Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Funnily enough the ad is still available online Range Rover 4.4 SDV8 Autobiography LWB Previously Sold | Clinkard Performance Cars WWW.CLINKARDCARS.CO.UK Performance, Prestigious and Specialist cars Dealers in Romsey, Hampshire but the autotrader version isn't which was probably slightly different potentially with more information. Reported to FOS over the phone but essentially gave them the same information I've stated here, updating them that I'm paying for a car I haven't had for nearly a month now etc I'll certainly come back with an update. Fingers crossed they will realise it's not worth taking to court. So the inspection among other things found a hairline crack across a load bearing section of the chasis which at the minute to the naked eye looks tiny but could turn out to be catastrophic and has had some filler chucked on top of it but we'll see what Clinkards inspection comes back with. Distance wise I believe they're around 165-170 miles away from me. Also I'm sure many people will have PCP agreements as it's the most common way to buy cars under 5 years old but they just forgotten the terminology or name for it. Pay deposit, choose a length then pay the difference between value today and guaranteed future value at the end of that agreed term   Whole experience has scarred me and moving forward I'd be tempted to pay for a pre purchase inspection myself because these guys are bigggg traders with a lot of top end cars. I just hope they don't make any more silly offers
    • Strange final response. They say that they are still investigating but they are giving you their final response anyway. Seems like a load of nonsense. Have you got a copy of what you then sent to the ombudsman? Anyway, for the moment although would like to know – it really is all for curiosity because as you have put it into the hands of the ombudsman it's probably not worth doing anything more until you have a reply. I would suggest that when you decide to spend this kind of money in future on a used car, that you understand exactly what your rights are before you make the purchase. When you buy anything – and maybe especially used car you should realise that you aren't only paying for the car, you are also paying for a bundle of consumer obligations which are intended to bind the dealer. You are paying for a vehicle which is of satisfactory quality and remains that way for a reasonable period of time and you are paying for any defects which emerge to be addressed and repaired at the expense of the dealer. We've already pointed out that by purchasing the warranty, they have effectively persuaded you to pay for something for which you have already paid. Very decent of you not to want to cause trouble in respect of defects which manifested themselves within the first few weeks. I have no idea why. For £78,000…. This you say that they were age-related problems – that is still no reason why those defects should have been there or why the dealer should not have been responsible for them. It seems to me that you have a clear case against the dealer/the finance company. We don't have many or any PCP purchases on this forum. However, it seems to me that the finance company is probably responsible for the condition of the vehicle because effectively you have bought it from them and to that extent it should be the same as HP. With a hire purchase agreement, it is as if you bought the vehicle directly from the finance company not from the dealer and it is the finance company which bears all the consumer obligations. I think the only thing you can do is to monitor the situation. Update us when you hear from the financial ombudsman and if you need to take the matter to court then we will help you. In principle it should be straightforward – but certainly there is a risk of a serious bill for costs if you lose. I don't see you losing. Did you say somewhere that the report suggested that the vehicle was unroadworthy? Have you got the advertisement for the vehicle? Does it make claims for the vehicle which are clearly untrue? And by the way, four hours away from you is what kind of distance? Have you read our used car guide? Have you looked at the video?
    • there's one in this thread.. i wonder if its the same, they seem to be identical regardless each time we have a thread with one Vehicle Control Services Privacy Notice, Brooke Retail Car Park, HA4 0LN - Private Land Parking Enforcement - Consumer Action Group  
    • It was really this daft Privacy Notice we were after, but no worries, I'm 99% sure it doesn't count as a NTD otherwise in his letter Simple Simon wouldn't have offered the discount of paying £60 instead of £100. Apologies for jumping the gun earlier. It's a pity your friend paid.  It's neither here nor there if Excel would back down or not.  They are not some statutory authority.  They're just a cowboy private company.  The only way she could have been forced to pay is if a judge had ruled against her in a court hearing, which is highly unlikely given she could have proved to have been elsewhere. I see her "offence" was in May 2023 so logically Excel and their signs were there by then.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Private Clamping Firm


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5991 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I left my car parked in the evening on a side street. There were no double yellow lines or signposts explaining there were parking restrictions. On returning I discovered my car had been clamped and towed away. Looking closer at the walls of the block of private apartments next to where I parked my car I noticed to my horror several yellow notices explaining that any vehicles causing an obstruction would be clamped or towed away as I was parked on private land.

 

I phoned the number on the notices to be informed I would have to pay £395 to collect my car the following day and if I didn't I would have to pay a further £50 per day for it left in "storage".

 

I have paid the charge to release my car and have been informed that as the Security firm (Safety-Net Security) have a licence to do this and signs were displayed prominently I did not have any choice but to cough up. There was no security industry licence number anywhere on the signs.

 

I am going to write a letter of appeal to the firm but is there much chance of me appealing successfully and is there any other action I can take against them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest perky88

There does not need to be SIA number on the signage, but the receipt they gave you should have a number on it.

 

As for appealing ... I would have thought it VERY unlikely you will win an appeal, after all they already have your cash.

 

I would advise going back to the site and taking photographs, if your argument is lack of signage then photogrpahs will show the court definately.

 

Your only chance is (when they reject your appeal) is to issue proceedings in the small claims court again them for the charges you have paid - you will then have to let the judge decide if the signage is sufficient etc..

 

The charges do seem very excessive £395 ... you may have a claim here for excessive charges - I would even say if it said £395 on the signage it is high .. (£100-£150 maybe for towing away ... but £395 !!)

 

Why did they tow your vehicle and not just clamp it ??? were you causing an obstruction of any kind ???

 

So in answer to your question, I dont think you have any chance of them giving you back your money ... so I would start thinking about legal action.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You should take photos of the signs and the where you parked so we can see the situation.

 

From what you wrote it does not seem that you were obstructing anything and the signs were not clear.

 

You need to get the name of the company that own the land. Will be the freeholder of the apartment block. You should write to the clamping company and the owner of the landlord requesting that they give your money back within 14 days failing which you will issue a county court summons. There is substantial case law on your side.

 

If I was you I would sue the owner of the land. Reason is a win in court will get you your money back. The clamper may not defend case and close company down (change name) etc.

 

Post the photos and read the private parking thread and on PePiPoo: Helping the motorist to get justice

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest perky88

Maestroboy ...

 

The clamping company will use the ARTHUR-v-ANKER as their basis for clamping you ... and this is pretty watertight and 100% relevant to your case.

 

Where they will fail is down to the charges they have made to you ... That case was very clear they can charge a realistic commercial figure to cover their costs + a profit element.

 

The deciding factor will be the signage ... adequate and will the court deem that you saw it ... (the court in ARTHUR-v-ANKER accepted the signage would have been seen, originally the clampee refused to accept it but later did)

 

£395 is high and I think a judge will agree with this, what is a realistic figure .. well thats subjective and down to the evidence you can provide + the court will have to take into account their real costs etc...

 

Unsure if you could sue the freeholder initially, your issue is with the clamping company - you could put the freeholder as the second defendant .. but I think your original claim would lie with the clamping company.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks very much for the replies. The release charge of £395 was made up of £115 clamping fee plus £230 towing fee plus £50 for keeping it in storage overnight (which incidentally was not my choice - I was informed I had to call back the following day as the site was now closed!).

 

Why did they have to tow it away? As far as I was aware I wasn't causing an obstruction. The only crime I may have been guilty of was not seeing the signs although in my defence it was dark and I was unaware I was on private land as it was parked on a side street although there is secure parking for residents behind gates with a secure entry system in place. I was informed by the Security guard on duty when I returned that I wasn't entitled to park there as I wasn't entitled to be there unless I was visiting a resident.

 

How do I go about putting in a claim and how much will it cost me? :confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

You will need to ask the Clamping company for a copy of their complaints procedure, and then go through the process of making an appeal on the grounds that you did not see the signs. This will inevitably fail. and you will then need to send a Letter Before Action giving them a period in which to give your money back or you will issue Court proceedings. Send everything by recorded delivery and keep meticulous records as in the event of issuing a claim you will need to demonstrate that you have exhausted all other avenues. Have a look here for an outline of what you would need to do to proceed.

 

Perky quotes Arthur vs Anker as absolute justification for the clamper's actions, but that you would have grounds to argue that the fee was unreasonable. Whilst this is true, for that case ruled that the release fee must be 'reasonable', it also ruled that arrangements should be in place for the prompt release of the vehicle once you had agreed to pay. Depriving you of the use of your car until the following day would in most circumstances be contrary to this ruling.

 

A far better defence would be the case of Vine vs London Borough of Waltham Forest, where the Appeal Court ruled that the person clamping a vehicle must prove that the driver consented to the wheel clamping through not only seeing warning signs but fully accepting the risk of parking there. From what you have said, you did not accept the risk as it was not explained adequately to you - position of signs, dark street etc. Read up on the relevant case history and make an assessment of how far you are willing to go to recover your money.

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest perky88

I agree with sidewinder - the fees are totally unacceptable and even if the court agreed with the signage being adequate and that you would have to see them ... the fees are still OTT.

 

I would also ask why the felt the need to clamp/remove your vehicle .. and why you had to pay for both (if a vehicle is removed why have it clamped ??)

 

I would also ask why they removed the vehicle (from what you say it wasnt causing an ostruction, didnt appear dumped, wasnt there for a massive amount of time).

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...