Jump to content


Defeat of the Clampers


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4960 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

The worm turns!

 

:D :D

If this has been useful to you, please click on the scales at bottom left of post. Thanks.

 

Advice & opinions of Rooster-UK are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Please use your own judgment.

-------------------------------------------------------

LOOK! Free CAG Toolbar.

Follow link for more information.

 

------------------------------------------------------

Please donate,

Help us to help others.

 

 

LINKS....

 

Forum Rules.

FAQs....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely superb. Nothing like a bit of Consumer Action:grin:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This does not constitute legal advice and is not represented as a substitute for legal advice from an appropriately qualified person or firm.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK - this is useful. I have been in court today in respect of my partners clamping.

 

The nuts and bolts come down to Arthur and Another v Anker (1995).

Basically, the clampers cannot hold you after you AGREE to pay a release fee.

quote from the judgement

“Nor might the clamper justify detention of the car after the owner had indicated willingness to comply with the condition for release: the clamper could not justify any delay in releasing the car after the owner offered to pay”

So the driver does NOT have to pay there and then. Failure to release the clamp at the time of agreement to pay is an offence in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Article 5: Right to Liberty

 

(1) Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:

So, if you OFFER to ay a release fee, you must be released. Failure to do so (Arthur and Another v Anker (1995).) does not state you have to actually pay there and then and therefore any detention is in breach of Article 5.

Go for small claims or MCOL compensation of £5000 if they don't release the clamp within 3 minutes.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK - this is useful. I have been in court today in respect of my partners clamping.

 

The nuts and bolts come down to Arthur and Another v Anker (1995).

 

Basically, the clampers cannot hold you after you AGREE to pay a release fee.

 

quote from the judgement

 

“Nor might the clamper justify detention of the car after the owner had indicated willingness to comply with the condition for release: the clamper could not justify any delay in releasing the car after the owner offered to pay”

 

So the driver does NOT have to pay there and then. Failure to release the clamp at the time of agreement to pay is an offence in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Article 5: Right to Liberty

 

(1) Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:

 

So, if you OFFER to ay a release fee, you must be released. Failure to do so (Arthur and Another v Anker (1995).) does not state you have to actually pay there and then and therefore any detention is in breach of Article 5.

 

Go for small claims or MCOL compensation of £5000 if they don't release the clamp within 3 minutes.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Failure to release the clamp at the time of agreement to pay is an offence in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Article 5: Right to Liberty

 

(1) Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:

 

 

I fail to see how clamping your car is affecting your liberty unless you are disabled? Using that logic the Police/Courts are in breach of it for taking away your driving licence?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I fail to see how clamping your car is affecting your liberty unless you are disabled? Using that logic the Police/Courts are in breach of it for taking away your driving licence?

Nonsense. If you commit an offence, then you suffer the consequences.

 

Clamping is a civil matter. These people choose to step outside their boundaries.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nonsense. If you commit an offence, then you suffer the consequences.

 

Clamping is a civil matter. These bastards choose to step outside their boundaries.

 

 

Clamping your car is still not affecting your liberty and its perfectly legal if done correctly. 'Liberty' in the ECHR means freedom ie not arrested or imprisoned clamping your car does not in anyway whatsoever infringe on this right since cars do not have the same rights as humans.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the case in question, it was not done correctly. If someone is imprisoned in their car through fear and intiidation - single woman, late at night, dark car park, thugs demanding release fee through a closed window, and they cannot drive it away because it is clamped . . . . just think about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Clamping your car is still not affecting your liberty and its perfectly legal if done correctly. 'Liberty' in the ECHR means freedom ie not arrested or imprisoned clamping your car does not in anyway whatsoever infringe on this right since cars do not have the same rights as humans.

 

False imprisonment has long suffered from lack of a clear definition. I would certainly argue that taking your shoes away 30 miles from home is a form of imprisonment, or forcing you to leave a place via swimming in a freezing lake.

 

Anyway, the ECHR is a red herring in my opinion as the matter can be redressed using UK law. If the clamping is illegal then it should be a complaint of (where appropriate) common law false imprisonment, criminal damage, and/or blackmail.

Post by me are intended as a discussion of the issues involved, as these are of general interest to me and others on the forum. Although it is hoped such discussion will be of use to readers, before exposing yourself to risk of loss you should not rely on any principles discussed without confirming the situation with a qualified person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the case in question, it was not done correctly. If someone is imprisoned in their car through fear and intiidation - single woman, late at night, dark car park, thugs demanding release fee through a closed window, and they cannot drive it away because it is clamped . . . . just think about it.

 

Why would any sane person be sitting in a car whilst it was being clamped?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...