Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Friend has been unfairly clamped....please help.
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Pages: 1, 2
friendlyguy
Hi,

I live in a residential area, whereby a permit is needed to park in a bay within the area. The permits are obtained from one of the elderly residents. My friend moved into our house yesterday at 10.30pm, and as it was so late I didn't want to disturb the old lady for a permit and thought I would go first thing in the morning.

At 8.50am I left to get the permit and to my shock my friends car had been clamped. I went to the lady but she must have still been asleep, as there was no response. Therefore, I went to work and told my friend to wait till lunchtime and we would sort it out.

[/size]At lunchtime, I rang the company and they said I had to make payment of £125 to remove the clamp and then make an appeal by way of writing. Their reason for clamping was failure to display a permit. When the clamping guy came to remove the clamp, my friend paid him £125 cash and got a receipt. The guy informed us that there is a visitors pass given to each house.

However, this is being used by another tenant in our house as he is still awaiting his proper permit.
I have read a few articles already, and I can confirm that the guy who came to remove the clamp is SIA registered. However, on the notice, there is no name for who clamped the vehicle only an operator number. How do I find if the guy who clamped the vehicle is SIA registered? Would it be possible to advise me on the best way to appeal against the fine or point me to some articles of example letters?[size="2"]


Thanks,
FG
uknational
The 'appeal' is a waste of time. The best strategy will be to sue them in the small claims court to recover your money. Your friend had a permit in theory but not in practice, so she was legitimately parked, and she was clamped erroneously.

Keep checking here, some of the smart kids will be along soon with more advice.
friendlyguy
QUOTE (uknational @ Thu, 9 Jul 2009 - 14:47) *
The 'appeal' is a waste of time. The best strategy will be to sue them in the small claims court to recover your money. You had a permit in theory but not in practice, so you were legitimately parked.

Keep checking here, some of the smart kids will be along soon with more advice.



Thank you for quick response.

Yeah, the guy did say " I will tell you from now you will lose the appeal" as according to him they didn't see a permit on the car so clamped it.
friendlyguy
Anyone?
chadders
QUOTE
However, on the notice, there is no name for who clamped the vehicle only an operator number.


Post up a scan of the receipt received (hide any identifying features eg car reg)... it may be a simple Letter Before Action demanding the monies returned.
dave-o
I am happy to advise on NBA and claim, but would like to see:

-A scan of the receipt (remove personal info)
-Pictures of any signs regarding clamping
-A map of the car park, showing locations of signs and entrances
-The name of the landowner.
friendlyguy
Thanks for offering help. I have scanned the fine notice and receipt.

Will take pictures of signs and provide map soon.
friendlyguy
QUOTE (dave-o @ Fri, 10 Jul 2009 - 10:08) *
I am happy to advise on NBA and claim, but would like to see:

-A scan of the receipt (remove personal info)
-Pictures of any signs regarding clamping
-A map of the car park, showing locations of signs and entrances
-The name of the landowner.



QUOTE (dave-o @ Fri, 10 Jul 2009 - 10:08) *
I am happy to advise on NBA and claim, but would like to see:

-A scan of the receipt (remove personal info)
-Pictures of any signs regarding clamping
-A map of the car park, showing locations of signs and entrances
-The name of the landowner.



Hi,

Sorry for late reply but I have included below the requested items:

Scan of notice and receipt:





This is a map of the area. The red arrows show the entrances, white boxes are the signs with arrows showing where they face. The route my friend took and where he parked are clearly marked.


A picture of the full sign and a close-up. These signs are very hard to notice at night (my friend arrived at 10.30pm)






And finally, pictures of the parking bay. My car was parked where the blue one currently is, and I moved it to allow my friend to park in that small space. If I hadn't moved it no one would have parked there that night, so he wasn't really taking up anyones parking space. My friend parked facing towards the camera, so didnt see the sign behind him.







Thanks again for willing to help.
dave-o
OK here's an interesting one.

that SIA number:
0230011383828970 | KIERIN GURRIE | Vehicle Immobilisation | Frontline | 05/01/2010 | Replaced | 15/06/2009

Status: Replaced? It should be "Current" to immobilise/remove. Does this mean that this is an old license number? This could be a very big point if so. I'd love another opinion.

Going on the map you drew, there is no way you could have been expected to see their signs. a) The one near where you entered is facing away from the entrance. b) it was night and the signs have no illumination.

It seems very clear that no contract could have been understood or accepted, so i think you have a very strong case.

Let's give it 24 hours for other members to comment. I'll happily draft an NBA if no-one else offers to.

Do you have the name/address of the landowner?
friendlyguy
QUOTE (dave-o @ Wed, 22 Jul 2009 - 15:13) *
OK here's an interesting one.

that SIA number:
0230011383828970 | KIERIN GURRIE | Vehicle Immobilisation | Frontline | 05/01/2010 | Replaced | 15/06/2009

Status: Replaced? It should be "Current" to immobilise/remove. Does this mean that this is an old license number? This could be a very big point if so. I'd love another opinion.

Going on the map you drew, there is no way you could have been expected to see their signs. a) The one near where you entered is facing away from the entrance. b) it was night and the signs have no illumination.

It seems very clear that no contract could have been understood or accepted, so i think you have a very strong case.

Let's give it 24 hours for other members to comment. I'll happily draft an NBA if no-one else offers to.

Do you have the name/address of the landowner?


I checked the SIA number on the day, and I presumed replaced meant he had renewed his old license.

I have messaged you the landowners name and address.

Is there usually a set number of days allowed to appeal? It's been 13 days since the incident.
dave-o
No, you have 6 years! And it's not an appeal (there is no such thing with private tickets/charges). It's a notification that you will pursue them in court if they do not return the unlawfully taken money.

A "Replaced" license may be valid, but i have never seen it before, so that's why i was interested to see if other people have any conclusive knowledge. I wonder if he has since been given a different SIA number, but was too tight to reprint his stationery (notice the SIA number is hard printed on the receipt)? If so, he may have shot himself in the foot.
bama
don't know what replaced means.

did find this
http://www.securitypark.co.uk/security_article259674.html
friendlyguy
QUOTE (dave-o @ Wed, 22 Jul 2009 - 16:43) *
No, you have 6 years! And it's not an appeal (there is no such thing with private tickets/charges). It's a notification that you will pursue them in court if they do not return the unlawfully taken money.

A "Replaced" license may be valid, but i have never seen it before, so that's why i was interested to see if other people have any conclusive knowledge. I wonder if he has since been given a different SIA number, but was too tight to reprint his stationery (notice the SIA number is hard printed on the receipt)? If so, he may have shot himself in the foot.


Phew....because I can remember him mentioning about 14 days to appeal.

What a right cowboy if he has done that. Also, am I right in presuming the SIA number is only to license an individual not company. As the notice has the same SIA number as on receipt, but operator number is listed as 1004.....not sure how to prove operator 1004 isn't him.
dave-o
I'm going to email the SIA and ask.

Nice find there, bama. I'm sure plenty of PPC goons don't wear their SIA badge.
chadders
Surely a simple one, reason for refund: name of SIA operator missing - "site ref" is it a code or an actual proper description of the location? (as that would be a 2nd reason).

They can manage to put the SIA logo on it, but for some reason can't be arsed following the very short regulations they should do.

QUOTE
(3) The information specified for the purposes of this paragraph is—
(a) the location where the vehicle was immobilised, removed or restricted;
(b) the date on which the vehicle was immobilised, removed or restricted;
© the name and signature of the licensee; and
(d) the licence number of the licensee.
dave-o
QUOTE (friendlyguy @ Wed, 22 Jul 2009 - 16:49) *
Phew....because I can remember him mentioning about 14 days to appeal.

What a right cowboy if he has done that. Also, am I right in presuming the SIA number is only to license an individual not company. As the notice has the same SIA number as on receipt, but operator number is listed as 1004.....not sure how to prove operator 1004 isn't him.


They can say what they like really. It's racket that is not formally regulated. They mention things like "appeals" and "deadlines" to make it seem more like a legitimate council tow.

The SIA license individuals, yes. The operator difference does not neccesarily point to another problem. If could be that whoever handled the release of your vehicle is not K Gurrie. It has to be the licensee that clamps/tows you, but i believe anyone is able to release the vehicle.



Another one for the experts:

Their sign says that they will not be liable for any damage caused to vehicles in the application or removal of a clamp. Surely this can't be true? If they damage it, even if it were a legitimate clamp, they are liable! You can't make clauses that are without the bounds of lawful reason surely? OK it doesn't have a great bearing on this, but it may help to show that this firm have no idea about lawful contracts if and when it comes to a claim.

friendlyguy
QUOTE (dave-o @ Wed, 22 Jul 2009 - 17:27) *
QUOTE (friendlyguy @ Wed, 22 Jul 2009 - 16:49) *
Phew....because I can remember him mentioning about 14 days to appeal.

What a right cowboy if he has done that. Also, am I right in presuming the SIA number is only to license an individual not company. As the notice has the same SIA number as on receipt, but operator number is listed as 1004.....not sure how to prove operator 1004 isn't him.


They can say what they like really. It's racket that is not formally regulated. They mention things like "appeals" and "deadlines" to make it seem more like a legitimate council tow.

The SIA license individuals, yes. The operator difference does not neccesarily point to another problem. If could be that whoever handled the release of your vehicle is not K Gurrie. It has to be the licensee that clamps/tows you, but i believe anyone is able to release the vehicle.



Another one for the experts:

Their sign says that they will not be liable for any damage caused to vehicles in the application or removal of a clamp. Surely this can't be true? If they damage it, even if it were a legitimate clamp, they are liable! You can't make clauses that are without the bounds of lawful reason surely? OK it doesn't have a great bearing on this, but it may help to show that this firm have no idea about lawful contracts if and when it comes to a claim.




We didn't see the person who clamped the vehicle, but the guy who came to release it was K Gurrie.

There was damaged caused (scratches) to my friends car and my car, as they were parked very close together. They clamped the front right wheel, which was close to my car, but I dont see why they couldn't have clamped his left side wheel instead. We mentioned this to him and his reaction was basically 'so what? not our responsibility'.
Matts Dad
Pink writing on a white background! Hardly went out of their way to make it conspicuous did they.
friendlyguy
QUOTE (chadders @ Wed, 22 Jul 2009 - 17:11) *
Surely a simple one, reason for refund: name of SIA operator missing - "site ref" is it a code or an actual proper description of the location? (as that would be a 2nd reason).

They can manage to put the SIA logo on it, but for some reason can't be arsed following the very short regulations they should do.

QUOTE
(3) The information specified for the purposes of this paragraph is—
(a) the location where the vehicle was immobilised, removed or restricted;
(b) the date on which the vehicle was immobilised, removed or restricted;
© the name and signature of the licensee; and
(d) the licence number of the licensee.



The site ref is the name of our residential area. The SIA operator name missing is one that I think could nail it as it could have been anyone without a SIA license
chadders
QUOTE
It has to be the licensee that clamps/tows you, but i believe anyone is able to release the vehicle.


But then how would the name & signature of the SIA operative get onto the receipt...

From a legal standpoint/argument, how would the "name AND signature" hold up in front of a judge?

I'm only thinking in this instance the signature reads clearly as a name (playing devil's advocate here and looking for any possible defence to claim).

My thought would be that in my experience contracts (also bank cheques) always have a "PRINT NAME" and "SIGNATURE" seperate areas - and eg signatures may not be legible - therefore regardless if the signature looks like a name it cannot be taken as a name - and they've blatantly missed it from the receipt.

QUOTE
The SIA operator name missing is one that I think could nail it as it could have been anyone without a SIA license

If that's the angle you go for in claiming, you don't need to mention 'why' it should be included, merely that an Act of Parliament requires it!
dave-o
Good news!

I spoke to the SIA today, and they confirmed that he has been issued a replacement license, and should not be using that number any more.
It seems that my hunch is likely correct - that he was too tight to get new stationery reprinted with his new license.

This means that the operative was efectively unlicensed for this clamp. Of course that makes your court claim practically watertight, but i feel that this scummer deserves more than just to return your money. Perhaps Bama or someone could suggest some way of getting him into trouble? Crimestoppers? The SIA recommends that all unlicensed activity is reported to Crimestoppers. I bet this guy has clamped plenty of other people without using a proper license.
chadders
Good news for the claim but don't bother with Crime Stoppers (they'll tell you to write to SIA) - been there, done that etc.

All you can do is write to the SIA (provide photocopies of receipt etc), wait several weeks then somebody will confirm what you've said in a long letter, that matter will be taken seriously etc then you *may* hear back - but won't - they'll give them a slap on the wrist is all.
friendlyguy
QUOTE (dave-o @ Thu, 23 Jul 2009 - 09:17) *
Good news!

I spoke to the SIA today, and they confirmed that he has been issued a replacement license, and should not be using that number any more.
It seems that my hunch is likely correct - that he was too tight to get new stationery reprinted with his new license.

This means that the operative was efectively unlicensed for this clamp. Of course that makes your court claim practically watertight, but i feel that this scummer deserves more than just to return your money. Perhaps Bama or someone could suggest some way of getting him into trouble? Crimestoppers? The SIA recommends that all unlicensed activity is reported to Crimestoppers. I bet this guy has clamped plenty of other people without using a proper license.


Excellent! Thank you so much for helping me out, this has really made my day. biggrin.gif

By the way, what is my next step?
Matts Dad
How about letting the Police know that an 'unlicenced' clamper is working on their patch. That's not a civil matter but a criminal one. Also a letter to the landowner pointing out that allowing an unlicenced clamper to work on their land is also a criminal offence, (£5000 or 6 month inside I believe).
chadders
The Police will tell you to go to the SIA... even more so as it's a problem with the clamper's paperwork - no matter how hard you press the Police.

First goal is receiving your money back.

I'd be in 2 minds to not mention both lines of redress - ie see if they reprint the tickets with one of the other bits missing! (future claims).

From my experience, I wrote first to the SIA then got their reply confirming my point of attack - then wrote to the clampers - I liked having their letter as backup should I need to whack them hard in front of a judge.

Also, I talked it through with Consumer Advice - although you are reliant on explaining it clearly to someone who won't know what you're on about - but if you get someone who understands, it makes you feel a lot better about proceeding with claim.
dave-o
OK this is the one for Mr. Gurrin. Do not send it to the PO box address. I'm going to get a proper address from the SIA so sit tight for a mo:

QUOTE
NOTICE BEFORE ACTION

On 09/07/2009, my vehicle, registration number XXXXXX, was immobilised by Mr. Kieran Gurrin, who works for KMG Security Services, on land managed by Chancellor & Sons. The sum of £125 was demanded for release of the vehicle, and this amount was subsequently paid by myself.

I believe this charge was unlawfully levied, and demand return of the full amount of £125. The reasons for my claim are as follows:

-Mr. Gurrie did not supply a valid SIA license number. The license number stated on the reciept is 0230011383828970. This license is registered as "replaced" by the SIA. Having spoken with the SIA, they confirmed that the license was not valid and therefore the immobilisation unlawful. The reciept also fails to provide the name of the operative. The Private Security Industry Act 2001 makes it quite clear that both a name and a signature are required for lawful immobilisation of a vehicle:

Any licence holder who collects a release fee must provide a receipt, which must include the following:

the location where the vehicle was clamped or towed.
their own name and signature
their licence number.
the date


-To form a legal contract for my vehicle to be clamped, any parking restriction would have to have been clearly displayed. In my case, I was entirely unaware of any parking restriction at the site, and therefore could not have entered into any contract involving the immobilisation of my vehicle. On further research, I discovered that the sign at the entrance of the site is turned away from the entrance, and is not visible on entry. None of the signs on the site are illuminated, and considering that the car was parked at 22:30, any parking restriction signage would not have been visible. This assertation is backed up by case law, namely Vine v Waltham Forest:

"The appellant’s case on the central issue is that…the act of clamping the appellant’s car was a clear trespass, to which the respondents had no defence unless they could establish that the appellant had consented to her car being clamped or alternatively had voluntarily assumed the risk of her car being clamped. If the appellant had not seen the notice, then she could not have consented to, or voluntarily assumed the risk, of her car being clamped.
........................
The recorder found that Mrs Vine did not see the sign and Mr Mott accepts - with some reluctance, perhaps - that he cannot challenge that finding in this court. That is sufficient for her to succeed on the facts of this case."


In conclusion, I believe that the immobilisation of my car was unlawful, and I demand the return of the release fee of £125. If this sum is not recieved within 14 days, I will register my claim in the small claims court. Both Mr. Gurrie and Chancellor & Sons will be named as respondents, as the managing agent is legally responsible for the actions of its contractors. This claim will be for:

-The £125 release fee
-The claim registration fee
-Expenses relating to this claim
-Interest at 8% p.a.

Sent special delivery.

Send the same to the landowner, but I would also recommend adding this at the end:

QUOTE
I urge you to reconsider your use of private clamping companies for the management of your car park. Mr. Gurrin's use of a replaced SIA licence is illegal, as is confirmed by the SIA : "it is a criminal offence to undertake the licensable activities of a vehicle immobiliser without an SIA licence". This offence can be punished with fines of up to £5000 and/or a custodial sentence of up to six months.
I have registered a complaint with the SIA and with Crimestoppers regarding the illegal use of a replaced license, and these complaints will be vigorously pursued until a satisfactory outcome is achieved. I will also be making a report to the local press, urging any other motorists who have been clamped by Mr. Gurrie on your land, to register their own claims against Mr. Gurrie and yourselves.
A web search on Mr. Gurrie reveals a catalogue of nefarious activities reported in the press, and this is standard for private parking companies, however strongly they may claim to be working within the law. The legal basis for private clamping is so precarious as to rarely be lawful. Therefore, as a legitimate company, I urge you to distance yourselves from these types of companies, and look into alternative methods of parking control.


I welcome comments/suggestions from other members.
dave-o
OK well the SIA can't give me his address because of the DPA. Fair enough really. I am having no luck with web searches for KMG/Keirin's proper address - if anyone has any ideas please come forward!

Another thing that came up while on the phone to the SIA: See the SIA logo at the top right? Only approved contractors are allowed to use that, and KMG are NOT an approved contractor (hence why she had no details on their address). I am not sure if this is worth adding to the NBA/claim, but it's certainly worth putting in the SIA complaint/report.
friendlyguy
That letter is spot on! If only there were more dave-o's in the world!

Silly question time...do I just copy&paste into word doc and add personal details?

Also, would it be worth adding about damages to the cars or is that pushing it?
dave-o
You should definitely claim for the damages, but you will need a figure. Get a quote from a garage and add i'll adjust the NBA to reflect this. A rough telephone quote will do for now.
friendlyguy
QUOTE (dave-o @ Thu, 23 Jul 2009 - 14:12) *
You should definitely claim for the damages, but you will need a figure. Get a quote from a garage and add i'll adjust the NBA to reflect this. A rough telephone quote will do for now.



It's going to be a panel respray job, around £65.
dave-o
What exactly was damaged? What part/s of the car? Are they dents, scratches or what?
friendlyguy
QUOTE (dave-o @ Thu, 23 Jul 2009 - 14:33) *
What exactly was damaged? What part/s of the car? Are they dents, scratches or what?


Oh yeah sorry, thought I had mentioned this before, but was mistaken.

There are 2 scratches. The one on my mates car, near the right wheel arch, is minimal. The one on mine is deep and about 3 inches long, and is located on the left side wheel arch. I took a picture of mine on the day when I noticed it.
dave-o
OK redraft of the first letter:

QUOTE
NOTICE BEFORE ACTION

On 09/07/2009, my vehicle, registration number XXXXXX, was immobilised by Mr. Kieran Gurrin, who works for KMG Security Services, on land managed by Chancellor & Sons. The sum of £125 was demanded for release of the vehicle, and this amount was subsequently paid by myself. I subsequently noticed damage to my car as a direct result of the immobilisation of my vehicle, namely a deep scratch on the wheel arch. I have been quoted £65 for a panel respray to repair this damage.

I believe the release charge was unlawfully levied, and demand return of the full release charge £125, plus £65 to repair the damage done to my vehicle. The reasons for my claim are as follows:

-Mr. Gurrie did not supply a valid SIA license number. The license number stated on the reciept is 0230011383828970. This license is registered as "replaced" by the SIA. Having spoken with the SIA, they confirmed that the license was not valid and therefore the immobilisation unlawful. The reciept also fails to provide the name of the operative. The Private Security Industry Act 2001 makes it quite clear that both a name and a signature are required for lawful immobilisation of a vehicle:

Any licence holder who collects a release fee must provide a receipt, which must include the following:

the location where the vehicle was clamped or towed.
their own name and signature
their licence number.
the date


-To form a legal contract for my vehicle to be clamped, any parking restriction would have to have been clearly displayed. In my case, I was entirely unaware of any parking restriction at the site, and therefore could not have entered into any contract involving the immobilisation of my vehicle. On further research, I discovered that the sign at the entrance of the site is turned away from the entrance, and is not visible on entry. None of the signs on the site are illuminated, and considering that the car was parked at 22:30, any parking restriction signage would not have been visible. This assertation is backed up by case law, namely Vine v Waltham Forest:

"The appellant’s case on the central issue is that…the act of clamping the appellant’s car was a clear trespass, to which the respondents had no defence unless they could establish that the appellant had consented to her car being clamped or alternatively had voluntarily assumed the risk of her car being clamped. If the appellant had not seen the notice, then she could not have consented to, or voluntarily assumed the risk, of her car being clamped.
....................
The recorder found that Mrs Vine did not see the sign and Mr Mott accepts - with some reluctance, perhaps - that he cannot challenge that finding in this court. That is sufficient for her to succeed on the facts of this case."


In conclusion, I believe that the immobilisation of my car was unlawful, and I demand the sum of £190. This equates to the release fee of £125 and the repair cost of £65. If this sum is not recieved within 14 days, I will register my claim in the small claims court. Both Mr. Gurrie and Chancellor & Sons will be named as respondents, as the managing agent is legally responsible for the actions of its contractors. This claim will be for:

-The £125 release fee
-The repair cost of £65
-The claim registration fee
-Expenses relating to this claim
-Interest at 8% p.a.


So, this to Gurrie. At the PO box if we can't dig up a proper address.
This plus the second bit to the management agents.

Both special delivery
friendlyguy
Nice one. I've just had a brainwave, the other day a similar looking van was driving slowly through the area and I noted down the vehicle registration number (not sure if I'm allowed to publish it here?). Im pretty sure it was our friend Mr Gurrie. Is there a way to get an address through the reg number.
bama
Ask the SIA for its Code of Conduct for employees. It is public document and should be freely available upon request.

http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/Assets/5_pu...2_tcm6-2484.pdf

Annex A

Also; note this:-
"Staff of public bodies have a duty:
• to discharge public functions reasonably and according to the law"


i.e. to uphold the legislation.


Oh and the DPA excuse is bollocks, there is an exception for legal proceedings and talking legal advice.
remind the SIA of S.35 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga..._en_5#pt4-l1g35
friendlyguy
Ok, the 2 letters have now been sent recorded delivery. I'm off on holiday today so will update you guys when I come back in 10 days time.

Thanks again for all your help, especially dave-o!
Ihate Clampers
Although they have breached the SIA regs, its not automatically going to help your case in the small claims... breaching SIA is a criminal thing, you're sueing for a civil thing.
dave-o
I see it as a fraudulent misrepresentation of the clamper's status. That directly affects the claimant's case IMO.
bama

the SIA themselves have argued that they can bring prosecutions.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2008/1762.html

which also has case references and comments for a private individual pursing charges.

found the baili case linked on here
http://www.the-sia.org.uk/home/about_sia/l...lation/psia.htm
.
Matts Dad
QUOTE (friendlyguy @ Wed, 22 Jul 2009 - 17:37) *
There was damaged caused (scratches) to my friends car and my car, as they were parked very close together. They clamped the front right wheel, which was close to my car, but I dont see why they couldn't have clamped his left side wheel instead. We mentioned this to him and his reaction was basically 'so what? not our responsibility'.



No matter what they put on their signs they still have a Duty of Care. The warning notice must be capable of being understood so that the visitor is made aware of the nature and location of the danger and can take steps to avoid it. You did take steps to avoid it by parking legally. If they damaged your car while clamping your mates car then they failed in their duty of care and are liable for any damage caused.
friendlyguy
It's been 13 days since I sent the letters and no response.

Checking the tracking number on Royal Mail website, the managing agents received theirs on 25th July with proof of signature. However, the clampers letter was delivered on 29th July but no signature available......is this because the address was a P.O. Box?
dave-o
Yes.

Well it's OK, you've notified the landowner. Let's see what they have to say.
friendlyguy
QUOTE (dave-o @ Thu, 6 Aug 2009 - 10:19) *
Yes.

Well it's OK, you've notified the landowner. Let's see what they have to say.



Ok. What's my next steps if no response is received from clampers? Would it be advisable to give him a call?
dave-o
Personally i would just wait and see what the landowner has to say.

Allowing 2 days max on either end of the postage process, plus 13 days to respond, i would give them qnother 5 days and then phone the landowner to remind them that you are just about to submit your claim. Don't speak to the PPC.

But perhaps i am being too generous.
Ihate Clampers
No to phonecalls... you need to be able to have the proof in court. To me this is simple, you've served your LBA and nothing has happened so follow it through... get the case in the courts now!!
chadders
QUOTE ("ihate clampers")
Although they have breached the SIA regs, its not automatically going to help your case in the small claims... breaching SIA is a criminal thing, you're sueing for a civil thing.


QUOTE ("dave-o")
I see it as a fraudulent misrepresentation of the clamper's status. That directly affects the claimant's case IMO.


It is my understanding that by breaching the Statutory Instrument, they are acting effectively as unlicenced clampers - therefore the release fee obtained illegally. The SIA advise recovery of any monies through civil action, whilst they will handle any criminal aspect.
friendlyguy
QUOTE (Ihate Clampers @ Thu, 6 Aug 2009 - 10:47) *
No to phonecalls... you need to be able to have the proof in court. To me this is simple, you've served your LBA and nothing has happened so follow it through... get the case in the courts now!!



No response as yet from either clampers or managing agents.

Just been on the HM courts website, and there is a bit that says to consider alternatives prior to going to court. If the judge decides an alternative could have been used then fees would not be refunded.

Is the small claims court the next step or is there anything else that can be done? Apologies for simple questions, never done anything like this before. smile.gif
Teufel
no response to your final notice means court is the option now
friendlyguy
QUOTE (Teufel @ Wed, 12 Aug 2009 - 18:05) *
no response to your final notice means court is the option now


ok thanks.

what is the procedure I have to go through? my friend does not live around this area anymore, so which court will the hearing be at?
friendlyguy
My friend got a reply from KMG a few weeks ago. He was away, so didn't see the letter till this week. Here is the scanned reply:






What do you guys think?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.