Clamped while getting change!

[niecey]

Hi there, can anyone give any advice. I am trying to help my 75 year old father who parked on a public road and went into a shop to get change to pay for the parking and while he was in there (a couple of mins), a clamping van (who he believes was waiting for just such an event) clamped him and charged him £120 to release the car. The lady from the shop also came out to tell the clamper that he only left the car to get change to pay for the parking and his response was that he left the car, so tough.

 

I am so gutted for him, they are struggling to survive on their meagre pensions as it is without £120 charge that they hadn't budgeted for!

 

Is there anyone to complain to, is it legal to clamp when he was gone for such a short time.

 

Thanks for any advice

Edited April 27, 2009 by niecey
mistake

[green_and_mean]

Who was he clamped by and are you sure it was a public road?

[niecey]

Thanks for your reply. Just spoke to my Dad and apparently the company is Capital Coast Security and he actually was in a car park that had signs up saying that you would be clamped.

[Al27]

Only way you'll get your money back is to sue the clampers and the landowner.

[buzby]

yep - if they have your money, then there is little point in appealing to their better nature - as they won;t have one.

 

What he CAN do is raise it with the local paper, which in view of his age may be happy to feature it as part of a 'disreputable' community campaign.

[My Real Name]

Thanks for your reply. Just spoke to my Dad and apparently the company is Capital Coast Security and he actually was in a car park that had signs up saying that you would be clamped.

 

Have a read of the clamping guide for some background to clamping.

 

As has been mentioned, your most likely option for redress is in the courts (or the threat of the courts), in which case you would need to gather a certain amount of information.

 

Specifically, the location and content of any signage, the SIA licence details of the clampers, the content of the receipt for payment that you would have received, for example.

 

It seems to me that the strength of your claim would be based on the fact that you were not trespassing, and had not consented to being clamped. Specifically, your intention was to pay for the right to park in the car park, and within a reasonable time period (i.e. park the car, obtain correct change, make payment).

[pin1onu]

Absolutely concur with the advice above. Have a read of the clamping guide.

 

You need to return to the "scene of the crime" to see if you can build a case. Clamping is about implied consent. Take a camera with you and get photos of any signs.

 

Things to look for: signs at entrances, signs on pedestrian entrances and so on. The terms and conditions on the sign may give an out.

 

It may help you if get print an aerial view via google earth of the car park so you can mark out the location of signs. Were the signs visible and could you reasonably be able to see them.

 

Remember you have to convince a judge that signage was inadequate.

 

The clamping guide, already mentioned, has some other things to check like the SIA license. Can your father remember if they were wearing their SIA badge when clamping or releasing. Did he get a receipt with the SIA license number.

 

As a final point - damages arising from trespass should go to the landowner. You need to sue the landowner as well as the clamper.

[Al27]

Find out the landowner.

 

Bear in mind that even if you win against the clampers, they are unlikely to pay. They'll already have tens of CCJs.

 

Landowners are more likely to pay.

[crem]

Checking the car park signage, although useful if it is non-compiant, doesn't seem to be the main point the OP would be pursuing. i.e. the claim is that his father knew he had to pay for parking and was fully willing to do so, having just popped into the nearest shop to optain change. A witness statement from the lady in the shop should be most helpful and needs to be got now while it is fresh in her mind.

[Al27]

Yep. Otherwise you'd be expected to park elsewhere, buy a ticket, return to your car and then park it on the pay car park.

[pin1onu]

Checking the car park signage, although useful if it is non-compiant, doesn't seem to be the main point the OP would be pursuing. i.e. the claim is that his father knew he had to pay for parking and was fully willing to do so, having just popped into the nearest shop to optain change. A witness statement from the lady in the shop should be most helpful and needs to be got now while it is fresh in her mind.

I would agree with that to a point. Playing Devil's advocate for a minute - for the clampers knew the driver had left the vehicle and popped into the shop. They could speculate as to why he went there but have no way of divining his intention. (i.e. Was he just getting change or was he buying a packet of fags and intending to drive off after purchasing them). So they will claim that the clamping was valid.

(Bloody hell I sound like G&M:D).

 

That being case then the conditions on the signage become pertinent. If they are non-existent or not visible then the whole issue becomes one of invalid clamping.

 

I do agree that a witness statement from the lady in the shop would also add weight to any case. But IMV it would not be good idea to rely solely on that in court as it can be rebutted.

[My Real Name]

I would agree with that to a point. Playing Devil's advocate for a minute - for the clampers knew the driver had left the vehicle and popped into the shop. They could speculate as to why he went there but have no way of divining his intention. (i.e. Was he just getting change or was he buying a packet of fags and intending to drive off after purchasing them). So they will claim that the clamping was valid.

(Bloody hell I sound like G&M:D).

 

That being case then the conditions on the signage become pertinent. If they are non-existent or not visible then the whole issue becomes one of invalid clamping.

 

I do agree that a witness statement from the lady in the shop would also add weight to any case. But IMV it would not be good idea to rely solely on that in court as it can be rebutted.

I think that there would need to be a test of reasonableness. Would a reasonable person make the assumption that a driver was not intending to pay for a parking permit if they were seen parking their vehicle, observing the parking conditions, and entering a shop to purchase a ticket / obtain the means to do so.

 

It would help the OPs claim too, if they were to produce a valid ticket purchased after obtaining change. Although I can understand someones reluctance to do so after seeing their vehicle clamped.

 

That being said, if the time of clamping and time of release are close enough together, it would validate the OPs story to some degree.

[pin1onu]

The county court use "balance of probabilities" to determine what happened as nothing is done under oath.

 

With regards to reasonability it can be a lottery as to how a judge applies it

A lot would depend on any signage displayed and terms offered.

 

BTW I'm not trying to discourage anyone from going after these scumbags but would encourage anyone doing so to be thoroughly prepared. The more points you can score against them the better your chance of getting your dosh back.