Simplex Parking - Still at it !!!!

[Guest GraceCourt]

Other than postage, the court fee`s what else can i ask for? can i add x amount for the time taken researching, trawling through forums etc

Unfortunately, no, not the time, etc. Your claim is for your actual losses, and in the same way as clampers can only lawfully claim (on behalf of the landowner) for the actual losses caused by a motorist parking on private land, e.g. the lost revenue from payment of a day's parking, in the same way you can only claim your actual losses - there's no punitive element.

 

So if, for example, you took a taxi to the payment office to release a towed-away car, then you can claim that, but if you walked there as it was only round the corner, then you can't. You don't have to have a receipt, but it helps, and the District Judge will have a good nose for the truth, so it's best to keep it all above board... after all, it's in your interests to be seen to be acting wholly honestly, as it reflects badly on the clampers when they are seen to be just the opposite! There is a general "loss of use" element that can be claimed to keep things simple, which is usually taken to be £10/day, but if you take that approach you can't add on bus fares, etc. as well, that would be double-counting.

[Alba10]

Thanks again GC

I havn`t had any reply from clampers re LBA, with my new info from the landowners, do i have to send another LBA when time has elapsed from previous one to clampers informing them of another reason why im taking them to court? Or do i just go ahead and make the claim with the additional causes of illegal wrongdoings?

 

Many thanks and much appreciated

 

Alba10

[Guest GraceCourt]

I havn`t had any reply from clampers re LBA, with my new info from the landowners, do i have to send another LBA when time has elapsed from previous one to clampers informing them of another reason why im taking them to court? Or do i just go ahead and make the claim with the additional causes of illegal wrongdoings?

The LBA is, strictly speaking, not legally necessary, however the Court would take a dim view of a litigant that doesn't take every reasonable step to resolve the matter amicably without having to go to Court.

 

In the circumstances, you should now just issue the claim. You don't need to add anything, the Particulars of Claim should be short and concise. Bear in mind that I don't know your story, but I'd guess it will be something along the lines of:

"On [date] the Claimant parked his XYZ motor car index AB10XYZ on private ground at Town Buildings, Somewhere Street, Anytown. He returned to it 30 minutes later to find that it had been immobilised by a wheelclamp being attached to the front/rear nearside/offside wheel. Following directions on a notice that had been attached to the windscreen, the Claimant paid £x under protest to the Defendant company for the release of the wheelclamp. The Defendant was not, and is not, the landowner, nor was it an agent acting with the authority of the landowner of the land where the car was parked, and there was therefore no lawful basis for the application of the wheelclamp nor for the demand for payment for its release. The Defendant's actions in immobilising my car constituted an unlawful interference with my property contrary to Section 1 of the Torts (Interference With Goods) Act 1977, and the Claimant therefore seeks recovery of the sum paid under protest to the Defendant accordingly."

Remember, I am not a lawyer, so this advice is given at face value as "best effort" to help you, however it is your responsibility to ensure that it suits your circumstances or to take legal advice if you require it. For example, were there any signs about clamping? Do they relate to the ground where you were parked? Does this involve a paid-for car park or an overstay of some sort?

Edited December 16, 2010 by GraceCourt
Additional content

[Guest GraceCourt]

Alba10, thinking about it, it might be better if you post more detail about what happened to you, obviously without any detail that will identify you publicly. Also, as I don't know this company, you need to ensure that you issue the summons against the correct legal entity... if it is indeed the one referred to above, then there are a few hoops to go through before you can start.

 

For example, I've checked and there is no company called "Simplex Parking" registered at Companies House. That means there are all sorts of issues in respect of whoever is using this as a trading style, but that's a sideshow, as it doesn't get your money back. What exactly does it show on the ticket, demand for payment, or whatever? Does anyone here know the name of the person trading under this name? I'd guess that you will have to proceed against that individual and explain to the Court, if he denies it's him, that the paperwork does not show (as required by law) the details necessary for you to put the correct name on the claim. Or, you could apply to the DVLA and explain that your details were obtained from there by someone against whom you now wish to take proceedings (so they cannot claim Data Protection Act exemption). They should be able to use their audit trails to identify who obtained your details and give them to you.

 

The Web site is no longer operating so it's vital that the character using this trading style is identified and held to account for his trading status - sole trader, partnership, or as-yet unknown limited company. What's needed here is a bit of co-ordination to draw together everything that is known about this operator so that the actual extent of the illegality of his operations can be clarified... it will also help in making the necessary complaints to shut him down if he won't comply with consumer protection legislation and trading regulations.

 

Afterthought: The newspaper that carried the parking stories could be a good friend here. If someone contacts them and explains the problem, i.e. that this character's trading status is an issue because he isn't complying with the law and no-one knows who to sue because "Simplex Parking" doesn't exist as a legal entity, then they might well scent another story worth pursuing! The pub landlord is another avenue... is he making payments to anyone for the "service"? To whom is he making payments? Is there any sort of contract? Whose name is on the contract? If it just refers to Simplex Parking, then the contract itself is worthless and unenforceable, so maybe the landlord ought to start worrying... does anyone have the VRM (vehicle registration mark) of the clamping vehicle? £3.50 sent to DVLA with an explanation as to why the registered keeper details are required will also yield useful information!

Edited December 16, 2010 by GraceCourt
Afterthought