not pay it off. This means that since then I have paid an extra £20 per month due to the higher APR. I have asked them when it would be reviewd and they are not prepared to look at it for another 4 months. So over a year this would amount to £240, plus the £8. I nice [problem] as far as I can tell. Does anybody know what I should do next? Is there a stock letter which I should use to take this further?

I think I'm being a bit thick here. Why can you claim interest only at the court stage? Why can you not ask for it up front. To be honest I think with the other things I have on my plate at the moment (wife had a kidney transplant last week) I'll probably accept and spend my 'free money' Also, is it right that they can dismiss claims made before the 6 year threshold? If they were illegal 72 months ago, they were still illegal 73 months ago. Thanks for all the help here. Now onto Amex - who have lowered their late payment charges, but jacked up my interest rate to 25.9%. So while they now charge £12 I think, they get a much higher level of interest off the outstanding balance.

Hi All and thanks for the commets. I don't really want to go down the courts route if I can help it, but I also don't want to write off £1600. Is it worth writing to them and pointing out that I am not looking for the overdraft interest, mearly the interest due on the charges. Afterall, I could have taken that £30 and stuck it in an ISA if they had not charged me. Has anybody actually entered into this type of converstaion with the bank or do you simply go straight to the MCOL part?

So should I have simply asked for the charges without interest in my LBA letters? That would have meant a claim for 192.50 + 3542.00 + 1476.50 = 5211.00, not too far away from the 4692.50 they have offered. In their letters they have a section marked overdraft interest. "Regarding you request to refund overdraft interest on your account, HSBC's interest rates are well publicised in respect of both format and informat overdrafts. It is, of course, a condition of your borrowing from us that you will pay interest at the agreed rates on that borrowing. As such we will not be refunding the interest that has been applied to your debt." I might be being stupid here, but on the simple spreadsheet, I thought the 8% was an interest amount based on that charge alone and nothing to do with overdraft interest. I figured the 8% was a way of saying that on 2001 I was charged £30, today that £30 would be more than £30 and the calculation took this into account. They also state "We have noticed that your claim goes back more than 6 years. We will not cosider any claim over 6 years old given that it is time barred under the Limitation Act 1980. Therefore our proposal does not include those charges applied more than 6 years ago. Interest We note that you have added "interest" to your request for a refund. We do not accept that this is appropriate and therfore our offer of a refund does not include ant interest."

Thanks for the commets - I should point out that I have 3 accounts with HSBC and all are being done seperately. All offers have been made seperately also. What I'm claiming and what they are offering is listed below. Acc 1 Claim : 282.50 Offered 192.50 Amount ex int 192.5 Acc 2 Claim : 4363.87 Offered 3160.00 Amount ex int 3542.00 Acc 3 Claim : 1751.02 Offered 1340.00 Amount ex int 1476.50 So you can see, what they are offerning looks like whay I sent minus the interest.

Hi All, I sent my LBA letters to HSBC regarding a total claim of 6300 on 3 accounts. They came back with a couple of interesting thinsg. 1 - on one account they noted that I had included more than the 6 years. I'd started doing this before and stopped due to pressing matters and simply updated the spreadheet, tagging on the extra charges - probably 6.3 years all told. Also they noted that £70 of the £3000 I was claiming on that account had already been refunded. So it looks like they have had somebody look into the info I sent. 2 - I had included the 8% in the LBA breakdown. In their letters they indicate that they do not agree with this. I think what they are offering is the total without interest - but I need to check that. 3 - for one account they sent 2 letters with 2 differnt offers. What are the chances of getting paid both So their offer is £4700 against my total of £6300. I'm tempted to take things further but the other half wants me to accept now. They also indicated that they think that they would win any court case, but I guess they would say that wouldn't they.

Cheers, I figured it was. Thanks for the quick response.