Sadly, this is yet another thread concerning the dangers of taking "legal advice" from websites without first checking whether the "advice" is correct. The brief background is that the gentleman's car was clamped on his driveway by bailiffs who demanded £477.13. A Notice to Seizure was posted through the door advising the debtor that the bailiff would return at 8.a.m for payment. The debtor visited various websites and read upon one of them the following "advice": "If the vehicle is parked on private land, the clamper has committed a criminal offence" "Section 54 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the police must arrest the clamper. This legislation is nothing to do with "private car parks". "Time to get out the bolt cutters and report the clamper to the police" Unfortunately, the gentleman took this "advice". He did not use "bolt cutters" but he did manage to remove the clamp. He took pictures of the clamp on his car as "evidence". The bailiff returned to the car earlier than 8.30 and immediately called the police. The debtor had printed of a copy of the "advice" that he had received from the website and asked for the police to ARREST the bailiff. The police refused and informed him that he needed to check his "legal advice". Whilst the argument with the police was going on...the bailiff had called a "removal contractor" and within 20 minutes, his car was loaded onto a low loader. As the removal vehicle had been called the bailiff added a further fee of £175 to the debt. The gentleman offered to pay by CREDIT CARD but this was rejected by the bailiff on the basis that many internet "advice" sites are encouraging debtors to pay by credit card and to then apply for a "charge-back" against the card provider. The bailiff allowed him an extra 45 mins to make payment by alternative means. The debtor could not pay and his car was removed to the vehicle pound and it was not until 5 days later that he was able to get the car released after paying over £840 in cash. The debtor again relied upon the "advice" on various websites and wrote a letter "before action" to the local authority seeking a substantial amount of money. He has received a response from their legal department and contacted me this morning to ask me whether the information from the local authority is correct. YES IT IS !!!! Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The Act received Royal Assent on 1st May 2012 and came into force on 1st October 2012 and this legislation is directed at the proprietors of private car parks. Below you will see a link to a Fact Sheet from the Home Office and Department for Transport In particular, you will need to read the paragraph under the heading of Lawful Authority which states as follows: The term “lawful authority” means where specific legislation or express powers are in force, which allow for vehicles to be legally immobilised or removed. Examples of lawful authority include where statutory powers exist such as Road Traffic Regulations which allow local authorities or the police to clamp or tow vehicles on public roads" "Certificated bailiffs retain their powers to immobilise or remove vehicles" "Certain statutory authorities also retain the ability to clamp and tow, such as the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) and Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA), who will continue to clamp or tow vehicles which are un-roadworthy or have not had their vehicle tax paid" https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/98406/fact-sheet-part3.pdf

Hi All We have previously ignored these tickets but appears a new law has come in without my knowledge! One of our pool vehicles got a ticket from Parking Eye. A notice to owner was received and duly ignored. We had a reminder, ignored. Now a new letter stating that under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act the charge can be recovered form the keeper. Not seen much on here about it. Have they finally won and the keeper has to pay the fine? Had a quick read of it, looks like they can. Any advice please? Cheers

Hi Guys, Does schedule 4 of this act make any difference to private parking companys or is it only for Local Authoritys? Bit confused TBH http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4

The protection of freedoms act guidance has revealed a huge loophole in the act: http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/guidance-unpaid-parking-charges/guidance-unpaid-parking-charges.pdf Section 6.3 schedule 4 sets out: The ticket must say : When and how the parking offence took place. Now the devil here is in the detail "offence" Offence is a legally defined term. parking on private land is not covered by any statutory instrument or regulations, the new act refers to recovering monies only. Now if the act stipulate the ticket must contain details of the offence to be valid, they have just give a cast iron copper bottomed defence in court. No offence has been committed. Therefore the ticket does not comply with the act. Legal wording is everything in law. No offence = non compliance = not proven. The defence under this new act must be to make the court state what offence occurred and under what primary legislation this offence is covered and what would be the penalty for this offence. And no Traffic regulations or off street parking placement orders are granted then no offence can take place. This has to be the best word in the whole legislation. It had to have a weak point and here it is. The point may need to be hammered to appeal high court, but it surely has to stand or turn the entire legal justice system on its head to accommodate one act. Opinions ?

The following is a VERY interesting speech given by Martin Cutts at the Parking Review Enforcement Summit 2012 a few days ago. I have not as yet had time to take the contents of Mr Cutts speech into consideration but...from a brief glance.......this frankly hopeless part of the Freedoms Bill should be stopped in it's tracks!!!! This is the speech: http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/pl...ly2012copy.pdf