Why on earth would they threaten to take money from the landlord who employees them? You might wish to blank your personal details and forward the letter to your landlord (presumably they mean landowner). You might also wish to ask the BPA what they mean.

I can let you have a previous defence that you can alter for your own circumstances over the weekend yourself and then post off on Monday.

Yes, get everything in writing. Arthur v Anker was a clamping case that featured prominent warning signs.

It hinges on whether he had "the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it." The issue is whether lack of knowledge of the law counters 'belief'. After all, anyone could 'believe' anything and it would be an automatic defence. As it has been explained no letter withdrawing access from the land has been received (and no record of it being sent exists), no T&C's have been seen or read by the keeper, and there is no written information that the failure to pay an invoice would result in the car being seized, has the intent to permanently deprive and the test of dishonesty now become stronger than the original belief that the car was rightfully taken? Is the NCP guy acting dishonestly if his mindset becomes "I don't bloody care. He's not having the car back whatever he says." His belief system is unravelling due the confusion over why he is keeping the car.

Next week? You're supposed to have your defence in 14 days before.

To apply for an injunction costs £270 straight off, so it depends if paying off the 'tickets' would be cheaper or not. The threat of an injunction can be useful though. They may like to be warned that it will ultimately cost them £270 + a daily amount of loss incurred from being deprived of the vehicle.

Any news from the OP? I understand you are talking to the BPA, although I'm not sure how successful that will be. On the face of it, your choices are: • Involve the police again, as per Sailor Sam's advice • Pay and sue in county court • Apply for an injunction to secure the immediate release of the car • Take back the car using reasonable force

How much money do they want? If it's more than £270, you're best off paying it to county court and requesting an injunction. I would ask for the following in writing: • the nature of the alleged outstanding debts • a breakdown of the alleged outstanding debts • the terms and conditions and/or laws they allege allows them to seize your vehicle • the law they rely upon that enables them to make the Registered Keeper of a vehicle liable for their alleged debts Being armed with this information, or being able to demonstrate they refuse to co-operate, would be useful for the injunction form. Otherwise, just pay and sue (by credit card preferably).

Yes, but the bay line was faded and they would have to show that another customer came in, couldn't park purely because of the positioning of your car and then left.

How do you come to £3.50? Parking outside some barely visible lines would cause them zero pounds of loss.

In all likelihood nobody's even read it I'd just repeat what you've already said under part G. Save any proof for your full defence later (if it gets that far).

Photos please!

Yep, ignore.

Yes, that's a good idea. It works with the landlord deposit scheme. Something that's often overlooked is the signage though. It's in the interest of some companies to make their signage as obscure and confusing as possible. It's the same with ticketing. Whatever happens with the bill, unless standardised signage is issued, people will continue to get stung in one way or another. Imagine if every different council had their own signage for parking restrictions.

The company would just phoenix and a new licence would be applied for by the new company, who would probably apply under a temporary directorship. And the original CCJ still wouldn't be paid.

They can do what they like. You have the right to not fall for it though and simply ignore them. They'll send you a few threatening computer generated junk letters and give up and go away. There is no 'appeals process'. It's a trick to make you think you have a proper parking ticket. It's just a speculative invoice.

Simply ignore them. Expect a few threatening computer generated letters from them and their powerless debt collectors and then they will give up and go away.

I was referring to the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 Act G&M. There was a post before mine that the poster has deleted for some reason.

I think Snowy is trying to make the point that it is legal to walk out of a shop without paying if there is no intent to permanently deprive e.g. if you accidentally forgot to scan an item at self service. It would have been illegal if you realised you hadn't paid once you got home but decided to keep the item.

An offence would not be committed from failure to display. Inadequate signage, as seen with Excel, could create the situation where the driver was not aware he had to pay. You might also have the situation where the driver paid in advance but the payment was not registered with the company because of IT or admin issues. Any of which would lead to the same old same old - you car has been towed and you have to pay and pursue a company who are likely to ignore CCJs.

This issue would not be the payment of the toll, but the accompanying administrative expenses. I don't see anything in the act regarding the expenses incurred by the toll company from sending out a letter.

Most of the bill is stupid G&M

I doubt a hospital would have a tow truck just waiting there and the ambulance drivers would sit in the ambulance waiting for it to be cleared. And maybe there aren't actually that many feckless drivers in the grand scheme of things?

Simply ignore them. Fee free to write and complain to Sainsburys though.

Is it in the public interest to allow clamping companies at all? Rogue plumbers might invoice you horrendous amounts but they don't change the locks on your house and frogmarch you to the nearest cash machine.