Lying / Clueless copper cost us £100

[sb118]

My wife works as a takeaway delivery driver, we had some trouble last night.

 

I had a call from the wife, she's been clamped while doing a delivery.

 

I get there and find it's a new build without any visible parking spaces, i assumed there were around the back of the buildings. She's seen the "no parking" sign and yellow hatching and parked 5m away from it half on a kerb so she wasn't blocking the access to the rest of the site. (would show it on google maps, but the images just show the building site!)

 

from her -

She gets out of the car, walks 5 doors down the row (road doesn't go that far) with a big red food delivery bag and gets back to the car to find they're doing up the padlock on the clamp.

 

Clampers were giving her hassle "pay up now or we're taking the car, etc" so she called the police.

 

On the way there i ring and arrange a recovery truck to take the car home for me (taking the clamp off without damaging it is quite legal).

 

The biggest idiot copper in the world shows up and sides with the clampers! "you're not allowed to touch the clamp in any way, it's criminal damage", "you're not allowed to take it off yourself, it's criminal damage", "you're not allowed to tow it away, it's theft", etc, etc.

 

The residents who received the delivery show up wondering what the noise is about. They've asked my wife to bring food to them, she's allowed to be here. "Have to pay the ticket and appeal", "but we're the residents, we asked her tom come here, she has our permission to be on the estate", "have to pay the ticket and appeal", etc.

 

My recovery truck show up and leaves after getting the heave-ho from the copper.

 

Clampers start threatening "the moment i make this call to our tow truck the price goes up", "umm, no it's doesn't work like that, until the truck gets here, you can't charge us anything extra as you haven't done anything extra", copper chips in "oh, they can".

 

Wifes boss shows up with the £100 they wanted to take the clamp off and they fill in the paperwork. All this time they've been refusing to show their SIA ID "you've got the company name, what else do you need", copper was fine with this too.

 

Does this woman have NO idea how the clampers work, how they are allowed to impose fees or what the public can do without having to pay up?

 

Residents have given us the details of their site management company to take it up with and their contact details too to explain that they wanted her on the site and that she was delivering stuff to residents, which would then be part of the appeal to get the funds back, but i'm not holding my breathe.

 

Wife just forwarded me a pic she took on her phone of the area, mobile phone flash so the lighting isn't great, but obviously the signs are displayed and the area is well lit anyway. (i've tweaked the levels as best i could)

 

From what we can tell they must have followed her onto the site and parked up as she walked down to the customers house.

 

One of the residents has told her the visitors parking area hasn't been built yet!

 

The clamping sign is clearly visible under flash photography. It's the red blur on the left.

 

 

Any suggestions?

[Conniff]

I don't suppose you got the number of the police constable? you could then send a nice letter to his chief constable.

You should report him anyway as the man in question will be traceable.

 

Was the clamper wearing a badge that you could see and did you get the name of the clamping company?

 

 

If you report a thing like this to the police, they will say 'nothing to do with us, civil matter' so why he poked his nose in on the legalities of it only he knows.

He would only be there to stop a breach of the piece.

 

In the cold light of this morning, go back to the sight and take pictures of all the signs and note the lack of any 'clamping' signs if there are none. Talk again to the customer with regard to the parking situation she believes is in force.

 

You need to collate everything and when that is done, if it is still on your side, then you can issue a summons for a return of your fee.

[sb118]

The clampers wore their SIA badges, but they were turned around so that you couldn't see their details.

 

They told me they would only give out their SIA number once they had been paid.

 

We have the log number of the incident, so we should be able to get the officers number from that.

[cirian75]

Way I see it refusing to show badges = no bagdes = a crime = a police officers assisted in the comissioning of a crime

[sb118]

Spoke to the site management company this morning, they said there might not be any allocated parking for deliveries and that if it was obvious that somebody is doing a delivery there should be a time allowance for that delivery to be completed.

 

Appeal writing time, the clampers aren't operating in accordance with the wishes of the company that hired them.

 

Got the coppers number form the log details too.

 

Just noticed they got the month wrong on the recipt too (put 26/5 instead of 26/4)

[lamma]

appeal to who ? (that will listen ?)

[sb118]

Well obviously the clamping firm will be very sympathetic to our cause, after that i'm guessing it's the management company.

[pin1onu]

Way I see it refusing to show badges = no bagdes = a crime = a police officers assisted in the comissioning of a crime

It is a specific requirement of the license that vehicle immobilisers must have their SIA badges on display and visible at all times while engaging in licensable activity.

 

You should report them to the SIA.

 

The number of things that are just plain wrong stagger me.

 

Taking off a clamp is not criminal damage, providing you can do it without damaging the clamp.

 

Similiarly with your recovery vehicle. Its not criminal damage to take the vehicle away. It is merely the ending of the Tort of trespass.

 

They might consider it theft of the clamp but if you were to drop it off at a police station once it was removed then you could show that there was no intention to permanently deprive the clamper of his property.

 

The copper was obviously clueless. I would definitely make a formal complaint and ask for the copper to be educated in the legalities - particularly Lloyd vs DPP.

 

Good on for taking pictures of the sign. You can't consent to be clamped if you can't see the signs.

 

By all means go after the management company and the clamper.

 

You might also want to include the police as they contributed to your loss with their wrong interpretation of the law.

 

Have a read of the clamping guide in the stickies. Its a good starting point for you.

 

PS I'm really steaming after reading your post. This sort of thing really p***** me off.

[sameagle]

"The biggest idiot copper in the world shows up and sides with the clampers!"

 

Did he "happen to be passing"?

 

One wonders if he was getting a rake-off, [this one wonders, anyway]

 

Sam

[sb118]

Way I see it refusing to show badges = no bagdes = a crime = a police officers assisted in the comissioning of a crime

 

Rang the SIA, the clampers don't have to give any licence details until after you've paid.

Awesome.

[cirian75]

pretty sure thats wrong.

[Snefclarb]

Rang the SIA, the clampers don't have to give any licence details until after you've paid.

Awesome.

 

So they can demand payment, you pay, then find out they're not licensed. Good show.

[pin1onu]

Rang the SIA, the clampers don't have to give any licence details until after you've paid.

Awesome.

That is complete BS.

 

Ring them back and quote off their own website.

 

Conditions of the Licence

 

 

SIA licences are issued subject to certain conditions. The licence can be revoked or suspended if the conditions are not met.

Front line staff must:

 

• Wear the licence where it can be seen at all times when engaging in designated licensable activity (unless they have reported it lost or stolen, or it is in our possession*.
  
• Tell us and the police as soon as practical if their licence is lost or stolen
  
• Tell us as soon as practical of any convictions, cautions or warnings, or charges for relevant offences whether committed in the UK or abroad
  
• Tell us of any changes to their name or address as soon as practical
  
• Not deface or change their licence in any way (should their licence become damaged, they should advise the SIA and request a replacement)
  
• Not wear a licence that has been defaced or altered in any way
  
• Produce the licence for inspection on the request of any constable, any member or employee of the SIA or other person authorised by the SIA
  
• Return the licence to us as soon as practical if they are asked to do so
  
• Tell us as soon as practical of any change to their right to remain or work in the UK
  

*They do not have to wear their licence where it can be seen if they can demonstrate that the nature of their conduct on that occasion requires that they should not be immediately identifiable as someone engaging in such conduct. On such occasions they must carry their licence on them and be able to produce it on request. This condition allows store detectives or close protection operatives to perform licensable activities without the need to be identifiable. The covert licence condition cannot apply to vehicle immobilisers.

[sb118]

I KNEW i'd seen something like that somewhere but i couldnt think where, so i thought i ring them and confirm. And got told the wrong stuff.

 

Bloody doing my head in now!

[lamma]

SIA just a cover up operation. pin1onu is perfectly correct (which is not a surprise)

[mightymouse_69]

 

They might consider it theft of the clamp but if you were to drop it off at a police station once it was removed then you could show that there was no intention to permanently deprive the clamper of his property.

 

Interestingly, it has been argued that a temporary deprivation should still be theft. There have been cases where the 'thief' returned said item yet was still held to be liable for the crime.

 

I shouldn't think that would apply to this case as such - interesting point though.

 

The Police officer was clearly wrong. Of course you can remove the clamp. The only time a crime would be committed would be if you removed it and damaged it. I would argue that the officer would also have grounds to stop you should it be clear that the approach you are taking to removing the clamp risks damaging it.

 

However, police officers are not there to provide legal advice. Most can't seem to get the distinction between an assault and a battery right.... let alone issues of civil law.

 

For that reason, I do not feel that the officer should be blamed and called 'lying' and 'clueless'. They are not legally qualified and as such their legal advice (as far as this matter goes anyway) is not to be taken as gospel.

 

Did the officer take active steps to stop you removing the clamp? Such as holding you back or saying "if you attempt to remove it i will arrest you?"

[Zamzara]

Way I see it refusing to show badges = no bagdes = a crime = a police officers assisted in the comissioning of a crime

 

A very interesting point. The officer may have been mistaken about the requirement, but ignorance of the law is no defence.

 

To amount to liability as a secondary party he would have had to know his assistance was likely to be useful, and to have foreseen a crime of the type committed. The OP told him they were committing this offence: his failure to realise it was an offence is, I submit, irrelevant.

[sb118]

Went to the site to get some pics of signage, visibility, etc.

 

Worked out why the signs aren't visible. There are only 2 working street lamps on the estate so far, notice how the lights in the distance aren't working? That's where she was clamped. (the red sign to the left of the picture is on the back of the building in the second pic, you'd never see it if you didn't drive into that area)

 

 

She was clamped roughly where the white car is in this streetview image.

 

I was told by a resident that more visitor parking is due to be finished soon, it'll be this way ...

 

 

But i did find that if you drive through this unlit tunnel in one of the buildings..

 

Into the unlit carpark ..(the motion lights in the back ground were set off by me wandering around with my camera)

 

.. you'll find visitor parking, yay! (the black car is in a visitor space, not sure where the people in 61 & 63 are supposed to park though)

 

(i know the available parking doesn't effect my issue, but i just found the site layout a bit of a joke.)

[sb118]

Did the officer take active steps to stop you removing the clamp? Such as holding you back or saying "if you attempt to remove it i will arrest you?"

 

No physical restraint, but every time i mentioned removing the clamp myself i got responses of "i must warn that if you touch the clamp you'll be committing criminal damage", etc

[lamma]

when a police officer is wrong (and boy is he wrong in this case) politely inform him that he is mistaken and that he should phone the station for clarification. it seems it is advisable nowadays to carry you own video.

[jkdd77]

No physical restraint, but every time i mentioned removing the clamp myself i got responses of "i must warn that if you touch the clamp you'll be committing criminal damage", etc

 

I'd say that's an implicit warning of arrest- and entirely wrong in law. I think the OP could potentially have a case to have the police held liable for the clamp release fee, although it would be complicated to bring such a case.

[sb118]

Thinking back to while i was arguing with the police woman, she kept telling me the car was illegally parked....

 

Haven't done the toy throwing at the cop shop yet, having to put her name & number in the "appeal", etc as a witness to the clampers refusing to show their badges, so i'd like her to be in a positive frame of mind if she has to recall the incident.

[sb118]

Had a reply to the "appeal" today, they ignore that delivery vehicles are allowed to park (according to the management company that hired them), that the signs aren't visible at night (the street lighting at that end of the road isn't wired in yet from what i can tell) and that the clampers were hiding their details (never got the number of the guy that fitted the clamp, could have been wearing somebody elses badge for all we know)

 

Next step is the Notice Before Action (which they'll ignore), then small claims time.

 

Any there any templates for the NBA, or does it vary on a case by case basis? Is the site management company included in the NBA?

[lamma]

case by case, by all means look at others for the theme but do not just copy them. get the facts correct for your case. post up a draft of it so people can comment.

[sb118]

right, first draft of nba (never done one before i've i'm shooting in the dark!)

 

Dear Sir,

With reference to the clamping incident on 26-40-2010 at the xxxxx development in xxxxx Road, please consider this my notice before action.

In your letter refusing my appeal you said I had no authority to park, however xxxxxxx of xxxxx (the site management company) says that is wrong. She says there should be a time allowance made for delivery vehicles that are delivering to residents of the development.

You also say that there is “substantial and ample signage” of the parking restrictions in place. During the day this may be correct, however due to the unfinished nature of the Equinox development, the street lighting in the area of this incident is not yet functional. This can be confirmed by xxxxx PC xxxxx who had to use a torch to read paperwork in her hand, let alone read the unlit signs on nearby buildings. To this end there was insufficient signage.

Your agents were operating unlawfully. To affix a legitimate clamp they must operate according to SIA licensing guidelines. These guidelines state that “Front line staff must; Wear the licence where it can be seen at all times when engaging in designated licensable activity.” They did not do this, they intentionally hid their SIA licenses from view by turning them around and refusing to show the details when asked. xxxxx PC xxxx can confirm this also. The agent who fitted the clamp to my car NEVER showed his SIA details, the receipt has the details of the agent who sat in the van while the clamp was fitted. Was this man a legitimately licensed by the SIA?

To recap, there is no effective night time signage meaning that no contract could have been entered into, even if the signs were visible I did have permission to park on the site as I was delivering to a resident, even if the signs were visible and I didn’t have permission to park your agents are not operating within SIA licensing guidelines and as such are fitting unlawful clamps and issuing unlawful charges.

I expect a full refund by return post with 10 days after such time I shall pursue this unlawful charge through the small claims court.

 

Any pointers? Am i phrasing it badly?

 

Do i send a copy of this (along with a covering letter) to the management company explaining how i'll be suing them too?