The return of the purchased item may or may not persuade Argos from intervening and is something of a red herring. The OP should have a read of the clamping guide in the stickies at the top of the forum. This will give you an idea of what to look for. The signage and location of it is very important. The basis on which clamping relies is inferred consent. "if you park in defiance of a sign you can expect to be clamped". I would suggest at approximately 7 metres height it is not that readable by the ordinary person. Make sure you grab as many photos as you can preferably at the same time of day. You may find Google Streetview of benefit. You will in all likelihood have to take the landowner and clamper to court to recover your costs. In this case I would also be tempted to put Argos in the claim as well. Bear in mind that you have to convince a judge that the signs were not in a prominent location. BTW how did you pay? If you used a credit or debit card you have grounds for a charge back. Its certainly worth a try.

I can write in Big Red Letters You owe me £100 for reading this message. Failure to pay may result in me taking you to court and may result in a default being entered on your credit file. Now have you entered into a contract with me? No. I don't own these fourms and I'm not entitled to even offer to form a contract with you. This is a standard letter from a debt collector or any firm who wants money out of you. Take a good look at your letter I'll bet its full of "may" and "might". They might do something but may not and I can't remember anyone posting they are being taken to court by UKPC. From the facts you have given, they will fall as they have failed to establish privity of contract. Your landlord holds the rights to the land and has categorically denied that they have any right to charge you. You have also not formed any contract with them verbal or otherwise. If they try to claim trespass then they are really on dodgy ground as you have permission in writing from your landlord. There are a number of other areas they fail on. Have a read of this guide on the pepipoo foroum. It's a really good starting point for your legal position and should set your mind at rest. You may well receive a few more letters but these can be safely ignored as well.

Have a read of the clamping guide in the stickies. It gives you the basic wrongs and rights of clamping. You want to hit them with as many legal points you can muster.

You make a very good point. On an emotive subject like this we are seeing a sledgehammer being used to crack a walnut. They tried this sort of general statistic with speeding and to justify speed cameras. When pressed to provide relevant data to provide a balanced view most police forces were unable to provide evidence that people had died as direct result of speeding. They were also unable to provide data as to how many accidents (fatal or otherwise) occurred within the speed limit. There have been a number of studies into alcohol/drug impairment and although some slight impairment at lower levels may be observed it is not conclusive that this would be enough to cause a drive to become unfit to drive. Factors that confound these result are normal human characteristics - height, weight, metabolism, tiredness, combinations with other drugs, rate of absorption etc. Absolutely agree with you on this one. BTW the Beeb were saying that there was that this reduction was to bring the UK inline with other EU states. More kowtowing to Europe.

Sorry, didn't I just say that? I certainly did not say it created a list of debtors. I did say it was automation of the process. I repeat the fact they have data in the first place is in some cases illegal/unlawful and the fact they continue to use and process it despite not being entitled to it is the real issue. IMO they are acting ultra vires and the councils are in many cases complicit. Why let the rules or morality get in the way of revenue?

I beleive that BANES have got their act together but it is worth looking at the Traffic Requlation order for the street and also at Traffic Road Signs General Directions (TRSGD) to see if they are compliant. Can you post up the other side of the ticket as well it may contain flaws.

Sorry G&M you are wrong. I think the key point is that ANPR is no problem when it is used without being linked to a database. As soon as you link it to a database of any sort, physical or manual then the data protection act comes in to play. Their used to be a practice by certain credit reference agencies to obtain electronic copies of the electoral roles. This practice was stopped because of the data protection issues. Although ANPR is not foolproof (e.g. PPC's using it time vehicles in and out of a car park), it's use by bailiff automates an otherwise intensive, yet mundane procedure. Part of it's effectiveness is efficiency gains (economies of scale) over the manual procedure i.e sitting in the car with a physical list of VRM's and having to check the list with every VRM seen. The real issue is that the data is being shared period. If you are not entitled to have it regardless of the form it is in (electronic or phsical) then it becomes unlawful or illegal or both. The bailiff companies use of, and the passing of data by Councils is highly questionable. It is fairly clear from the posts of Tomtubby and others that there is a genuine and reasonable concern over VRM's being released and at what time in the process. We've seen GMP and the Met abusing their powers by allowing civil debts to raise a hit on their ANPR system. However you want to dress it up - ANPR should be useless if they ping a vehicle away from the address on warrant (or other form). The fact it's not used in that way speak volumes to me. It seems to me that their would be a whole lot more complaints about bailiffs if people were more informed of their rights (and given the necessary means to do so).

Rule bending - Like MP's expenses. Except that had gone beyond SNAFU and reached FUBAR. Legal yes but clearly immoral or else why did so many pay back. Surely this is about un-elected officials condoning illegal/unlawful behaviour or at least turning a blind eye. At the very least they are complicit. The ends justifying the means or at least filling the coffers. That is amoral and an affront to justice; should we be putting up with this? Who guard the guards?

If they are clamping for unpaid PCN's then surely they are open to be challenged. Lamma made a very interesting point on the use of ANPR by bailiffs. (See post 29). In light of this perhaps one of our Scottish experts would care to comment on these tactics by NSL.

It has been my understanding that if a contract term is unlawful or illegal then that part of the contract is null and void and is disregarded. Even if the charge is pointed out to you and you agree it, it cannot be enforced. Bringing a dispute after the fact does not stop it being wrong, although the banks would have you beleive otherwise. i.e. they have advertised their charges and you are assumed to have agreed with them. The UTCC legislation clearly challenges this.

FWIW I think their are two different items that you may get some mileage in court from. Unfair Terms In Consumer Contracts Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 2083 “Unfair Terms 5. - (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer. (2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term. Here's a hypothetical analysis of the costs of processing. If the employee dealing with this matter is earning (national average) £24000 p.a. - the costs before tax is 11.53 per hour. I'll be generous and say it takes 20 minutes to process. Thats a cost of 3.84 and if you take it up to £5 to cover printing, paper, envelope etc I think you can demonstrate they are making a profit, and not seeking re-imbursement of actual costs. Sounds like a penalty charge to me If the charge was between £5-10 I would say just pay it. However £25 is taking the p**s.

Find out who employs the clamper. Management company, landowner. Read the clamping guide in the stickies section. Go after the clamper and the landowner. Get plenty of photos to support your case. Clamping is dependent on signage. You could also try Trading Standards - they may have a file open on this outfit. Chances are that this is a sole trader operation so they don't necessarily have to be registered at Companies House. Why not contact the journalist who broke the story and see if they can't offer you a lead. There is an e-mail link on the article.

Hi, there is a fair bit you can do legally. Have a read of the clamping guide here. It's not definitive but it gives you some idea of the possible ways to challenge a clamping. If the clamper has accepted a card payment then you can try the paid under duress angle and get the CC/Bank to reverse the transaction. There have been quite a few people who have gone to court and received a judgement in their favour. The real art is actually recovering the money as the clampers often seem to disappear or ignore CCJ's. I advocate going after the landowner as well as they have something tangible to lose (i.e. the land)

It doesn't normally happen that you would get pulled over by the old bill. There have been a couple of cases. 1 involved Greater Manchester Police and the other was the Met. These are isolated examples. There are a couple of things you should know. 1. TFL parking tickets are de-criminalised so nothing to worry the police. They don't have any grounds to pull you. 2. Warrants are supposed to be executed at the address specified on the warrant not out on the street. What this should mean is that if the police pull you over you can politely tell them to Foxtrot Oscar. Similiarly if they clamp you away from your property you have grounds for a complaint against the bailiff.

I beleive that there is a database of some kind that the police use to check if a vehicle has been towed away. AIUI the towing firms are supposed to phone in and let the police know they have removed a vehicle. I don't know if this is mandatory or how rigorously it is policed.

Most councils have a road section and would soon be able to tell you if the car park is public or private.

Have a read through the clamping guide in the stickies section. It's relevant for a tow away. There is an appendix for residential parking as this sort of situation is happening repeatedly.

A report from Auntie in 2006 pointed out that there was 1 camera for every 14 people in the UK. Surveillance society by stealth. I think I'll leave it to Banksy to comment on CCTV.

Given their track record this year 0 from 8 this year is it time to ask the court to list OPC as a vexatious litigant?

Nice one. Did you counterclaim for your expenses and costs?

I suspect the notices are in breach of CPUT. Local TS might be able to help there. From a point of view of clamping/towing they would probably meet the requirements for signage, providing they can be seen when you enter the car park and/or at anywhere where you can park. That said it would be interesting to see what a court made of the t&cs. I don't beleive a clamper would have sufficient rights to the land for the contract element. There is also the question of damages. Damages are supposed to put the wronged party in the position that they were in had the breach, in this case trespass, not occurred. I would argue that £125 in an otherwise free car park is way above the scale. If it were me, I would be sueing the clamper and the landowner jointly.

Great result.

Hi Custad Both Towing & Clamping are forms of distress feasant, that is holding your property until damages have been paid. Please have a read of the clamping guide which you will find at the top of the forum. It will give all the relevant background as well as the remedies youi can use. As others have told you they should have signs etc. Make sure you get photos.

Most councils allow you to look at the footage for a moving violation for such as this. Often the two photos sent do not provide enough detail. Its only when the footage is viewed in full that you get a real idea of what happened. Thats one avenue to look at. There is a site that gives all the requirements on compliant or non-compliant box junctions. I'm sure someone here will be able to point you in the right direction.

Keep on the B****rds case. Write to the SIA and ask them to take action as well.