Car Clamping

[Chookgirl]

I would like to re-iterate that I did not see any of these signs

[jkdd77]

I would suggest that you sue both the clampers and the landowners; saying that

i) you did not see the signs, and therefore did not consent to clamping

ii) you could not reasonably have seen the signs due to poor positioning (none at the entrance)

iii) the lettering prohibiting leaving the site was far too small to be easily seen- [contrast with "customers only"- but then you were a genuine customer]

and needed to be explicitly brought to your attention (c.f. "red hand rule) and arguably constitutes an "unfair contract term" when applied to genuine shop customers [and in any case, you did not see it]

 

I can't guarantee success, as small claims courts are always something of a lottery, and even if you win, actually obtaining payment could be rather difficult. For future instances, I can only suggest investing in some high-quality angle-grinders to cut off unlawfully applied PPC clamps- if the clamping is unlawful then this is legitimate self-help and not criminal damage.

[nero12]

Here are the entrnce photos clearly no signs.

 

 

 

and the obscured one

 

 

 

[Graham117]

I realise it doesn't help here, but isn't disclaiming liability for personal injury disallowed under UCTA?

[nero12]

I realise it doesn't help here, but isn't disclaiming liability for personal injury disallowed under UCTA?

Also in theory, they claim that if you left this site on foot to get some money they will clamp. Is this not unfair ??

[Chookgirl]

yes, the leaving the site to obtain money is mentioned in the letter I received, they say that as Burger King accept all major cards this is not allowed, however, how many people actually go in and ask burger king if they accept major cards before walking to a cash point. I have lost so much sleep over this, stupid I know, but it really upset my little boy as well, he won't go near a burger king now, he says that is where the nasty people live!!

[Chookgirl]

fab photos, I wonder if they increase my chances of success???

[nero12]

fab photos, I wonder if they increase my chances of success???

says not using a designated space or leaving the site,

 

if whom leaves the site. The driver, your passengers ?? Not clear by any means ;who this contract is aimed at. ??

[Yorky2008]

I know you can tell them to just bog off anyway, but as a sidenote the sign does not actually state the boundaries of 'the site'. Is it the carpark? does it include the shops? etc etc.

 

Just tell em to take a hike and invoice them for any further letters they send you for your wasted time.

[Graham117]

I know you can tell them to just bog off anyway, but as a sidenote the sign does not actually state the boundaries of 'the site'. Is it the carpark? does it include the shops? etc etc.

 

Just tell em to take a hike and invoice them for any further letters they send you for your wasted time.

 

The matter here is to try and recover the cost of clamp removal, not a PPC invoice.

[Yorky2008]

The matter here is to try and recover the cost of clamp removal, not a PPC invoice.

 

Indeed, but isnt that why they clamped her? For leaving the 'site' to change some shoes?

 

She may be able to use it in her defence to reclaim the fees.

[theratboy]

It does not say you pay for clamp removal it reads that the 125 pound is a fixed penalty, a penalty from a private firm?? Have they shot themselves in the foot? Sure someone with more knowledge can clear that one up

[pin1onu]

It does not say you pay for clamp removal it reads that the 125 pound is a fixed penalty, a penalty from a private firm?? Have they shot themselves in the foot? Sure someone with more knowledge can clear that one up

These are trespass damages so they are allowed to be penal. It's because in a trespass there is generally no chance to set damages or negotiate a contract beforehand. However you have highlighted a point. The existing case law states that the vehicle must be release once an offer to pay has been made; It is not conditional on the payment being made.

 

However there is a very real issue of implied consent. There are no signs at the entrance and the pictures seem to indicate that the signs are not lit. (Nere can perhaps clarify if they are lit.)

 

A county court judge may agree that the signage is inadequate and given that it was dark you could not reasonably be expected to seethem and thus give your consent. In my view you have a case. That said the defense may show adequately lit signs.

 

The judge will then decide the case on the "balance of probabilities" i.e. who's version is more likely. He has to take into account existing case law, but it can still be a bit of a lottery.

 

Chooky, you need to read up on Arthur vs Anker and Vine vs LBC Waltham Forrest (particularly the latter) and make a decision as to whether you proceed. It will cost you £30 to file the claim. You can claim this back if you win but it's money down the drain if you lose. (I'm not trying to put you off just trying to present the realities).

[Surfer01]

"Leaving site". It does not state how you would leave the site. Does this imply that you are liable for the fine on leaving the site anyway otherwise how do you move your motor vehilce off the premises. A very ambigious statement to say the least.

[Chookgirl]

oh no, I cannot decide what to do.....I found the whole experiance so traumatic that I don't think these so and so's should be allowed to get away with it, however, on the other side, I don't want to drag myself through the mud

[Chookgirl]

I was a burger king customer, and there is the point that the boundaries of the site are not defined, would this be a good point to argue, especially as there are no signs at the entrance to the 'site' to define that you are entering a 'no parking zone!!!'

[jkdd77]

If you can spare the time to research and construct a good case, and to attend court, then I would say 'go for it'. At least you will know you've done all you can to fight an injustice.

 

My (non-expert) 'best guess' is that you have at least a 50% chance of success [in truth it could go either way, depending on the quality of the defence and the mood of the judge], so, put crudely you're staking £35 to get £125 if successful [ignoring time/ travel considerations].

 

Take a look at the following link- I hope pin1onu has no objection to me quoting him/her- I can't find the original CAG link:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1957787

 

"The lesson from Vine is that even when signs are prominently displayed, a motorist who has not seen them cannot have consented to a vehicle being clamped. An underlying principle is that it is not only objective judgement must be exercised but also subjective judgement as well. Even if the signs are seen they have to be read and understood."

 

If you do decide to sue, ask one of the board 'eagles' (such as pin1onu) for help constructing a well-worded particulars of claim.

Edited October 9, 2009 by jkdd77

[jkdd77]

You may be interested in a successful case in a similar situation. Although this is not of course case law, it suggests that your own claim is more likely than not to be successful:

Im NOT lovin it - FightBack Forums

[Chookgirl]

I am feeling newly motivated, I have worked out the car park, there is no way I would of seen any of the signs when parking, there are none at the entrance either, I feel that the only way forward is to fight this, otherwise how else are we going to stop it!!! unfortunately something else has arisen over the weekend that is short term more worrying so I will be posting something about that asking for advise, but please, bear with me, this seems to be worth the fight, if nothing else, to protect others from what happened. jkdd77 that is really useful, there are some points to be gleamed from the macdonalds case, thank you

[pin1onu]

Chooky,

 

It sounds as if the poster on the Pepipoo case got the judgement on the basis of MDs not providing copies of the signage (probably because they were on a hiding to nothing if the Judge had seen them!).

 

From my read of your case the position where you parked in relation to the signs is going to be important. Remember you have to convince a judge "on the balance of probabilities" that you did not see the signs and therefore could not consent to being clamped.

 

As a picture paints a thousand words, see if you can obtain aerial photo's of the site (Use Google earth, Street view, Multimap etc) and show where you parked and also your route to/from the cash machine.

 

If you can demonstrate that you did not pass near a sign or that any you did were obscured (like the one covered by the foilage in nero's photo's) then you have the makings of a good case.

 

You might want to comment on the general repair of the signage.

 

Comment on the fact there is no signage at the entrance to the car park.

 

You want to read up on Arthur vs Anker and Vine vs LBC Waltham Forrest as these are the two main bit of case law.

 

Also look at the requirements of the PSI Act 2001 and regulations in relation to clamping. Did the clamping company comply with all the regulations? Is the clamper licensed? Does the clamper have permission to clamp from the landowner?

 

One other point to make, although BK accept Credit and Debit Cards not everybody carries them or wants to use them. So going off site might be necessary for cash can be explained.

[nero12]

Chooky,

 

It sounds as if the poster on the Pepipoo case got the judgement on the basis of MDs not providing copies of the signage (probably because they were on a hiding to nothing if the Judge had seen them!).

 

From my read of your case the position where you parked in relation to the signs is going to be important. Remember you have to convince a judge "on the balance of probabilities" that you did not see the signs and therefore could not consent to being clamped.

 

As a picture paints a thousand words, see if you can obtain aerial photo's of the site (Use Google earth, Street view, Multimap etc) and show where you parked and also your route to/from the cash machine.

 

If you can demonstrate that you did not pass near a sign or that any you did were obscured (like the one covered by the foilage in nero's photo's) then you have the makings of a good case.

 

You might want to comment on the general repair of the signage.

 

Comment on the fact there is no signage at the entrance to the car park.

 

You want to read up on Arthur vs Anker and Vine vs LBC Waltham Forrest as these are the two main bit of case law.

 

Also look at the requirements of the PSI Act 2001 and regulations in relation to clamping. Did the clamping company comply with all the regulations? Is the clamper licensed? Does the clamper have permission to clamp from the landowner?

 

One other point to make, although BK accept Credit and Debit Cards not everybody carries them or wants to use them. So going off site might be necessary for cash can be explained.

 

Hey guys, I can get some more pics of the car park in daylight if this helps.

[jkdd77]

Anything pin1onu says is likely to be excellent advice, and he/she is certainly far, far more qualified than me to give advice on the chances of winning.

 

One thing that did strike me, as a non-expert, from the Pepipoo case, was the following line:

"Mcdonalds said in court we left the premises having read the signs and knowing we would be clamped.

The judge said to the representative of McDonalds why on earth would anyone do that? "

Mc Donalds Southall - FightBack Forums

 

I would imagine that this general point would work in your favour in showing, on the balance of probabilities, that you did not see the signs- why would any sensible motorist who had seen the signs want to leave the site, given the risk of clamping?

 

Chooky,

 

It sounds as if the poster on the Pepipoo case got the judgement on the basis of MDs not providing copies of the signage (probably because they were on a hiding to nothing if the Judge had seen them!).

 

From my read of your case the position where you parked in relation to the signs is going to be important. Remember you have to convince a judge "on the balance of probabilities" that you did not see the signs and therefore could not consent to being clamped.

 

As a picture paints a thousand words, see if you can obtain aerial photo's of the site (Use Google earth, Street view, Multimap etc) and show where you parked and also your route to/from the cash machine.

 

If you can demonstrate that you did not pass near a sign or that any you did were obscured (like the one covered by the foilage in nero's photo's) then you have the makings of a good case.

 

You might want to comment on the general repair of the signage.

 

Comment on the fact there is no signage at the entrance to the car park.

 

You want to read up on Arthur vs Anker and Vine vs LBC Waltham Forrest as these are the two main bit of case law.

 

Also look at the requirements of the PSI Act 2001 and regulations in relation to clamping. Did the clamping company comply with all the regulations? Is the clamper licensed? Does the clamper have permission to clamp from the landowner?

 

One other point to make, although BK accept Credit and Debit Cards not everybody carries them or wants to use them. So going off site might be necessary for cash can be explained.

[Chookgirl]

Yes please to additional photos, I parked where the red car is in the 3rd photo down, I truely believe that there were no signs visable as you drive into that space and park, I am really cross with myself for not thinking rationally and taking photos etc, I am normally so sensible but was very frightened and worried about my son

[hamco]

I have just read some posts re car clamping in Haworth, the Bronte place, but unfortunately only after We got clamped yesterday. This rough looking character who did it said we weren't properly within the lines and so we had to pay £75 to get it removed. I took photos etc, but don't hold out any hope of getting it back. Obviously judging by the posts this has been going on for some time and no one is doing anything about it. We were about to buy lunch for us two and my brother and his wife visiting us from Canada. Needless to say we didn't, so local businesses will and are suffering at the hands of these people.If you don't want to be robbed of £75 don't go to Haworth until these people are run out of town by the only people who can i.e. the locals and the council. I rang the police who refused to do anything, saying it was a civil matter, so as usual they are worse than useless. Be warned.

[hwilliams]

Is there some legislation about signage designed to induce an error for the purpose of extortion and pecuniary gain.