Private Clamping Fine

[V8Cerbera]

I have the following problem:

 

Where I work, we have a large private car park. In this car park I rent and have rented a parking space @ £60 a month for the past year, during this time I had the same car up until 06/10 of this year. However I then changed my car and notified the management. At the time I requested an ad-hoc permit display the registration number of the new vehicle whilest I had the number plate changed back to the private plate transferred from the old vehicle. HOWEVER It seems that the persons overwrote the old details entirely, losing the old registration number. I was not aware of this. I used the permit pertaining to the registration number of the vehicle while it was on the original plate and then switched to the permit pertaining to the correct plate upon re-registering with the DVLA.

I went to collect my new permit for November on Wednesday - I noted that there was just one permit, containing the registration previously on the vehicle. I advised the persons in the office (including the building OWNER), who replied "ok no worries" and then wrote the correct plate on the receipt stub that they kept. I assumed they would update the database.

Yesterday I therefore parking in *my space* and was amazed to find a clamp on my vehicle within a few short hours.

I went to the office and complained, they stated that I had advised them of a new registration for *NEXT* month. I advised this was rubbish as when re-registering with the DVLA I could not tell when I would get authorisation to use the new plate and would not be driving around illegally on the old plate and pointed out that last month I received a permit for the old plate ad-hoc and they should not have overwritten the database with these details as I told them at the time that I would be switching back to my private plate.

They claimed they did not know the registration number and never had - I have advised that I have had that registration for all but three weeks of the past year.

They then pointed out their terms and conditions that any changes made to detail after the 24th of the previous month would not be made and would be carried forward to the next month, claiming that myself advising them that the reg was incorrect on wednesday (the 7th) was a notice of change and would not be made until december. I told them that the notification of the correct reg was not a notice of change, but a correction to their inaccurate database management. They refused to accept this.

They then advised that the clamping was a third party contract and they could not do anything about it after the clamp was on anyway.

I rang the clamping firm, hoping to reason with them as it was an office mistake, not anything I had done wrong. The lady on the phone seemed perfectly reasonable but when the "immobiliser" turned up, I was given one of two options, pay £130 or he was to tow the car away, at a further £150 cost. The immobiliser told me to take it up with the office, the office palm it off to the third party. Two parties passing the buck to each other in an endless loop.

Needless to say, I am now £130 down when I have done nothing wrong. What can I do?

 

Subnote - The clamp was one with a chain, which the immobiliser saw fit to wrap around my suspension linkage and front wishbone. I now have a knock from that corner and fear he may have damaged the vehicle (I saw how delicate he had to be with the very small amount of working space around the arches and front end of my vehicle, getting the chain trapped a couple of times, but being delicate because I was standing over his shoulder - I think he may not have been so when alone putting said clamp in place)

 

Ben

[patdavies]

Get the car to a reputable garage (or failing that a main dealer!). Get the car inspected and a written estimate for any repairs necessary.

 

Go from there to the County Court and issue a small claim summons for the repairs and the clamping fee and your out of pocket expenses.

 

You have maintained your side of the contract and kept them informed about changes to the vehicle and registration number. Their internal proceduresa and failures have caused the clamp to be erroneously applied and also caused your vehicle to be damaged.

 

Personally, I would have removed the clamp with an angle grinder.

[POCA]

Let's try not to use angle grinders. I don't like seeing people arrested for criminal damage like that.

[Guest HUSBANDKHAN]

I might be wrong do not quote me on this. If you are clamped with a chain clamp(the one with a chain around the wheel etc) then you can cut the lock off as long as you replace it with a new one. You must leave the keys when you leave. This is technical but as i said i am not 100% on this as because you are replacing the lock you cannot be cone for damaging the clamp !!!!

[POCA]

No, you are wrong. You are still guilty of criminal damage, even if you do make full restitution afterwards.

[falcon185]

I understand what your saying POCA but what about trespass against the vehicle?? Ben kept to the contract and made the changes known to the company and pays monthly for the privalege of parking at his work. Having kept to the contract it appears the company failed to maintain their records, not Bens fault. Having complied with the contract and made reasonable steps to advise them of the vehicle change he is subjected to embarassment, financial loss and damage to his vehicle that WAS legally parked there.

[POCA]

I'm making no comment as to the ins and outs of this particular case. What I'm doing is advertising the fact that cutting a lock off a clamp or otherwise damaging it is criminal damage, even if you do replace the lock.

[falcon185]

Hi POCA,

I understand what your saying in relation to criminal damage in regards to bolt cropping or cutting off the lock but wouldnt there be cause for the same complaint against the clamper for criminal damage to the motor vehicle? It appears, through the companies own incompetence he was given wrong information and went ahead and clamped the car. As we know, ignorance is no defence in the eyes of the law, whether he was right or wrong in clamping he still had a duty of care carrying out the clamping.

[POCA]

Well, as to the alleged criminal damage to the car it'd need to be proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the damage was caused by the clamper and that he intended or was reckless as to the damage caused.

 

Reckless here means that he actually knew there was a risk of damage and carried on regardless.

 

Of course, you then have the problem of s. 5 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 which says, amongst other things, that damage can be caused to protect a right or interest in property. Here, that would be the right relating to the land owned.

 

Any prosecution would have several hurdles to overcome.

[falcon185]

Reckless or ignorant to the fact that damage could be caused? Would the clamper be a motor machanic? I doubt that very much so in carrying out his clamping he wouldnt know whether he was causing damage or not. Without sounding stereotypical most clampers arent blessed with the old grey matter are they!? All they are interested in is quantity not quality.

[meagain]

Let's try not to use angle grinders. I don't like seeing people arrested for criminal damage like that.

 

S5 CDA provides an exemption for the protection of property - surely in cutting the clamp you are merely securing use of your own vehicle?

[Number6]

So here we allegedly have another example of the wrongdoer being afforded full protection of the law whilst the innocent victim is put to loss and distress!

 

Would it be criminal damage if you can prove that you are in the right and that the clamping has been carried out regardless?

 

I know that in the case of an obstruction on the highway by e.g. a locked gate then it is entirely permissible to remove the obstruction provided that you do so with the minimum reasonable damage.

 

Pete

[falcon185]

HI meagain,

it would be pretty foolish to try and drive your car with a clamp fitted, it would end up causing considerable damage, you need to use your car but cant due to the clamp, wouldnt cutting it off be protecting your property from damage? Mitigating circumstances perhaps? Or at least grounds for a defence. I'm Just playing devils advocate.

[meagain]

HI meagain,

it would be pretty foolish to try and drive your car with a clamp fitted, it would end up causing considerable damage, you need to use your car but cant due to the clamp, wouldnt cutting it off be protecting your property from damage?

 

Isn't that what I just said?

[falcon185]

S5 CDA provides an exemption for the protection of property - surely in cutting the clamp you are merely securing use of your own vehicle?

 

 

Hi Meagain,

sorry, I must have misread your post, I got the impression you was referring to this as cutting off just to use the car, not protect it.;-) My honest mistake

[Guest HUSBANDKHAN]

in reply to no6. The authoritis can do what they want and how they want. When you go about proving them wrong there is no law except for red tape and delays upon delays to sort this out.

[POCA]

Well, the courts seem pretty happy to convict people who damage clamps so perhaps somebody would like to be a test case?

 

An interesting argument if the clamp has been applied unlawfully. I like that.

[Guest HUSBANDKHAN]

I have had the experience today and also a few years ago. The courts as i see it are a oneway service. You can get no comback. If you do by the time it happens the company either hs gone or the person has left. to many loop holes.

[antoinette1368]

I wonder if you can help? My boyfriends van was clamped in a residents car park, however he had clearly displayed a valid work permit supplied by his company, the clamping company even showed him the pictures and clearly displayed was his permit. He had to pay the £100 release fee to continue with his workday. He sent a letter asking for his money to be paid back, they replied by saying he was displaying the wrong permit, but this is not the case, he displays another permit permanently on his windscreen but was also displaying the correct permit as mentioned before. Can he now take them to the small claims court or write to the company again.