Clamped in my own parking space!

[lamma]

Both. But can't see an honest belief that all clamping is unlawful being upheld. as ever its down to the facts in each case. As for what may happen in court, who knows ? the biscuit shortage may affect the outcome !

[mightymouse_69]

I believe it is very poor advice to suugest that one destroys the clamp and relies on a defence under S5.

 

1) a defence under section 5(2)(a) relies on an honest belief that the owner of the clamp would consent to its destruction. NOT whether the person has an honest belief that they have a lawful excuse

 

2) a defence under section 5(2)(b) relies on a honest belief that the person feels his property needs protecting and that:

i) it is in immediate need of protection;

ii) the means of protection employed were reasonable.

 

No one can argue that they thought that the clamping company would consent to them destroying the clamp - that rules out S.5(2)(a)

 

It will be hard to explain why a clamped car is in immediate need of protection...further, it would be hard to justify cutting the clamp when there is an alternative lawful way of releasing the car. That rules out S. 5(2)(a)

 

Even in the Mitchell case, the lawyer representing Mitchell accepted that S.5 did not apply.

 

And in Lloyd, it was stated that even if the clamping was unlawful, cutting the clamp would not be justified - which was quoted with approval in Mitchell.

 

Its not worth the risk - fair enough cut it at night and hope you dont get caught. But if you do i dont think S.5 would be much help at all.

[jkdd77]

I believe it is very poor advice to suugest that one destroys the clamp and relies on a defence under S5.

 

1) a defence under section 5(2)(a) relies on an honest belief that the owner of the clamp would consent to its destruction. NOT whether the person has an honest belief that they have a lawful excuse

 

2) a defence under section 5(2)(b) relies on a honest belief that the person feels his property needs protecting and that:

i) it is in immediate need of protection;

ii) the means of protection employed were reasonable.

 

No one can argue that they thought that the clamping company would consent to them destroying the clamp - that rules out S.5(2)(a)

 

It will be hard to explain why a clamped car is in immediate need of protection...further, it would be hard to justify cutting the clamp when there is an alternative lawful way of releasing the car. That rules out S. 5(2)(a)

 

Even in the Mitchell case, the lawyer representing Mitchell accepted that S.5 did not apply.

 

And in Lloyd, it was stated that even if the clamping was unlawful, cutting the clamp would not be justified - which was quoted with approval in Mitchell.

 

Its not worth the risk - fair enough cut it at night and hope you dont get caught. But if you do i dont think S.5 would be much help at all.

 

As per Lindon, it was held that:

Chamberlain v Lindon, 1998

 

"The long delay between the building of the obstruction (the wall) and the action taken to remove it (knocking it down) demonstrates that the “immediacy” factor is about the immediacy of the danger in a general sense, and a delay before taking action does not invalidate the ‘lawful excuse’ defence. "

 

"So long as the wall remained it was, on the facts as believed by the respondent, an obstruction to his right of way, and so there was an immediate need to remove it." (This would most certainly also apply to the victim of an unlawful clamping, [especially if they honestly believe that the car might be towed away if the clamp is not immediately cut off]. therefore satisfying b(i)).

 

"Lindon was allowed to resort to self-help even if it wasn’t an emergency, [that is, even if alternatives existed- and Lindon could have sued instead- indeed he expressly knocked the wall down in order to avoid the hassle of suing] because he honestly believed that the action he took was reasonable." (This would also apply to the victim of an unlawful clamping, therefore satisfying b(ii)

It also flatly contradicts Lloyd, but then again Lloyd was clearly wrongly decided on this point, insofar it as it wrongly ruled that the test of reasonableness in section 5 was an objective test rather than a subjective test of honest belief that the actions were reasonable.

 

The judge...[says], as this is a matter of criminal law, he does not have to decide whether Lindon’s action was justified as a matter of civil law, and then says that, for the purpose of the criminal law, what matters is whether Lindon honestly believed that his actions were reasonable—i.e. a subjective test."

 

If it's lawful to knock down a trespassing wall rather than go to the hassle of suing, surely it's lawful to cut off a trespassing clamp fitted as a means of extorting money from oneself?

 

In summary, it is easy to explain why the car is "in immediate need of protection"- just point to page six of Sullivan, J's judgment.

It is even easier for a victim to demonstrate that they honestly believed that cutting off the clamp was reasonable- the so-called "alternative" of paying and suing involves a huge amount of time and hassle, with limited chances of actually getting any money back- and therefore an individual could well honestly believe that this is not a sensible option when compared to the immediate relief of self-help.

 

In any case, any interpretation of the law would now have to take account of the 'right to peaceful enjoyment of property' enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights, and the right not to be subjected to [de facto] 'fines' by private individuals, except through due process.

Edited February 8, 2010 by jkdd77

[mightymouse_69]

As per Lindon, it was held that:

Chamberlain v Lindon, 1998

 

"The long delay between the building of the obstruction (the wall) and the action taken to remove it (knocking it down) demonstrates that the “immediacy” factor is about the immediacy of the danger in a general sense, and a delay before taking action does not invalidate the ‘lawful excuse’ defence. "

 

"So long as the wall remained it was, on the facts as believed by the respondent, an obstruction to his right of way, and so there was an immediate need to remove it." (This would most certainly also apply to the victim of an unlawful clamping, [especially if they honestly believe that the car might be towed away if the clamp is not immediately cut off]. therefore satisfying b(i)).

 

"Lindon was allowed to resort to self-help even if it wasn’t an emergency, [that is, even if alternatives existed- and Lindon could have sued instead- indeed he expressly knocked the wall down in order to avoid the hassle of suing] because he honestly believed that the action he took was reasonable." (This would also apply to the victim of an unlawful clamping, therefore satisfying b(ii)

It also flatly contradicts Lloyd, but then again Lloyd was clearly wrongly decided on this point, insofar it as it wrongly ruled that the test of reasonableness in section 5 was an objective test rather than a subjective test of honest belief that the actions were reasonable.

 

The judge...[says], as this is a matter of criminal law, he does not have to decide whether Lindon’s action was justified as a matter of civil law, and then says that, for the purpose of the criminal law, what matters is whether Lindon honestly believed that his actions were reasonable—i.e. a subjective test."

 

If it's lawful to knock down a trespassing wall, surely it's lawful to cut off a trespassing clamp fitted as a means of extorting money from oneself?

 

In summary, it is easy to explain why the car is "in immediate need of protection"- just point to page six of Sullivan, J's judgment.

It is even easier for a victim to demonstrate that they honestly believed that cutting off the clamp was reasonable- the so-called "alternative" of paying and suing involves a huge amount of time and hassle, with limited chances of actually getting any money back- and therefore an individual could well honestly believe that this is not a sensible option when compared to the immediate relief of self-help.

 

In Chamberlain v Lindon, it was held that the defendant fell into S5 because he believed his right of way needed protecting immediately because the wall across it was an existing obstruction and delay would be evidence of acquiescence in it.

 

i.e. The defendant felt that if he did not act quickly, he may be estopped from removing the wall in the future:

 

"From the defendant's point of view, for the reasons given in paragraph 2(y)(a) of the case stated (which I have already read), the longer the wall remained the more urgent the need to remove it, to avoid any suggestion of acquiescence in the obstruction."

 

This arguably does not apply to car clamping, since the individual can stop the car being taken away by paying the fine.

 

It also has to be mentioned that Lindon has been ignored in later cases - such as Mitchell and Steer v Scott where it was held that the car was not in immediate need of protection.

 

Of course - the law is always changing! So never say never. I happen to believe that S5 would not apply and the case law thus far supports this.

 

Edit: Just the clarify - Mitchell ignored Lindon - Steer v Scott was decided before but rulled that self help is a last resort and also that the car was did not in immediate need of protection.

Edited February 8, 2010 by mightymouse_69

[jkdd77]

In Chamberlain v Lindon, it was held that the defendant fell into S5 because he believed his right of way needed protecting immediately because the wall across it was an existing obstruction and delay would be evidence of acquiescence in it.

 

i.e. The defendant felt that if he did not act quickly, he may be estopped from removing the wall in the future:

 

"From the defendant's point of view, for the reasons given in paragraph 2(y)(a) of the case stated (which I have already read), the longer the wall remained the more urgent the need to remove it, to avoid any suggestion of acquiescence in the obstruction."

 

This arguably does not apply to car clamping, since the individual can stop the car being taken away by paying the fine.

 

It also has to be mentioned that Lindon has been ignored in later cases - such as Mitchell and Steer v Scott where it was held that the car was not in immediate need of protection.

 

Of course - the law is always changing! So never say never. I happen to believe that S5 would not apply and the case law thus far supports this.

 

Edit: Just the clarify - Mitchell ignored Lindon - Steer v Scott was decided before but rulled that self help is a last resort and also that the car was did not in immediate need of protection.

 

I was just about to pick you up on the timing issue, but you already

corrected it- I admit that I don't know for certain whether, and to what extent, the definition of 'immediate need' in Lindon was raised by the defendant's solicitor in Mitchell. As for paying the "fine", private individuals are not permitted to "fine" others- it would be more accurate, in the case of an unlawful clamping, to refer to it as an "unlawful ransom demand", and to then consider the honest belief of the defendant as to the reasonableness of self-help in this context- given that they are the one who has been wronged, and the clampers are the ones who are commiting a civil tort [at least].

 

The RAC Foundation and many others have stated that that they belive the UK Government is violating the ECHR by failing to outlaw private clamping.

BBC NEWS | UK | Private clamping 'legally shaky'

 

I would argue, as per Lindon, that the fact that the victim's 'right of usage' [akin to 'right of access'] of the car is unquestionably impeded indefinitely, and that the victim indeed needs to get his/her own car back immediately, or face towing/ far heavier clamp removal charges/ loss of utility/ taxi costs/ resulting from not being able to enjoy their own property. As with Lindon, it could be also be argued that failure to act immediately would be evidence of acquiescence to the clamping and to payment of the release fee.

 

A victim of an unlawful clamping may well want, or even need, to drive away immediately [perhaps in order to get home to their children], and surely this shows that there is an immediate need to have the clamp removed by one way or another in order that they can lawfully enjoy the proper usage of their own property immediately. It may be true that alternatives exist [paying the ransom demand] which would also allow immediate removal, but this is a question for 2(b)[ii] rather than 2(b)(i).

 

In Blake vs DPP [1995] Crim L.R. 586, it was ruled that the test of 'immediate need' was "to decide on the facts as D believed them to be, whether there was evidence "on which it could be said that she believed there was a need of protection from immediate danger."

 

Again, I would say that the correct test of 2(b) is one of honest belief that the property is in immediate danger, regardless of whether this belief is objectively justified, and based on the above, I would say that this test is likely to be met.

 

Moving on to 2(b)[ii], I also believe that, based on the utterly plain language of the statute law as written, that the wording and implications of Section 5(3) was correctly interpreted in Jaggard and Lindon to rule that an individual may, depending on their honest belief, be entitled to use self-help even if alternatives exist, and that it was incorrectly interpreted or even ignored altogether in Lloyd and Mitchell in ruling that honest belief is irrelevant.

 

Arthur vs Anker held that self-help by a landowner (namely clamping) is a wholly lawful and proportionate response to the civil tort of trespass (unauthorised parking) despite the presence of many alternatives to clamping, such as physical barriers and 'invoices'; yet R vs Mitchell expressly held that self-help by a motorist (cutting off the clamp) is not a lawful response to the civil tort of trespass (namely unlawful clamping).

 

This was supposedly on the basis that alternatives exist, namely paying under protest and suing (notwithstanding that actually getting any money back is extremely difficult and time-consuming in practice- many victims on this site have followed the advice to 'pay and sue' the letter and still not got a penny back (indeed lost more money on court and bailiff fees- how would you advise them?)

 

Either self-help is a lawful response to a trespass [and not necessarily as a last resort], in which case R vs Mitchell was wrongly decided by the Court of Appeal and cutting off an unlawfully applied clamp should be lawful, or it is not, in which case Arthur vs Anker was wrongly decided by the Court of Appeal and clamping itself is unlawful self-help. Which is it? I believe the former.

 

In short, I believe that Mitchell was clearly per incuriam on the question of the correct interpretation of section 5(2)(b)(ii) on the 'objective vs subjective' test of reasonableness, by ignoring the plain language of section 5(3)- why is section 5(3) even there if courts are free to ignore it? I always thought words in statute law are there for a reason.

 

Furthermore, as a practical point, rather than a strict point of law, it has left cowboy clampers free to clamp- often on land over which they have no connection- and then phoenix, with absolute impunity, and with full and unquestioning police support by way fo the threat of arrest for "criminal damage" if the unlawful ransom demand is not met.

 

I honestly think that a Supreme Court ruling would definitely go in favour of a motorist on (2)b[ii], and that it would probably also do so on (2)b(i) although I agree that this is less clear cut. If it did indeed rule in the motorist's favour on (2)b(i), this would make the defence of 'lawful excuse' complete. After all, even the Court of Appeal is not infallible- as shown by the recent decision on bank charges.

 

There are other potential defences - for example, arguing that clamping is carried out on behalf of the landowner; that the landowner would not have consented to unlawful clamping; that the landowner would therefore have consented to the clamp-cutting, and that the defendant honestly believed that the landowner is the person entitled to give consent to the clamp-cutting as per 5(2)(a). This defence actually succeeded in this case:

BBC NEWS | England | 'Consent law' clears clamped driver

 

Alternatively, a defendant in this particular case could argue that they honestly believed that they were entitled to 'convert' the trespassing clamps, and therefore that they were entitled to damage what they honestly believed to be their own property.

 

Both arguments were of course, empthatically rejected in Lloyd, but seemingly based mainly on the consideration that the defendant had consented to the clamping, and could not therefore have honestly believed that either of the above scenarios was the case. Neither argument was raised again in Mitchell, despite the lack of consent to the clamping, which could arguably have constituted a key distinguishing factor from the Lloyd ruling.

 

The RAC Foundation have also indicated that they believe it is contrary to the ECHR for a victim of an unlawful clamping to be effectively forced, by case law on 'criminal damage', to pay the ransom demanded, with minimal chance of actually recovering the money that was unlawfully taken from them under duress. They further suggested that any test of 'reasonableness' with regards to 'self-help' must be interpreted in light of the UK's ECHR obligations to take measures to ensure that an individual's right to peaceful enjoyment of private property is not infringed.

 

However, I fully accept that raising any such defence is fraught with risk, and I'm glad we've conducted our little 'debate' in good spirits.

You've certainly raised some very good points. As a genuine question (not flaming), what would you do if you were clamped unlawfully, on your own land, by cowboy clampers with a reputation for endlessly phoenixing, over an alleged past debt [as has happened to many others]? After all, if you pay the unlawful ransom demand and sue, you are just thowing good money after bad, and will never see a penny of (any of) your money ever again.

 

In such a case, I would say you have no truly sensible and viable alternative to self-help.

Edited February 9, 2010 by jkdd77

[Al27]

Cutting off a clamp and paying £0 vs. losing your car/having to pay large amounts of cash, but with the extremely slim chance of a caution make it a no brainer in practical terms.

[mightymouse_69]

As i did say above, the law is always changing. I do believe that there is the chance that in the future someone may use S.5 and win! However this relies on someone seeing the 'fight' all the way through the courts.

 

However, i also believe that as a forum giving advice - the advice should be based on the law as it stands at present and not on what we hope or think it should state. Off course - it is helpful for others to contribute and give ideas on how the law could be improved; but surely the advice should be to act within the law or accept the risks if one breaks the law.

 

I have to say - there is a huge amount of policy behind the decisions of the court. This probably explains some of the judgments that appear to make little or no sense. I guess it could be argued that if the courts allowed one to damage a clamp in order to remove it, they could be:

 

A) Taking away certain powers of landowners;

B) Encourageing certain behaviour

 

One would have to consider any possible effects to the wider crime of criminal damage.

 

I think this argument could go on and on! I would love to see it go through the courts (so long as i am not the one being clamped!) I would not be surprised to see the courts decide against a defendant. I know it would make no sense to some... but policy plays such a large role

 

jkdd77 :- I am in no was saying i think you are wrong. Just to clear that up!

 

As to your last question. I would be very angry - however with my career plans it would be very unwise for me to go cutting the clamp of... or at least getting caught cutting it of

 

In fact - i would go looking at the theft act. Very complicated to explain here but there is a case to say that the clmapers are in fact stealing the car under that act.

 

In conclusion - i still think the advice should be that cutting the clamp of is unlawful. There may be a defence but don't expect an easy ride (judging from case law).

 

Im sure anyone thinking of removing a clamp can read our discussion and come to their own conclusion!

Edited February 9, 2010 by mightymouse_69

[Al27]

As to your last question. I would be very angry - however with my career plans it would be very unwise for me to go cutting the clamp of... or at least getting caught cutting it of

 

Yes, I understand for some people a criminal record would be very problematic.

[pin1onu]

My word I did provoke an interesting debate by mentioning Lloyd. Thanks to those who contributed.

 

In spite of all thats been said I would still be cautious about cutting off a clamp if it were my car that was clamped. There is a chance that a criminal complaint with all the attendant hassle will be result i.e. photo's, fingerprints, dna samples, lawyers etc with the added bonus of a criminal record if found guilty.

 

If you can do so without the event being recorded, and the some clampers do carry video cameras for this reason, then a no comment interview may be enough to avoid incriminating yourself or lying to the old bill. Even better is if a person or persons unknown do the deed.

[mightymouse_69]

My word I did provoke an interesting debate by mentioning Lloyd. Thanks to those who contributed.

 

In spite of all thats been said I would still be cautious about cutting off a clamp if it were my car that was clamped. There is a chance that a criminal complaint with all the attendant hassle will be result i.e. photo's, fingerprints, dna samples, lawyers etc with the added bonus of a criminal record if found guilty.

 

If you can do so without the event being recorded, and the some clampers do carry video cameras for this reason, then a no comment interview may be enough to avoid incriminating yourself or lying to the old bill. Even better is if a person or persons unknown do the deed.

 

Sounds like a business oppertunity... "no questions asked angle grinder hire"

 

Bearing in mind the prosecution can infer guilt where the defendant remains silent - getting someone else to do it has to be the way forward!

[crem]

Sounds like a business oppertunity... "no questions asked angle grinder hire"

 

Too late mighty_mouse

 

BBC NEWS | England | West Midlands | Car-clamp hero extends campaign

[jed52]

I believe it is very poor advice to suugest that one destroys the clamp and relies on a defence under S5.

 

1) a defence under section 5(2)(a) relies on an honest belief that the owner of the clamp would consent to its destruction. NOT whether the person has an honest belief that they have a lawful excuse

 

On most PPC signs around car parks all over the country, there is a section that states;

'If you park you agree to pay'

or; 'If you breach the conditions you agree to be clamped'

or words to that effect.

 

The PPC's seem to think that 'legally' they can state these conditions, even though they are absolute twaddle in law.

 

So, what is to stop the motorist putting a sign on the car stating;

 

'If you clamp this vehicle you agree to the clamp being removed, by force if neccessary'.

 

This country is hell bent on the rehabilitation of the perpitrators of crime rather than helping the victim of crime. And, I dont care what anybody says, charging somebody £150, £200 or more to remove a clamp is a crime.

It is not a proportionate response to a vehicle being left in a car park 5 or 10 minutes past the time the ticket expired.

If I ever get clamped, I will do my best to get it off myself, day time or night time, I dont care.

Why is it that clamping has been banned in Scotland? It can't have been as big a problem there, as it is in England, simply because of the difference in the size of the populations. So why is it, when they've only had their own parliament for 2 minutes, have they acted so quickly?

If an MP's car got clamped, there would be an act rushed through parliament to ban it.

jed

[mightymouse_69]

On most PPC signs around car parks all over the country, there is a section that states;

'If you park you agree to pay'

or; 'If you breach the conditions you agree to be clamped'

or words to that effect.

 

The PPC's seem to think that 'legally' they can state these conditions, even though they are absolute twaddle in law.

 

So, what is to stop the motorist putting a sign on the car stating;

 

'If you clamp this vehicle you agree to the clamp being removed, by force if neccessary'.

 

I highly doubt such a notice would be effective for many reasons.

[jed52]

I dont see why not. It wouldn't have any less value than the stupid 'conditions' they put up on their signs.

jed

[pin1onu]

MM,

 

Jeds idea is not as silly as it seems.

 

Have a read of this

[mightymouse_69]

An interesting read.

 

Say i am a landowner who allows people to park on my land so long as they adhere to certain restrictions (They pay a fee being one of them, and that they acknowledge failure to pay this fee will result in the car being clamped and relased upon payment of a certain sum of money.)

 

Now, that in very basic terms is my contract - If you park on my land, you agree to the terms. If you do not agree to those terms, then you go and park elsewhere. As a landowner, i am not open to counter offers or conditional offers.

 

Allowing people to opt out of terms they dont really like would cause all sorts of issues!

 

Its an interesting concept though - deffo one i will research further when i have a little more time (hopefully tomorrow afternoon!)

 

Further to the point of placing a notice saying that any clamp will be removed by force. Lets not forget that the courts have held that even where the clamp was put on without consent (unlawfully), removal of the clamp by force could still be a criminal act.

 

So, even if the notice was effective, it wouldn't necessarily protect the driver from prosecution.

[Al27]

In a perfect world maybe!

 

The shady world of clamping is usually absorbed into a money making exercise.

 

Remember that the chances of you being charged and convicted for removing a wheel clamp and not damaging it are very slim. Even if you destroy a clamp the chances of prosecution aren't great.

[Zamzara]

The problem is the courts seem desparate to uphold clamping, by hook or crook and against all ideas of logic and consistency.

[jkdd77]

Based on the utterly perverse verdict in Mitchell, I could take another person's iPod, lock it in a box, charge £150 to unlock the box, and that person would effectively be obliged to pay me- and, if they cut the box open, they would be guilty of criminal damage.

 

I'm as convinced that the Supreme Court (or if all else fails, the ECHR) would overrule Mitchell, as I am that night follows day. I don't see how it can possibly be held "in line with public policy" for victims of unlawful clamping to be left utterly powerless, and, to all practical intents and purposes, forced to pay an unlawful ransom demand with no effective means of remedy. Even if it was, public policy is a solely a matter for Parliament; it is for judges to apply the law as actually written to the facts of individual cases.

 

As a philosophical and legal question, did the erroneous Court of Appeal ruling on bank charges ever have legal effect? If not, then how does a plainly wrong Court of Appeal ruling override the law of the land as decided by Parliament, such that something that it is plainly lawful is made to become unlawful? Who or what gave the Court of Appeal the power to annul section 5(3) of the Criminal Damage Act, at least in regard to motorists?

 

After all, the correct interpretation of section 5 was shown in the Court of Appeal itself in R vs Smith [1974], where it was held, based on section 5(3), that "Provided that the belief is honestly held, it is irrelevant whether or not it is a justifiable belief." [in this case, the defendant honestly but mistakenly believed that they owned a house when in fact they were merely the tenant, and were convicted of criminal damage to floorboards; a conviction overturned at the Court of Appeal.]

 

This emphatic ruling was correctly followed in Jaggard and Lindon, but was mysteriously ignored in Lloyd and Mitchell. Under the only possible correct intepretation of the law, having regard to section 5(3), if the defendant honestly believes that their car is in immediate need of protection [e.g. from towing/ increased charges, and given that they need to use it again immediately to get home]; it is utterly irrelevant whether this belief is objectively correct- if they also honestly believed that the means used were reasonable in all the circumstances, the defendant must be acquitted.

 

I wonder whether the £6m a year the Government gets from PPCs has anything to do with the with the seemingly deliberate placement of cowboy clampers as effectively being above the law?

 

To all practical intents and purposes, Mitchell did not merely intepret the law, it created new judge-made law, overriding and nullifying the plain language of section 5(3) of the Criminal Damage Act.

Edited February 10, 2010 by jkdd77

[stef787]

I paid the charge to remove the clamp, so now I'm going to write to the management company. Anyone knows where to find a template letter to ask for a refund? thanks for your help

[Al27]

No template as such, but I'd try:

 

"Dear Sir

 

I am contacting you to request an immediate refund of the sum of £xx I was forced to pay in order to have your agent's clamp removed from my car on xx date.

 

I was not present in my property from xx date to xx date and therefore I never received the letter you posted regarding the new clamping regime.

 

Therefore I was unable to consent to the action of having my car clamped.

 

Should a refund not be forthcoming within 7 days I will have no option but to commence County Court proceedings yourselves as the employers of ClampitandScarper Ltd. In such instance please regard this letter as a Letter Before Action in line with Civil Procedure Rules.

 

Please note that the requirement of consent with regard to clamping is well established and I will be referring to the case of Vine vs Waltham Forest in my claim. I have attached a copy for your information (Board Message)

 

I will also swear an affidavit stating I was not present in my property when the letter was posted and never had an opportunity to read it prior to your agent's actions.

 

Regards

Stef

Edited February 12, 2010 by Al27

[stef787]

Thanks so much Al for your help. I checked on landregistry.gov.uk to check the address of the owner.The address is real,but it looks like a fictional company for me.

 

Registered Owner(s)

 

: R** INVESTMENT INC (incorporated in BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS) care of R** L** LLP , ** High Street,...

 

R**** INVESTMENT INC doesn't exist anywhere on internet, so i phoned to R** L** LLP which is located at the address mentioned in the register. They told me that there is no company called R**** INVESTMENT INC at this address.

 

I sent an email to the management company asking them the postal address.

[Al27]

Who do you pay your rent to and do you pay a service charge?

[letshelp]

to ClampitandScarper Ltd.

Al, is this your own company?

regards

[pin1onu]

Al, is this your own company?

regards

No it's a part of the BodgeItAndScarper group who I sometimes work for. Any legal proceedings should be sent to their lawyers - Norfolk and Chance.