Just been clamped!

[lamma]

bigbird61 has flown but from his/her description it sounds like lockable posts in their parking spaces would do the job and not block the through access.

[letsmakeamark]

Having wasted enough time on this already I won't be reading any more messages or posting anymore I just thought that it was important to get the full picture

 

 

What bigbird is saying is :

 

We are about to go bankrupt. This is the only way to avoid it Or

Our business has gone dead and this is a money raiser or

Help we need money.

 

I suggest that people who know this area should avoid going to it and also they should spread the word locally and then see how long this shop can keep up its attitude ? Just a guess ?

[Chesterexpress]

What bigbird is saying is :

 

We are about to go bankrupt. This is the only way to avoid it Or

Our business has gone dead and this is a money raiser or

Help we need money.

 

I suggest that people who know this area should avoid going to it and also they should spread the word locally and then see how long this shop can keep up its attitude ? Just a guess ?

 

Well, what a load of nonsense that you write. Reading between the lines of someone elses post, I imagine bigbird could well be the accountants working in the large property at the rear of the car park shown. As for clamping being a money raiser for them, then that will not be the case as the clamping company normally get to keep all revenues.

 

Letsmakeamark, I suggest you get your facts right before spouting nonsense. You may not agree with clamping, however if inconsiderate motorists choose to park on someone elses property without good cause, then they deserve everything they get as long as it is done legally.

[Mundane-o]

The thing is, If you had come out and told me it was private parking and I risked being clamped I would have apologised and moved on. The only reason I'm reacting so badly to it is because the signs were so badly displayed that I got nabbed after just 2 minutes and had to pay £150 to get my car back.

I may be working at the moment (placement year) but I'm still a student. I've just moved into my own place, started a new job and it's totally cleared me out. That means I have hideous amounts of debt and payday is still just over a week away! Now because of this clamp the money that I would have used to feed myself for the remainder of the month has gone to some greedy sodding pikey who probably dropped out of school and doesn't know the meaning of a hard day's work!

Rant over.

[lamma]

legally and lawfully.... mostly it it isn't. e.g offer to move ends the tort but the clampers ignore. lots of other aspects documented here and elsewhere.

[letsmakeamark]

Well, what a load of nonsense that you write. Reading between the lines of someone elses post, I imagine bigbird could well be the accountants working in the large property at the rear of the car park shown. As for clamping being a money raiser for them, then that will not be the case as the clamping company normally get to keep all revenues.

 

Letsmakeamark, I suggest you get your facts right before spouting nonsense. You may not agree with clamping, however if inconsiderate motorists choose to park on someone elses property without good cause, then they deserve everything they get as long as it is done legally.

 

 

Just thinking. You are right in the sense that clampers do not pay anything to the landowners. However this would be incorrect.

[Genepool1]

pdyke you have some front I will give you that. You and a bunch of your contractor cronies on another forum think it would be fun to come on here and start unnecessary arguments and bait other members (troll), even in your case encouraging others to come and cause as much chaos as possible. Having showed contempt for the site and its members you expect us all to treat you as someone worthy of listening to. You have the audacity to lecture others, who give up their time freely to help others, about how to behave. Some of us did wonder whether you were attempting to have a dialogue at all and then it became clear that all the time you were merely involved in a childish game.

[Mundane-o]

This ought to sort things out.. pdyke, what's the name of your shop and the company that works behind you?

[letsmakeamark]

pDyke has been banned and pdyke again has as well.

[tiler1]

hi. not sure if someone else has stated this in a prior response, ive just not had time to read through them all!!

 

the law on clamping states that the carpark warning signs should be visible from the vehicles parked position and signs on the entrance/exit to the car park/land hold no legal bearing. if you cant see a sign from where you are parked it is an illegal clamping regardless if there are signs around the corner/back!

[patdavies]

the law on clamping states that the carpark warning signs should be visible from the vehicles parked position and signs on the entrance/exit to the car park/land hold no legal bearing. if you cant see a sign from where you are parked it is an illegal clamping regardless if there are signs around the corner/back!

 

Not wanting to seem over-contentious, but could you supply either statute or case law to back up this statement.

[My Real Name]

hi. not sure if someone else has stated this in a prior response, ive just not had time to read through them all!!

 

the law on clamping states that the carpark warning signs should be visible from the vehicles parked position and signs on the entrance/exit to the car park/land hold no legal bearing. if you cant see a sign from where you are parked it is an illegal clamping regardless if there are signs around the corner/back!

The issue with clamping is one of implied consent, and the notices are instrumental in deducing whether consent may be implied.

 

Arthur versus Anker refers to signs being present, and Vine versus Waltham Forest to the signs being understandable.

 

If you necessarily pass the signs on the way to where you park, it would satisfy both tests. Any leeway would be along the lines of reasonableness - for example, is it reasonable to imply consent from a sign at the entrance, and is it reasonable to take the sign as applying to the entire car parking area.

 

As patdavies alludes to, there's no case law that relates to the specific positioning of signs. Or, at least, none that I'm aware of.

[pin1onu]

As patdavies alludes to, there's no case law that relates to the specific positioning of signs. Or, at least, none that I'm aware of.

Absolutely concur with that. They have to be visible and understandable. As I've stated in clamping guide your best bet is the size and positioning of the signs. The general principles laid down in Arthur Vs Anker is that the signs must be prominently displayed. You could not be reasonably held to have accepted the risk of being clamped if you couldn't see the signs. I would also stress that they should be readable. IMV they cannot claim prominent display of signs if they are say A4 size at the entrance and nowhere else.

 

The SIA who license the clampers make the point that they do not regulate the size or prominence of the sign. (Nobody does).

[lamma]

entrance signs that cannot be read and fully understood 'at a glance' do not qualify in my view. Unless there is a barrier/system that forces the vehicle to stop so the driver may read the sign (safe from being hit by traffic) AND an exit is available in the case of not agreeing to the terms. (and the sign should be illuminated in the hours of darkness I would argue.)

[pin1onu]

entrance signs that cannot be read and fully understood 'at a glance' do not qualify in my view. Unless there is a barrier/system that forces the vehicle to stop so the driver may read the sign (safe from being hit by traffic) AND an exit is available in the case of not agreeing to the terms. (and the sign should be illuminated in the hours of darkness I would argue.)

I would agree with that - but would a judge - it comes down to balance of probabilities - could you have reasonably seen, read and understood the sign and thus consented to the risk of the clamping. The Vine case made the point about any consent must be based on objective rather than subjective judgement -that is based on observable phenomena rather than an emotionally biased view - be that from the driver or those who displayed the signs.

 

In Arthur vs Anker the signs were prominently displayed at the entrance and around the car park. If the landowners want to avoid challenges then they should seek to have the signs clearly and prominently displayed.

 

Definitely agree with you about signs being illuminated at night.

[ed.pompy]

Did you know that only a few clamping companies have the capability of removing vehicles since the majority do not have their own tow trucks.

It’s also a Criminal Offence for a clamping company to use an outside contractor if the driver is not Sia frontline licensed and clamping companies are hard pressed to outsource vehicle removal.

If you have been clamped on private land you should ask for sight of the clamping company’s Public Liability Insurance which should be defined “wheel clamping”. If they do not hold insurance you should contact the landowner and your local Citizens Advice Bureau making them aware of your concern.

Where towing is involved the clamping company is also required to hold motor trade road risk insurance. These policies are extremely expensive and unless the clamping company or its agent holds a requisite policy defined “wheel clamping” they cannot legally remove your vehicle and as such they cannot legally charge you a towing fee.

The Courts take a dim view on any landowner who engages a clamping or parking enforcement company which does not hold public liability insurance. The Courts and Police take a dimmer view of any company that uses a person(s) to remove a vehicle who is not Sia frontline licensed (which can carry an unlimited fine in the Crown Court and/or up to 5 Years in prison).

If you have evidence or reasonable suspicion to believe that a clamping company is using non-frontline licence holder(s) to remove vehicles report them http://www.sia.homeoffice.gov.uk/Pages/enforcement-reporting.aspx

Clamping firms are also obligated Under Section 4 of the Business Names Act 1985 to identify if the clamping company is an enterprise run by an individual, partnership or limited company and provide the full name(s) of the individual, partners or company concerned together with their full address upon written request.

It is of course best to park legally within the rules and not to get clamped in the first place but if you do have the misfortune of being clamped the company administering the parking polices should be competent and carry the requisite qualifications and insurances.

I have started writing to landowners putting them on notice that I am aware that they are using a clamping and/or parking enforcement company to which they have a duty of care to check their agents insurance policies and that I reserve the right to produce my letter to any court, police and/or regulatory authority that I see fit should their agent not be insured to carry out the service, you would not believe the amount of clamping and parking enforcement signs that have been speedily removed as a result of their agent not holding insurance.

The feedback from the landowners who were stunned to find their agent was charging motorists towing related fees when that agent had no insurance or towing ability made them feel sick and no doubt think of the consequences that these companies put their businesses in.

[ed.pompy]

Photo copy badges do not suffice. Also

Did you know that only a few clamping companies have the capability of removing vehicles since the majority do not have their own tow trucks.

It’s also a Criminal Offence for a clamping company to use an outside contractor if the driver is not Sia frontline licensed and clamping companies are hard pressed to outsource vehicle removal.

If you have been clamped on private land you should ask for sight of the clamping company’s Public Liability Insurance which should be defined “wheel clamping”. If they do not hold insurance you should contact the landowner and local Citizens Advice Bureau making them aware of your concern.

Where towing is involved the clamping company is also required to hold motor trade road risk insurance. These policies are extremely expensive and unless the clamping company or its agent holds a requisite policy defined “wheel clamping” they cannot legally remove your vehicle and as such they cannot legally charge you a towing fee.

The Courts take a dim view on any landowner who engages a clamping or parking enforcement company which does not hold public liability insurance. The Courts and Police take a dimmer view of any company that uses a person(s) to remove a vehicle who is not Sia frontline licensed (which can carry an unlimited fine in the Crown Court and/or up to 5 Years in prison).

If you have evidence or reasonable suspicion to believe that a clamping company is using non-frontline licence holder(s) to remove vehicles visit http://www.sia.homeoffice.gov.uk/Pages/enforcement-reporting.aspx

Clamping firms are also obligated Under Section 4 of the Business Names Act 1985 to identify if the clamping company is an enterprise run by an individual, partnership or limited company and provide the full name(s) of the individual, partners or company concerned together with their full address upon written request.

It is of course best to park legally within the rules and not to get clamped in the first place but if you do have the misfortune of being clamped the company administering the parking polices should be competent and carry the requisite qualifications and insurances.

I have started writing to landowners putting them on notice that I am aware that they are using a clamping and/or parking enforcement company to which they have a duty of care to check their agents insurance policies and that I reserve the right to produce my letter to any court, police and/or regulatory authority that I see fit should their agent not be insured to carry out the service, you would not believe the amount of clamping and parking enforcement signs that have been speedily removed as a result of their agent not holding insurance. The feedback from the landowners who were stunned to find their agent was charging motorists towing related fees when that agent had no insurance or towing ability made them feel sick and no doubt think of the consequences that these companies put their businesses in.

[ed.pompy]

A photo copy badge does not suffice. Also

Did you know that only a few clamping companies have the capability of removing vehicles since the majority do not have their own tow trucks.

It’s also a Criminal Offence for a clamping company to use an outside contractor if the driver is not Sia frontline licensed and clamping companies are hard pressed to outsource vehicle removal.

If you have been clamped on private land you should ask for sight of the clamping company’s Public Liability Insurance which should be defined “wheel clamping”. If they do not hold insurance you should contact the landowner and local Citizens Advice Bureau making them aware of your concern.

Where towing is involved the clamping company is also required to hold motor trade road risk insurance. These policies are extremely expensive and unless the clamping company or its agent holds a requisite policy defined “wheel clamping” they cannot legally remove your vehicle and as such they cannot legally charge you a towing fee.

The Courts take a dim view on any landowner who engages a clamping or parking enforcement company which does not hold public liability insurance. The Courts and Police take a dimmer view of any company that uses a person(s) to remove a vehicle who is not Sia frontline licensed (which can carry an unlimited fine in the Crown Court and/or up to 5 Years in prison).

If you have evidence or reasonable suspicion to believe that a clamping company is using non-frontline licence holder(s) to remove vehicles visit http://www.sia.homeoffice.gov.uk/Pages/enforcement-reporting.aspx

Clamping firms are also obligated Under Section 4 of the Business Names Act 1985 to identify if the clamping company is an enterprise run by an individual, partnership or limited company and provide the full name(s) of the individual, partners or company concerned together with their full address upon written request.

It is of course best to park legally within the rules and not to get clamped in the first place but if you do have the misfortune of being clamped the company administering the parking polices should be competent and carry the requisite qualifications and insurances.

I have started writing to landowners putting them on notice that I am aware that they are using a clamping and/or parking enforcement company to which they have a duty of care to check their agents insurance policies and that I reserve the right to produce my letter to any court, police and/or regulatory authority that I see fit should their agent not be insured to carry out the service, you would not believe the amount of clamping and parking enforcement signs that have been speedily removed as a result of their agent not holding insurance. The feedback from the landowners who were stunned to find their agent was charging motorists towing related fees when that agent had no insurance or towing ability made them feel sick and no doubt think of the consequences that these companies put their businesses in.

[lamma]

good stuff. could you edit out the duplicates and just make it all plain text in the one remaining ? could be a good sticky.

[prolific8]

What happened here in the end?