Wonky, have a read of the clamping guide in the stickies section - it explains about clamping on private land.

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.

ramsbottom, Take a look at the clamping guide in the stickies. If the signs are not easily visible or clear as where they apply you have grounds for taking this to the county court and winning. Clamping in England and Wales is based on inferred consent. "If you park in defiance of a sign you can expect to be clamped". I think you need to return to the site and take some photos of the signage. Are there any warnings at the entrance to the car park? Is it clear as to what spaces the signs apply to?

Don't hold your breath waiting for the SIA to act. The words chocolate teapot occur in the sentence which I use to describe them.

ASUI the specs for bus lane markings should be in the "Traffic Road Signs General Directions" (TRSGD). Any variation has to be signed off by the Sec. of State.

So you're not the messiah then? Glad it cheered you up.

They cannot tow or clamp a vehicle displaying a blue badge. See the clamping guide in the stickies. If a vehicle is causing an obstruction they can move it to a place where it is out of the way but as a general rule they are in breach of the conditions of their license if they clamp or tow a vehicle displaying a blue badge. Well done for ignoring the invoices.

Not only have breached the fraud act with that statement but also the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regs (CPUT) so you've grounds to get Trading Standards involved as well.

You need to contact the bailiff and ask for a breakdown of their charges. There is a set scale for the amounts they are allowed to charge and it is not unknown for them to charge more than they are allowed. You will find this link helpful. Info about - County Court Bulk Centre - Traffic Enforcement Centre in terms of process and for the forms you will need.

It would be an interesting thing to challenge this if a bailiff clamped or seized your car when it was not at the property specified on the warrant. From what I understand from posts by Tomtubby this is certainly cause to make an official complaint against the bailiff via the courts. IMV once they act ultra vires then it becomes TWOC. Whether the plod and CPS would be interested in a complaint of TWOC is another matter. IMV it also puts the combined operations conducted by the police and bailiffs for PCNs in a very dubious light.

I agree totally with Al about finding out who owns the land. Please have a read of the clamping guide at the top of the threads. It gives you a starting point. There Private Security Industry Act and regulations state that a contact phone number and the amount of the release should be on the sign. This may be enough grounds for the you to get a judgement. However case law states that the release fee must be reasonable. Clamping is part of a remedey for trespass. Trespass is part of the tort system. Damages for torts are to put the wronged party in the position they would have been in had the tort (in this case trespass) not occurred. Whether the clamper or the landowner have suffered any "damages" from the trespass is questionable. Trespass damages are often nominal sums. I think, given the amount you paid, that this fee is unreasonable.

Hi Andy, Sorry to hear about this. Technically they should release your car once an offer to pay is made. Have a read of the clamping guide which you'll find in the stickies section of this forum. You may be able to recover your money from the landowner or the clamper. Clamping is about implied consent. If you park in defiance of sign you can expect to be clamped. However if you can't see or read a sign then (e.g. its dark, its hidden away or text is unclear then you can't be expected to agree to something. Just checked his SIA license - the 16 digit number on your receipt. It is valid until January next year.

Several reasons Tort is about putting the wronged party in the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. As most B&Q car parks are otherwise free then this meets the criteria of a contract penalty. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Act. If a term puts one party at significant disadvantage and the term has not been individually negotiated it will be deemed unfair. If B&Q wish to charge £25 for a days parking why shouldn't they its their car park and its no more of a [problem] than charging £45 for a drill they buy for £5 in China or are you saying I can just walk out with the drill and offer to pay £5 for their loss?? You're right if they want to charge they can do. However I think its beside the point; the real issue is with them using a company that attempts to obtain money via threats and deception and people's lack of ignorance. If they want to charge for car parking why don't they install barriers on their car park and charge people on the way out instead of trying to obtain money people who may or may not be privy to a contract.

The strength of signal can also depend on the type of handset you have. I am in an area of strong coverage but my Samsung Tocco only gets 2 bars on a good day. By comparision my wife gets strong signal all the time on her Nokia N97. If you have access to another handset it might be worth checking if it gets better than your existing handset.

Sorry Rooster, I suspect we'll get legitimisation of these slime-balls if the Daily Mail gets its way. We've already had part 1 - the PSI Act and the SIA (another bleeding quango) foisted on us. I would love things to go down the Scottish route but I don't think it will happen.

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.

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.

As Al has confirmed read Vine vs Waltham Forrest and Arthur vs Anker. Blocking in is acknowledged by the SIA as being licensable activity requiring a vehicle immobilisers license. It's going to come down to the wording on the signs and also the prominence of the signs. If the signs are difficult to read or are ambiguous then you would have a case, albeit you have to convince a judge of the above. Did you get a receipt and if so does have the relevant information on it (as detailed in the clamping guide and on the SIA website. Did the people who released you have their SIA badges displayed? You're going to need to go after the landowner and the clampers in any action you take.

CCleaner (Crap cleaner) by piriform is also worth trying. It not only clears any garbage on your disk but also includes a registry check.

As I've suggested in the clamping guide - talking calmly and rationally to people will often acheive more than angry letters. I think your best bet is to talk to the management company. They are ultimately responsible for their agent the clamping company. If they refuse you then your arguement is that you haven't agreed to any permit system either in the terms of your agreement or verbally. You were not trespassing as you have permission to be parked there. Make if any of the issues mentioned in the guide are not present (e.g. Warning signs) that you include this in your discussions. Yeah it's a proverbial pain in the posterior. Just remember that this isn't an appeal though. This is you taking decisive action to reclaim money that was wrongfully taken from you.

OK you should try again with your CC Company. Be persistent. Stress that you were paying under duress. If that fails you need to go down the county court route. You're gunning for both the management company and the clampers. Write a letter with the subject Letter Before Action and ask for re-imbursement of your costs and the reason for the request. Send it recorded delivery to give yourself an audit trail so there can be no claims of we didn't receive it. Give them 7-14 days to respond. If you get an un-satifactory response or no response you'll need to file a claim against them in the county court (or online via Money Claim Online (MCOL).

Hi, Welcome to the forums. I'd say you have a definite case. The issue is concerned with the right to use the land. Clamping is a remedy for trespass. OK so you weren't displaying your permit but essentially you had permission for your car to be there and you should not have been clamped as you weren't trespassing. Your best is bet to get on to your CC company and use charge back. In the stickies section at the top of this forum there is a clamping guide. As this sort of issue is cropping up from time to time, an appendix was added to cover residential parking. Have a read of the guide, which will provide you with a starting point and suggests some remedies. Post back with any questions.

What and deprive the government of revenue. (remember they need all they can get). Just goes to prove they aren't interested in safety just the dosh.

Towing is classed a vehicle immobilisation act. It is also part of "distress feasant" which is a medieval remedy for Trespass. Have a read of the clamping guide in the stickies - its relevant. Regardless of any failure to display a permit, the fact that he purchased one would mean that he had permission to be on the land. Also check if these clowns are licensed by the SIA. I think that given they've reduced the amount they must be realising they are on sticky wicket. I would definitely send an L.B.A. to landowner and the towing firm demanding the car is returned. If you want to step up the pressure it wouldn't do any harm to your case to go to the plod and report it stolen.

Hi JoannaT, Welcome to the forums. If you have a look in stickies section at the top of this forum there is a guide to clamping that will assist you in trying to get your money back. Be warned that you will probably have to go to court (County court: small claims track) and you will have to sue the clamper and the landowner. Once they have your money they are very reluctant to give it back. Have a read of the guide and then post back any questions. I don't suggest you lie to your credit card company but you may find some leeway if you tell your credit card company that the money was taken under duress. They may reverse the charge.