£625 to get my car back from a PPC

[Glitch]

Any help or advice on this subject will be gratefully received.

 

I parked my car in a "Customer Parking Only" bay on a Saturday evening. Only shop open in the parade was the kebab shop that I was heading for. I was not aware of any other signs at the time.

 

Having ordered my Chicken Shish I waited in the shop for it to be cooked. It could not have taken more than 10 minutes. As I was about to pay I saw my car on the back of a trailer.

 

Returning to the parking spot I found another sign on the wall of the nearest shop about private property and having to diplay a valid permit. There is a private car park behind the fence which I wouldn't dream of parking in but seeing a Customer Parking Only sign made me assume I could park.

 

To cut a long story short I had to take the day off on the Monday to retrieve my car. I had to pay £625 in cash, broken down as:-

 

• £100 "Parking charge notice"
  
• £125 "Clamp removal"
  
• £280 "Removal Fee"
  
• £120 "Storage"
  

The car had no stickers or tickets applied. He cannot have had time to clamp and declamp. Clearly a case of towing the vehicle away in record time and maximising the "damages".

 

Anyone dealt with a simlar case and any advice on suitable defence?

Edited August 28, 2010 by Glitch

[GuidoT]

Welcome to CAG.

 

You need to separate those images as you other pictures on Photobucket may allow you to be identified.

 

If you want your money, you will have to commence legal proceedings against them, but I am sure someone else will be along to assist you more.

 

There is a good reason why we will have no more private clamping to stop this extortion as from next year.

[Glitch]

Thank you. i have remove the photo link

[buzby]

Looks as though this is a classic extortion [problem]. They could not do all this within 10 minutes, but because you paid - the only action you can comtempl;ate is suing in the Small Claims Court againt both the landowner and the PPC that lifted your vehicle.

[Glitch]

Thanks. I will identify who they are contracted with, e.g. the land owner or tenant. Send them a Letter before Action and see what happens.

[buzby]

Forget the tenant, they are not liable only the landowner can give authority for collection.

[dx100uk]

and dont forget private clamping has just been outlawed too..

 

interesting...

dx

[DBC]

and dont forget private clamping has just been outlawed too..

 

interesting...

dx

 

Except that ban does not come into force until November at the earliest.

[buzby]

and dont forget private clamping has just been outlawed too..

 

interesting...

dx

 

No it hasn't. It has still to go through Parliamrnt and is slated for November, but for some future deadline in 2011.

[dx100uk]

darn..

 

dx

[Glitch]

Forget the tenant, they are not liable only the landowner can give authority for collection.

 

Are you sure about this? The shop owner has admitted she contracted EPE to control parking on 3 spaces that the she claims to rent the spaces from Redbridge Council.

I am checking with Redbridge to find out what contract if any is in place. I am sure Redbridge will know nothing about EPE.

 

The plot is unregistered according to LRO but I suspect it may be part of the road adopted by Redbridge. I have put is a request for them to explain the adoption plan for this road.

[buzby]

As far as I can be, as litigation requires the authority of the land owner. a lessor could have this, but only if it was specifically a condition of their agreement. Someone who pays rent is just that, they don't get much else, not even to the minerals below or the airspace above.

 

A contract for parking services between the renter and parking contractor is just that, an agreement between them. YOU are not a party to it, neither I assume did you agree to the action taken. If forced, then it becomes an issue of extortion, and as was stipulated in the Scottish courts 12years ago, a remedy that was out of proportion to the original act.

[Glitch]

OK. I need to get the council to provide me with everything they can tell me about that plot. I should have that in the next week or so.

 

If the shop owner is renting from the council can I take the council to court even if they are not aware of what the shop owner and the PPC are up to?

 

If the council deny any knowledge of this plot of land do I only has recourse to criminal law assuming the PPC will just rack up another CCJ?

 

Does anyone get anywhere with the police if there is a clear case of the shopowner and/or PPC breaking the law?

[buzby]

No, you cannot take the Council to court as they've done nothing wrong. If you've paid the Parking Company (because you had to) then it is them you take to court as they had no lawful authority to do charge you. There is no 'criminal law' issue here. This is purely civil dispute (in England) but in Scotland it is extortion, so the Police will decline to become involved. If you had refused to pay, more than likely the clamp would have been removed whilst they seek other punters worth mugging. Once you find who the landowner is, you simply ask them to confirm or deny that the parking firm acted on their authority, and get it in writing. Without this authority, the charges become untenable and an order for repayment will surely follow - but there are no guarantees.

 

Finally, nobody has broken any criminal law.

[Glitch]

I find it incredible that a PPC can just remove a car and charge whatever they like whether they have a valid contract with the land owner or not.

It feels like theft, fraud and extortion to me.

[buzby]

It certainly feels like that, but the wind is slowly changing, perhaps not fast enough. When you realise that it is only a commercial transaction (a way to provide a service at no cost to the requestor, but make the supposed transgressor pay for something the landowner doesn't like.

[cirian75]

sounds like they are making a quick buck before the axe falls

[Glitch]

I should add that the "Private Property" sign on which they will rely is actually on a different property under a different though unregistered title. There is no sign on the plot on which I parked. I am confident that I have an excellent case and that I will win. The challenge will be getting the refund. Hence the need to know whether I can pursue someone other than the PPC.

 

The shop owner appears to be complicit in this having engaged the PPC and presumably getting a slice of the income.

 

I can't wait to find out the council's role in this, if any. If they are involved I don't expect them to know whats going on but happy to give them some publicity when I find out.

[buzby]

A private property sign is pretty much useless. In essence it is only a statement - like 'guns can kill'. They cannot 'rely' on this sign, for anything. They would have to show they had erected a No Parking sign, and the measures they will take to discourage people from parking these. The sign would also have to be esaily visible, and to clamp they would need to be a BPA member. Other than that - anyone can buy a book of tickets, hi-viz vest, and parking enforcement signage.

 

The shop owner won;t be complicit. They will have outsourced parking control to this bunch of monkeys. They wont pay for the service, as the renumeration model is based on providing the service at no cost and the firm takes all the money collected. The council won't care what happens, nor be sympathetic. Remember, they have their own vehicle enforcement to contend with.

[pin1onu]

Got to disagree. Regardless of whether they have outsourced they are still liable for damages and the actions of their agent. Their liability may be nil because they have been indemnified through their contractor with the clamper but the OP is not a party to that agreement and it is largely irrelevent. The OP should sue both the person who engaged the clamper and the clamper.

 

Grounds are going to be inadequate signage.

 

OP please read the clamping guide in the stickies section of the forum. It will help you build a case against them.

[Glitch]

Got to disagree. Regardless of whether they have outsourced they are still liable for damages and the actions of their agent. Their liability may be nil because they have been indemnified through their contractor with the clamper but the OP is not a party to that agreement and it is largely irrelevent. The OP should sue both the person who engaged the clamper and the clamper.

 

Grounds are going to be inadequate signage.

 

OP please read the clamping guide in the stickies section of the forum. It will help you build a case against them.

 

That feels right to me. The shop owner has contracted the PPC and surely has some liability.

 

Already preparing a case citing Vine v LB of Waltham Forest for signage which should be sufficient.

Also on the excessive "penalty"(which it clearly is) planning to cite Excel v Hetherington-Jakeman.

[crem]

Is there not also a potential claim that as a tenant, the shopkeeper did not have the legal right to contract the clamper in the first place to clamp on land they did not own?

[Glitch]

Is there not also a potential claim that as a tenant, the shopkeeper did not have the legal right to contract the clamper in the first place to clamp on land they did not own?

 

I guess it depends on the agreement they claim to have with the council. I think it could stretch into the realms of criminal law if they do not have permissiom of the land owner.

[buzby]

A scattergun approach is certainly possible, however namimg additional parties (simply for completeness) can backfire as they too can increase the costs to the OP should they be successful in challenging it.

[Glitch]

If the shop owner has contracted the PPS surely they are both liable?

 

Any action taken by the PPS has been authorised by the contractor, i.e. the shop owner in this case, especially for a towing away which needs a call between the PPS and the landowner/tenant.

 

The PPS will probably ignore any CCJ and won't give a monkeys about the people that have contracted them.