Makes no odds, you can take the partial payment and pursue the balance or refuse it and pursue the lot. I have a cheque here from MBNA they sent me, although admittedly without my agreement, that I'm not going to cash as I'm going to pursue the full amount. I'm not in any rush. P.

It occured to me what it started that this "C&P" thing wasn't actually to reduce fraud but merely to reduce the banks exposure to the effects of it. If someone uses your stolen or skimmed card with a false signature then, as long as you have been responsible in keeping your card safe, the loss is the banks problem as they have to show that you were careless to shift the loss back to you. If your PIN has been used then the burden of proof shifts to you from the outset and showing that it's wasn't your fault will be nigh on impossible because the standard reply from the bank will be that you must have revealed your number as that's the only way the transaction could have gone through. Fraud levels will be shown to have declined after the introduction of "C&P" because, as far as I am aware, they are compiled from the banks losses only and not the actual number of instances of fraud or financial loss to customers. So, whether fraud has indeed been ruduced is not entirely clear. P.

Makes no difference. You have just been extra reasonable in giving them additional time to consider the matter. P.

Did they by any chance say precisely why they considered that private parking enforcement companies has reasonable cause? I cannot imagine what legal gymnastics they are performing to come to the conclusion that an unlawful, unenforcible debt is "reasonable cause" for anything! P.

I sure as hell wouldn't pay them a penny until they can show you that the debt is legally enforcible. I mean properly show you not try to fob you off with waffle. There is no requirement at all to tell them who the driver was and unless they can prove who he or she was then their claim cannot succeed, even if the charge was enforcible, as they are unable to say who the contract was made with. As has been pointed out £160 Court fees is outrageous and extortunate. If you feel that you have gone as far as you can and you are just going over the same ground time and again with them then, personally, I'd tell them flat that you are simply not paying under any circumstances (unless they can show that the charge is enforcible) and you want them to stop all further demand as you will only respond to Court papers. Tell them that you dispute the whole amount and that any communication other than Court papers will be considered harassement and reported to the police. This is a perfectly reasonable course of action on your part as you have a right to either a fair hearing or a cessation of their constant demands for payment. Also, point out that you will counter claim and you will bring their behaviour to the attention of the Court. P.

Just had a read through that case and also Vine V Waltham LBC. Both were clamping cases but neither involved contractual disputes but rather were cases involving tresspass. Persons who were trespassers on land, which had been clearly sign posted as to the risk of clamping were Volenti to the risk and so could not complain later if they were clamped. This is because land owners have a right not to incur the damage from your unlawful parking, such as having restricted access or, in Arthur, having his spaces taken up when they are only available for use by certain people. As you say, it also required the release fee to be reasonable - which I take to mean that it may only cover the cost of clamping and de-clamping and should not be designed to operate for profit for the landowner. Clamping in a car park where you have accepted a contract and paid a fee is not lawful (in my view) if it is designed to make you pay a charge which constitutes a penalty. Penalties are unlawful and unenforcible so clamping a vehicle and demanding payment of a sum which exceeds your loss (a penalty) would certainly constitute Blackmail, I would have thought. P.

The part about a public body protecting your rights is somewhat akin to state liability, I think. It dosen't mean that the breach of your rights is enforcible against the private company, just that the state has a duty to compensate you. You can't actually do anything your self to stop the company concerned doing what they are doing. I think it goes further than the company merely operating in the public arena. If not an actual state body then it has to be acting as it were a stete body, ie; be performing a function that the state usually reserves for it's self or directly controls in some manner. For instance, a private company that was employed to collect state taxes would be an organ of state (TV Licenseing enforcment?) but a company clamping vehicles on private land would not be. P.

I don't think this Human Rights thing will fly. As far as I'm aware, Human Rights violations only apply to the state and it's agencies and not in relation to other private individuals or companies. However, I think other things may be applicable to use against clamping companies - such as offences under the Theft Act. Blackmail is the offence of making an unwarranted demand with menaces and a demand will be presumed to be unwarranted unless the person makig it can show that he is entitled to make the demand and that the menace in question was a proper way of enforcing said demand. I suppose there might be a criminal damage offence as well as you are rendering the vehicle inoperable and I seem to remember that that constitutes criminal damage. P.

If the charge is a charge for parking on the land, there are signs that are reasonably visible which set out the terms of the parking contract then you probably couldn't get the charge back. It is a legitimate charge for the service of using the land. If there are signs but there is no charge mentioned, or a charge tpo park there that is less than the £55 then the £55 is probably going to be held to be a penalty. P.

No. It's a legitimate service that cannot be claimed back. The bank are doing somnething for you at your request and can charge what they like. P.

Personally, if it's been 14 days since your initial request for payment letter I'd just send them the LBA for the ful amount. You haven't recieved a favourable response so you are only doing what you said you would in your presious letter. P.

I'm not sure I believe them about how long they say they keep data. The actual relevant paragraph reads, "The charges information that you have requested is contained within the account statements. We will arrange to provide you with copies of your account's statements, as detailed in your letter. The bank only retains information of this nature for six years." The problem you have in the face of that statement is that you really have no grounds to challenge it. Up until now every bank who has tried to get away with the 6 year bar has never been this unequivical. It's always been a case of simply failing to provide older information at the initial request, or saying someting along the lines of "we are only required to keep information for 6 years". A few have even told me on the phone that they are only obliged to provide 6 years worth of data, none have done it in writing though. Once they have said they haven't got it you don't really have any route left to go down unless you have some pretty good evidence that they are lying. I suppose the only thing that may be left is to write back and ask them to confirm when, and by what method, it was destroyed. P.

Mrs Phantom has just heard back from FD and they have said in the letter that they do not retain statements older than 6 years. P.

Still no letter from Mr Parkforce. P.

Cash advance fee's cannot be reclaimed as they are a charge for a legitimate service - that of providing you with cash. However, I'm not entirely sure that a "cash advance" fee is applicable to something like on-line gaming. They aren't, after all, actually providing you with physical cash. I would cheack your T's&C's to see what their definition of "cash" actually is. P.

The Oxford Dictionary of Law days; Maintenance and Champerty. The promotion or support of litigation by a third party who has no legitimate interest in the proceedinsgs (Maintenance) and the support of litigation by a a third party in return for a share of the proceeds (Champerty, an aggravated form of maintenance). The old crimes and torts of maintenance and champerty were abolished by statute in 1967 but a champertous agreement may still be treated as contrary to public policy and so unlawful. An agreement by a lawyer to receive payment in the form of a share of the clients damages (if successful) is regarded as champertous in England, but a modified form of "no win, no fee" agreement was legalized by the Courts and Legal Sevices Act 1990, although it is authorized only for certain categories of cases. P.

YOu want to be careful about doing that - a court may see you as taking the piddle. P.

Unless they are authorised to do so under the act. Thi looks like just another toothless system of regulation on the way if you ask me. P.

It's tresspass but I'm not sure how you would go about removing someones property from your land - probably need a Court order or something. The person may also be in breach of their lease so you may be able to get the freeholder of the building to do something about it for you. I suppose you could place a sign on your space saying that anyone may park there at a price of £200 per day, or part thereof. You could then sue for the parking charge which may deter them. Alternatively, you could install a key operated barrier to physically prevent anyone from driving into your space. You would need to check and see if your lease lets you do that though. Probably need the landlords permission. P.

Something similar to what I've put here; http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-wardens/41190-parking-shopping-centre-4.html#post436205 P.

Hasn't a head/ex-head of a large bank (Lloyds) said in interview that charges are used to fund free banking? If so then that is some pretty powerful evidence that we have been decieved into paying themn because the banks tell us that they are to cover costs. P.

I've thought of charges in relation to criminal offences before, although not specifically relating to whether they were a service or not. My thoughts go like this. The banks make the charges and present them to you as being lawful, fair and representative of their costs and you pay them on that basis. The charges are unquestionably none of the above and the banks know that, so I think they are comitting a deception offence in getting you to pay them in this manner. Also simple theft as well as they are dishonestly appropriating your property and intend to permenantly deprive you of it. P.

Your other course of action would be to try and negotiate a partial settlement with the bank to get the amount under 15K thereby avoiding the multi-track route and suing for the balance later on. P.

As far as I'm aware the thresholds for the track allocation are only guidance. You can still ask for it to be kept in small claims and the judge may agree as the legal issues at stake are not particularly unusual. Penalties are long settled law and the Courts are used to dealing with them. P.

It's quite likely that many off-shore account such as ones held in IoM, Jersey, etc, will have in their contracts a provsion that it is governed my the laws of England and Wales. P.