Lying / Clueless copper cost us £100

[letshelp]

subbing, good luck with your claim.

regards

[sb118]

draft no 2

 

Dear Sir,

With reference to the clamping incident on 26-04-2010 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 XXXXX of XXXXX (the site management company) says that this is wrong. XXXX 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 XXXXX development, the street lighting in the area of this incident is not yet functional. This can be confirmed by XXXXX PC XXXXXX who had to use a torch to read paperwork in her hand, let alone read the signs on nearby unlit buildings. Lord Justice Roch (in Vine v Waltham Forest, April 2000) has already upheld that signage that is not visible is not suitable as to consideration of an offer of contract. Without an offer of contract no consideration or acceptance is possible.

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 XXXXXX 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 even 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 jointly & severally against yourselves and XXXXX through the small claims court. This will of course incur further charges for you. I shall be claiming for the clamping charge of £100, the court registration fee of £30, my expenses of £ ???? and interest at 8%

 

 

Any better?

[sb118]

Draft 3, cut down and more to the point.

 

 

Dear Sir,

With reference to the clamping incident on XXXXXXXX at the development in , you have failed to make a satisfactory response to my request for the refund of the charge for removing a clamp.

 

To restate the facts :

 

1 This was a delivery vehicle with permission to park on site, as confirmed by the site management company. of has confirmed that there should be an allowance made for delivery vehicles.

2 The signs were not clearly visible at night, the site is unfinished and the street lighting is not yet fully functional. (This has been previously upheld in court - Vine v Waltham Forest)

3 The operatives did not display clearly visible SIA licences. This is a legal requirement and makes the clamping automatically unlawful. In fact, they took deliberate steps to conceal their identity. There is a police officer who can confirm this.

 

The clamper was acting as your agent and I am therefore holding you responsible for their actions.

 

If I do not receive a full refund within ten days I will issue immediate proceedings jointly and severally against both and in the small claims court.

 

 

Hoping to get the letter away this afternoon or tomorrow morning.

[lamma]

reads well to me.

[sb118]

Ammended item 3 with ...

 

... This is a legal requirement under the Private Security Industry Act 2001 and makes the clamping automatically unlawful. ...

 

as advised from peiepeieppoooo (never know how to spell it!)

[filthysurfer]

Did you ever get anywhere with the uninformed PC? No comebacks I know but I wondered if you been in touch.

[sb118]

I'm off down the cop shop this afternoon to make enquiries actually.

 

Been tied to the house a for a bit, handfeeding a kitten that the mum rejected. Don't need to feed him any more

[sb118]

Right, final few tweaks and fiddles, then it's going in the post this afternoon.

 

Dear Sir,

With reference to the clamping incident on 26-40-2010 at the development in Road, you have failed to make a satisfactory response to my request for the refund of the charge for removing a clamp.

 

To restate the facts :

 

1 This was a delivery vehicle with permission to park on site, as confirmed by the site management company. of has confirmed that there should be an allowance made for delivery vehicles.

2 The signs were not clearly visible at night, the site is unfinished and as such the street lighting is not yet fully functional. (Poor visibility of signage has been previously upheld in court - Vine v Waltham Forest)

3 The operatives did not display clearly visible SIA licences. This is a legal requirement under the Private Security Industry Act 2001 and makes the clamping automatically unlawful. In fact, they took deliberate steps to conceal their identity. There is a police officer who can confirm this.

 

The clamper was acting as your agent and I am therefore holding you responsible for their actions.

 

If I do not receive a full refund within ten days I will issue immediate proceedings jointly and severally against both and in the small claims court, where you will incur further costs.

[sb118]

NBA posted, the waiting game begins!

[sb118]

Umm, had a text from the resident she delivered to this afternoon. More hassle with the clampers of late, police have been called a few times and today all the clamping signs were taken down....

 

Not sure what going on and i don't want to think to much into things, but didn't the firm that hired them get a letter recently ...

 

Still waiting for a responce in the mail.

[cirian75]

My 2 cents on clampers = local criminals ;-)

[sb118]

Had a response from the site management company today.

 

1. are the Managing Agents to the above estate, and to Management Company Limited only.

 

2. The wheel clamping compnay have been instructed as of 21st March 2010 by our client Homes. is registered with the Government and is a member of the British Parking Association for you reference.

 

3. We will not accept responsibility for the actions of the clamping company as there are signs clearly visible to all those that are attending the site, which state that if you are parked inappropriately, you will be clamped.

 

Point 1 doesn't make any sense to me at all, are they saying they're the site management firm or not?

 

Point 2 has me wondering if i should chase the site owner/builder not the management firm if they're the ones that instructed the clamping firm.

 

Point 3 i can ignore.

 

Not going to hurry out the door with a small claims action until i've got the right target.

Edited May 25, 2010 by sb118

[Zamzara]

I'd be tempted to name them all as joint defenents, unless someone can produce definite evidence as to who instructed them.

[pin1onu]

I'd be tempted to name them all as joint defenents, unless someone can produce definite evidence as to who instructed them.

Seconded. They're trying to pass the buck. Whoever instructed the clamping firm is liable as the clamper is acting as an agent. You definitely need to confirm the landowner with the land registry.

[sb118]

Just had it comfirmed that that it was the site owner/builder that hired the clampers.

 

Should i send the NBA to their local office or their registered one? (they've got area offices all over the country)

[Dougal16T]

Good morning all,

 

Now then, speaking as an ex Police Constable, I am terribly upset by the actions of the Police in this case and in many others.

 

A complaint must be made to the Police NOW. This officer was aiding and abetting' the clamper's in their commission of a criminal act.

 

When you go to the Police Station you will see staff at the 'front desk', DO NOT REPORT THE MATTER TO THEM - THEY ARE USUALLY CIVILIANS AND WILL NOT DEAL WITH THIS SERIOUS MATTER PROPERLY. You should ask to see the 'Officer in charge' of the Police Station. It may be necessary to make an appointment, but nonetheless you will be seeing someone who WILL deal with your complaint.

 

As for the Civil proceedings, I would be inclined to see what happens with the PC and how the Officer in charge deals with the complaint. I do agree that all parties should be named as joint defendants in due course.

 

Firstly prior to issuing civil proceedings I would write to the site owner/builder at their head office for the attention of the Managing Director - why? - because what has happened here is probably happening all over the UK!

 

I would also get a witness statement from the resident who sent you the text and who wondered (initially) what all the noise was about on the night of 26th April.

 

Now then, it is a nice day for a trip to the Police Station, once you have been and seen the 'officer in charge' (MAKE SURE YOU GET THEIR NAME, RANK AND WARRANT NUMBER - THEY MUST GIVE YOU THEIR WARRANT NUMBER WHEN ASKED), I would also have someone else along as a witness, (don't tell the Police that...just have someone with you...)

 

Once this has been done, please let us know the outcome:

 

1. What the officer said

2. What the officer is going to do

3. How the complaint will be dealt with (DON'T accept 'Local resolution', this carried virtually no weight, as it is just a 'ticking off' for the PC who was there when the car was clamped.

 

You also need to ensure (during this meeting) that there will be a full investigation into the possibility of crime being committed by the PC who was present, and this should include aiding and abetting the commission of an offence (which was being committed by the clampers), neglect of duty, (for failing to protect you ad your rights), negligence (for failing to call for a supervising officer to attend to clarify any doubt), and you should insist on a full and detailed investigation into the Clamping company for offence(s) of Fraud (see Fraud Act 2006 secs 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, and Fraud Act 2006 sec 9 or 10 as appropriate)

 

Hope this helps, and on behalf of all the 'decent' coppers left (there are still some!)..I apologise.

 

As always

 

Dougal

[lamma]

I would say their registered office.

[Dougal16T]

Good morning,

Just some thoughts so that a case can be prepared/drafted:

 

So the situation is this:

 

Your wife in employed to use her car to deliver pizzas, and acts on her employer’s instructions in doing so. [Hope her car is insured for this purpose - business use].

 

A pizza is ordered and your wife is contacted to collect the order and deliver it, being invited (by implication) by a customer to go onto private land, the customer being an occupier of that private land, to deliver the pizza to the customer.

 

The road is still under development and has yet to be adopted by the local authority.

 

She is followed onto the land by the clampers and subsequently almost immediately clamped when she stops to carry out her lawful enterprise of delivering the goods ordered by the occupier of that land.

 

She calls the Police.

 

The police officer should have realised/known this was private land and that a police presence was only there to prevent a breach of the peace or to arrest an offender.

 

The police officer warns your wife that she may be committing an offence – where is the offence?

 

This is private property and from the details no crime has been committed by your wife.

 

However the Police officer has completely ignored the offences [set out in earlier posts] of deception [Clamper hides ID and will not provide details], therefore a deception takes place. THIS IS NEGLECT OF DUTY BY THE PC.

 

Your wife pays £100 for clamp to be released – offence under the Fraud Act possible – due to no ID by Clamper, no details of ID provided by Clamper, and poor signage on private property.

 

There should also be given some thought to a Civil action for damages in these circumstances.

 

Did your wife get a receipt for the money? If not, why not

 

Any further thoughts/developments?

 

Have you been to the Police Station yet? DO NOT LEAVE IT TOO LONG!

Kind regards

 

Dougal

[sb118]

NBA sent to site owner, don't want to instantly small claims them until i've been "reasonable".

[Dougal16T]

Morning all,

 

 

MUST GO TO THE POLICE STATION TODAY!!!!!.

 

If you wait for a response from the site owner you may be criticised by the Police for not reporting the problem with their officer and the 'clampers' sooner.

 

Sorry, but that is the way it works......['as a retired PC myself and I know what they will think!]

 

Kind regards

 

Dougal

[russhh]

A complaint must be made to the Police NOW. This officer was aiding and abetting' the clamper's in their commission of a criminal act.

Can I ask what criminal act, exactly? AFAIAA, failure to display a SIA badge is an 'offence' under the SIA codes, punishable by sanctions the SIA see fit [probably none].

 

THEY MUST GIVE YOU THEIR WARRANT NUMBER WHEN ASKED

 

Under what AOP, Statute, Statutory Instrument or Police Orders does it say that, can you say? AFAIAA, If the interaction is under PACE, the are obliged to furnish their name, station/office & rank. If the interaction is under Terrorism legislation, they MAY give a shoulder number in place of a name, if they feel it is warranted for personal security/safety reasons. Things don't change if the interaction is at a police station under the auspices of a complaint.

 

 

You also need to ensure (during this meeting) that there will be a full investigation into the possibility of crime being committed by the PC who was present, and this should include aiding and abetting the commission of an offence (which was being committed by the clampers), neglect of duty, (for failing to protect you ad your rights), negligence (for failing to call for a supervising officer to attend to clarify any doubt), and you should insist on a full and detailed investigation into the Clamping company for offence(s) of Fraud (see Fraud Act 2006 secs 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, and Fraud Act 2006 sec 9 or 10 as appropriate)

l

 

I have to ask, did you ever take the initial and/or substantive CID course when you were a PC? I say this because your interpretation of some of the legislation you quote is way off. So much so that it would be dangerous for anybody to take some of your advice at face value. Sorry to be so brutal, but sometimes a little knowledge is dangerous.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm no expert either. I left the Job as a DS, and I would be mortified if someone took any half-baked advice I gave on criminal legislation and went on to do or say something seriously detrimental.

[Dougal16T]

Good morning,

 

In answer the to post from russhh:

 

I have been retired from the police for over 10 years, but the law is still the law. I then went on to prosecute for the Department of Transport.

 

I try only to suggest what seems appropriate in view of the information provided on these posts and if anyone feels 'that it would be dangerous for anybody to take some of my advice at face value', I am sure most people will take a current legal opinion before acting. We also both know that on request a Police officer must provide their warrant number, and as far as I know the situation has not changed - unless the circumstances dictate otherwise (terror legislation and so forth). The reason for my making the point about warrant numbers, is that sadly there have been examples of matters where it has later been impossible to trace a police officer to prove or disprove occurrences in a particular case.

 

I tactfully suggest a read of the Fraud Act 2006, especially sections 1 - 4.

 

In the matter we are looking at the actions of the clamper which seem to fall completely within section 3. [There may also be offences committed by the Company which may be disclosed in due course.]

 

Fraud by failing to disclose information:

A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a)dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose, and

(b)intends, by failing to disclose the information—

(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

 

Now I know that it is often the case that a matter reported to the Police will sometimes not be taken on board and the response will be 'it is a civil matter', and sadly I shall also assume this is because 'targets' must be achieved.

 

To russhh: I am delighted that you have sprung to the defence of the PC in this matter. Whilst I take on board your criticism, do you honestly consider the actions of the clamper were (a) legal and (b) right in the view of a normal person? Do you also feel that the actions (as reported) of the PC were in proper and correct fulfilment of duty?

 

My intention has always been to ensure that anyone who is disadvantaged to their detriment by another may consider redress via the law.

 

Hopefully this matter will come to a satisfactory conclusion, but at present i think it leaves a poor impression of the rights of an individual when placed in a difficult situation which may require the assistance of the police.

 

As russhh says 'a little learning is dangerous'. I am sure that anyone reading my posts will seek further advice, and I am always pleased to be corrected by those whose knowledge is greater than mine.

 

As always my best wishes to everyone,

 

 

Dougal

[russhh]

 

I have been retired from the police for over 10 years, but the law is still the law. I then went on to prosecute for the Department of Transport.

 

You prosecuted? As a solicitor or barrister? Or do you mean you investigated & then reported transport offences to prosecuting authorities within the DofT?

 

We also both know that on request a Police officer must provide their warrant number, and as far as I know the situation has not changed - unless the circumstances dictate otherwise (terror legislation and so forth).

 

Nope. AFAIAA, it has never has been the case. Or are you mistaking warrant number for Divisional/shoulder number? Members of the Armed Forces captured by the enemy do the 'name, rank & serial number' thang, but not coppers. There's no reason why they cannot, of course [it isn't a state secret], but there is no AOP, other legislation, SI or police order that says they must...

 

... that said, if you're sure I'm wrong, can you point me to the legislation?

I tactfully suggest a read of the Fraud Act 2006, especially sections 1 - 4

 

And any offence under that legislation must meet the current definition of dishonesty established in R v Ghosh [1982]. I personally see no provable offence under this AOP given the facts as stated [i'm no expert, though I have investigated numerous offences under the legislation this AOP replaced].

Now I know that it is often the case that a matter reported to the Police will sometimes not be taken on board and the response will be 'it is a civil matter',

 

The prosecuting authority for any offence committed under the Private Security Industry Act 2001 is the SIA. They have decided that education is their preferred first option, with criminal sanctions a last resort. ACPO apparently agree, and advise officers accordingly.

 

and sadly I shall also assume this is because 'targets' must be achieved.

 

That makes no sense though, does it? Think about it rationally - if the PC was working to some mythical target exercise, then she had an easily acheivable number in the arrest of one or more of those present for the 'offence' you seem to believe had been committed?

To russhh: I am delighted that you have sprung to the defence of the PC in this matter.

I'm defending nobody. I wasn't there, however I've learned that bandying about 'advice' based on half-baked knowledge of important & complicated legislation is dangerous and does the OP no favours.

 

The events as given show the PC in a very poor light. She should have simply stood back to prevent any possible BofP, made what identification she could & reported the matter in her pocket book for future reference by either party. But to suggest she has committed criminal acts is, at best disingenuous and, at worse, bordering on libellous.

 

She may be a completely crap officer, or she may have just had a bad day. Did you ever have any bad days on your beat?

My intention has always been to ensure that anyone who is disadvantaged to their detriment by another may consider redress via the law.

 

... to consider proper redress via appropriate laws, certainly. No point folk just peppering posts with legislation that they may have had little or no experience of. That could mislead the OP spectacularly.

 

As russhh says 'a little learning is dangerous'. I am sure that anyone reading my posts will seek further advice,

That's good

 

Dougal

 

RussH

Edited June 11, 2010 by russhh

[lamma]

As I understand it Ghosh does not define what dishonesty is, it lays down a two part test. The test laid down in Ghosh is not the only possible way of interpreting an undefined positive dishonesty element. The Court of Appeal laid down a two-stage test for the determination of the dishonesty issue: conduct is to be regarded as dishonest if the fact-finders think that ordinary people would so regard it and are satisfied that the defendant knew that ordinary people would so regard it. The second limb of this test was introduced in Ghosh, and is not indispensable. The only apparent function of the second limb of the Ghosh test is to allow a defendant to escape liability on the basis of a mistake of fact about what the general standard of honesty is; and it is questionable whether this function is a useful one. And Ghosh was about offences where S.2(1) of the Theft Act does not apply. I like Sir John Smith's definition: "Anyone doing anything whatever to property belonging to another, with or without the authority or consent of the owner, appropriates it;"

[mightymouse_69]

Ghosh does not set out a definition of dishonesty, but merely provides a test for establishing it.

 

Ghosh has to be read in the light of earlier cases such as Gilks; which established a purely subjective test. Ghosh however questions Ds actions with regard to the opinions of reasonable people - would they see it as dishonest and did D know that they would see it as dishonest?

 

The test in Ghosh still applies to Fraud, much to the dismay of some (including the law commission in thier consultation on the matter.)