Clamp removed and vehicle driven away.

[mightymouse_69]

Just re read the letter they sent you.

 

I see they are trying to get money in compensation from you! I wonder what this is for?

[jkdd77]

If they do sue (which they won't), don't forget to counterclaim for their tortious trespass to your vehicle and for circa nine days loss of use, including the time you had to spend removing the clamp.

 

Additionally, in making false statements when writing to you, they have themselves committed a criminal offence under section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006, by making a false statement of law with intent to make a gain for themselves, namely by wilfully and dishonestly claiming that "unauthorised" clamp removal is itself criminal damage. Furthermore, their letter to you is also criminal blackmail, by demanding money with menaces.

 

I would add these points to your letter.

Edited May 16, 2010 by jkdd77

[Mundane-o]

jkdd77 - thanks for the advice, I've added it to my letter:

 

Dear Sirs,

I am writing to you in response to your letter dated 10th May 2010.

 

Private clamping law states that the release fee is just that: a fee for releasing the clamp. Since I removed the clamp myself I do not owe you a penny. As I mentioned in my previous letter, the clamp, padlock and chain can be collected from the address at the top of this letter.

 

I have already contacted the police about the matter and they informed me that not only was I entirely within my rights to remove the clamp, padlock and chain, but also that no accusation of theft could be made as there is no proof that I intended to keep your property. Furthermore, I have photographic evidence of the clamp's condition before and after removal which show that no damage was caused.

 

To put this in words you may understand: you do not have a leg to stand on. I see your letter as a frankly pathetic attempt to scare me into paying you money which you are not owed. May I draw your attention to Section 2 of The Fraud Act 2006 and warn you not to make further attempts to mislead me into parting with any money by informing me I have broken the law. (Edit - should I add: when we both know this isn't true?)

 

I feel I have made my point very clear in this and my previous letter and this is the last that I will say on the matter. If you wish to pursue this matter in court then I welcome you to do so, but be advised that if I am successful I will be counter-suing for any costs incurred and for any distress caused throughout court proceedings.

 

Finally, in my previous letter I stated that all future correspondence must be sent to the address above and I would like to reiterate this point. Correspondence sent to Kent Road are not guaranteed to be read or received.

 

Yours Sincerely,

[newmoses]

Firstly, a chain and padlock are not a part of the clamp, they are accessories(just like a mirror, spoiler, aerial, and wheel trims are not part of the car, but are accessories), you cannot be legally charged over their removal.Secondly, if you park on private property, let the clampers tow your car away, simply because once they have left the private property and entered onto a public road, they have no more legal right over your vehicle, and can be cgarged under the gross interference to goods act 1973(this was used with devastating effect by a mr. Erskine Fenty.His story is on pepipoo).Thirdly, you can prosecute the clampers for tresspassing on your vehicle which is private property.if the clampers threaten to take you to court, tell them you will be there waiting for them.

[pin1onu]

If they do sue (which they won't), don't forget to counterclaim for their tortious trespass to your vehicle and for circa nine days loss of use, including the time you had to spend removing the clamp.

 

Additionally, in making false statements when writing to you, they have themselves committed a criminal offence under section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006, by making a false statement of law with intent to make a gain for themselves, namely by wilfully and dishonestly claiming that "unauthorised" clamp removal is itself criminal damage. Furthermore, their letter to you is also criminal blackmail, by demanding money with menaces.

 

I would add these points to your letter.

Not only have breached the fraud act with that statement but also the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regs (CPUT) so you've grounds to get Trading Standards involved as well.

[billy bob66]

sorry if this is a daft thing to ask,but wernt clamping cos made illegal a few years back or was that in scotland?

 

only asking as the more you know the more you can help others in other forums.

 

good luck and keep fighting these fools.

 

billybob

[mightymouse_69]

That was in Scotland only i'm afraid!

[billy bob66]

cheers mightymouse 69 will remember that, and thanks for the quick responce.

 

billybob

[Conniff]

The past government didn't believe in listening to the people in England and Wales and was more interested in the parasite tax they were getting. Bigger fools, they didn't realise that as the removal fees are paid in cash, you can bet your life that most of it don't go through the books.

[JonCris]

The moment they made a demand for payment or the police would be involved they committed a serious criminal offence namely 'demanding money with menaces'

 

Contact the police before they get a chance & report them I doubt they'll be happy being used as debt collectors

[Conniff]

Secondly, if you park on private property, let the clampers tow your car away, simply because once they have left the private property and entered onto a public road, they have no more legal right over your vehicle, and can be cgarged under the gross interference to goods act 1973(this was used with devastating effect by a mr. Erskine Fenty.

 

Why haven't you put this up in lights newmoses, it deserves to be:

 

 

"Before the case Dr Fenty managed to get his car returned because he claimed the clampers contravened the Wrongful Interference to Goods Act 1977, as once the car was outside the car park they no longer had legal permission to move it any further.

But the car ended up in the company’s compound in Swindon.

Dr Fenty wrote to PPS director Alyson Hucker threatening legal action if the car was not returned immediately and she replied on January 29, apologising profusely and arranged for the car to be returned"

 

Clamped driver?s £3,000 claim fails - News - getreading - Reading Post

 

The getouts are out there somewhere, it's only a case of finding them.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Good letter, but I think you need to be more assertive and move towards making them wind their necks in:

 

Dear Sirs,

 

I refer to your letter dated 10th May 2010.

 

Your statement that my vehicle was 'illegally parked' is incorrect as to fact; no statute law was contravened.

 

I must also correct your misunderstanding regarding removal of the clamp. I have already contacted the police about the matter and understand that not only was I entirely within my rights to remove the clamp, padlock and chain, but also that no accusation of theft can be made as there is no proof that I intended to keep your property. Furthermore, I have photographic evidence of the clamp's condition before and after removal which shows that no damage was caused.

 

You are no doubt aware that you do not have a leg to stand on. Your letter is no more that a frankly pathetic attempt to scare me into paying you money which is not owed. Your attention is drawn to Section 2 of The Fraud Act 2006, and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. Any further attempt to mislead me into paying money I do not owe will result in formal complaints to the appropriate authorities.

 

I trust that my position is now clear. Take notice that no further correspondence will be entered into. Any proceedings brought by you will be robustly defended and a counterclaim issued.

 

Yours faithfully

 

As these clowns have form in the area, report them to Trading Standards.

[DBC]

I suppose you could add that, as you were advised by the police that you were entitled to remove the clamp, then they should also sue Her Majesty's Constabulary as joint parties to this alleged "crime".

[Dublindel]

If they tried to tow your vehicle from private land, the police do not want to know! But once on the public highway, can you insist its car theft and have them stopped by the police?. Love to know the answer

[mightymouse_69]

I don't think you could... theft can still occur on private land, so if it wouldn't be theft on private land i don't see what difference it would make when the recovery truck moves onto a public highway?

[sb118]

Don't know if it's "theft" but that guy used it to get his car back.

Before the case Dr Fenty managed to get his car returned because he claimed the clampers contravened the Wrongful Interference to Goods Act 1977, as once the car was outside the car park they no longer had legal permission to move it any further.

Probably a fuzzy line as their is no intention to permanently deprive, but then there are the demands for money ...

[lamma]

Theft means the intention to permanently deprive, that you be hard to make stick even though we known may bailiff companies sell seized vehicles like crazy. Once they hit the public road and don't just drop it off there it becomes interference with goods.

[mightymouse_69]

Theft means the intention to permanently deprive, that you be hard to make stick even though we known may bailiff companies sell seized vehicles like crazy. Once they hit the public road and don't just drop it off there it becomes interference with goods.

 

In some cases it has been held that where the defendant took the property intending to sell it back to the victim, this still amounted to an intention to permanently deprive. Its Known as the ransom principle and has been taken to cover situations where someone takes property and will only return it if certain conditions are met... I.E - towing the car and only returning it should monies be paid.

 

However im sure the whole consenting to risk thing would provide a "get out" for the clamping Co's

[Dublindel]

The difference is that on private land the police do not want to know but on the public highway the have a duty. And you report it as car theft as you never have permission to the The car being towed.

[Mundane-o]

I've had a lawyer check over my letter (same as before) and have the final draft that I will be sending to the clampers tomorrow.

 

20th May 2010

Dear Sirs,

I am writing to you in response to your letter dated 10th May 2010.

 

Private clamping law states that the release fee is just that: a fee for releasing the clamp. Since I removed the clamp myself I do not owe you any money for its removal. In accordance with the terms mentioned in my previous letter (signed for by D. Marwood on 22nd March 2010 - Royal Mail Track & Trace) the extra padlock and chain have been removed from my vehicle. As previously mentioned all items can be collected from the address at the top of this letter at any pre-arranged time.

 

I have already been in contact with the police about the matter and they have confirmed that not only was I entirely within my rights to remove the clamp, padlock and chain, but also that no accusation of theft can be made as there is no proof that I intended to keep your property. Furthermore, I have photographic evidence of the clamp's condition both before and after removal which show that no damage was caused.

 

As you are no doubt aware, your claim for criminal damage is spurious to say the least. Your letter is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to scare me into paying you money which you are not legally entitled to. Your attention is drawn to Section 2 of The Fraud Act 2006 and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. Any further attempts to mislead me into parting with money I do not owe will result in formal complaints to the appropriate authorities.

 

I trust that my point is now very clear, and this is the last that I will say on the matter. If you wish to pursue this to the County Court, then please be assured that any proceedings brought by you will be vigorously defended together with a counterclaim for costs incurred and any distress caused through the issue of court proceedings.

 

Finally, in my previous letter (mentioned above) I stated that all future correspondence must be sent to the address given at the top of this letter and I would like to reiterate this point. Correspondence sent to Kent Road are not guaranteed to be read or received.

 

Yours faithfully,

[Snefclarb]

You know, I am kind of glad they sent you that stupid letter. It makes it more entertaining for all of us, since you are so secure in your position in the right.

[billy bob66]

mundane please keep us up to date as this is better then corrie,and the best of luck.(not that you need it)

[Mundane-o]

Ok, so it's been over 3 months since I last contacted the clampers and I have heard absolutely nothing! I have decided to contact them one more time as I will be moving out of my uni accommodation soon and getting on with my life. Please let me know if you think there are any problems with my letter, it reads:

 

 

18th August 2010

 

Dear Sirs,

 

I am writing to you further to my letter dated 20th May 2010.

 

I am disappointed to note that my letter received no reply, and that no effort was made by PCM or its representatives to arrange collection their property. I therefore believe it is necessary to give you an ultimatum in hope that we can draw this matter to a close.

 

On the 3rd of September 2010 I will be leaving my university accommodation and relocating to my place of work in the midlands. By this time you will have had over 5 months to arrange to collect your property, which I think is a more than reasonable amount of time. If all items are not collected by this date then I shall assume you are not interested in having them returned and are therefore giving me permission to dispose of them for you. They will be disposed of at my local household waste recycling centre and I shall not be contacting you again.

 

As I have stated in all previous correspondence, your property can be collected from the address at the top of this letter, and I shall reiterate this point once more. Since it has become clear you are too lazy to write to me, you may reach me by phone on (number deleted) to arrange collection.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Cameron Petersen

 

 

 

I've tried to make it so that by not contacting me they are agreeing to me disposing of the clamp etc, so that if they get angry and try to take me to court their case will not stand up. I'd appreciate any feedback on ensuring this is as watertight as possible.

[wheelergeezer]

No.

 

I would avoid the temptation to be personal or to justify your actions. here is what i would send.

Dear Sirs

FINAL NOTICE

 

I have received no response at all to my previous correspondence regarding your property that I have been storing for you. Unless these items are collected within 7 days they will be disposed of without further notice. Kindly contact me on 0*** ******* to make an appointment to collect at a mutally convenient time.

 

Yours etc....

 

If they actually decided to later take you to court, you simply produce all your letters including this one which should be sent by recorded delivery AND e-mail. No judge will ever award them compensation for ignoring you. Trust me, been there done that!

[DBC]

Of course they will have no need for that clamp in a few month's time because of the imminent ban on their activities.