Police have dropped an investigation into a notorious clamping firm which took a man’s £10,000 car and sold it.
After two months they have concluded “no crime was committed” and said the case is now a civil matter.
tinyurl.com/38atuns
Car owner Scott Cunningham, 24, from Rayleigh, can’t believe it.
He complained to police after LBS Enforcement clamped, then towed away, his black Alfa Romeo 147 T-Spark.
Mr Cunningham insists he tried to get in touch with LBS to pay the £610 release fee, but they did not return his calls.
He was unable to get his car back, or any of the personal contents inside.
He claims these included £90 in his wallet, a £200 sat nav, his father’s laptop, his grandmother’s disabled parking badge and house keys.
|
>>his grandmother’s disabled parking badge
Guessing that was on the dash 'allowing' him to illegally park?
Sorry, if that's the case then no sympathy towards him....
|
|
The issue in this case is that there is a difference between whether something is a crime or whether it's a civil matter. Incidentally, it appears that it was only the newspaper article heading which said that the clampers "had a right" to sell the car. Pure sensationalism.
|
|
It's about time these cowboys were totally outlawed. There can be no justification for this type of behaviour.
|
|
Hmmm.. if it was removed with the intention, at that time, of selling it, then I can't see how the appropriation is anything other than dishonest. And that's theft made out then. We only have the newspaper report and not the facts of course.
|
|
Since the 1966(?) Theft Act there has to an "Intention to permanently deprive" a person of the object in question when it is removed. Could that have been the case here? How did they manage to sell it, legally, at all and without the keys and the V5?
|
This one does beg a couple of questions.
Why was the car towed away, if it had already been clamped?
What about the balance of the sale price, surely the guy would be looking for about £9,000?
The police describe the eventual buyer as an 'innocent' member of the public, so they must be happy the transfer of ownership is legal. How?
Finally, the clamping company has county court judgments against it, which tells us something about the way they conduct their business.
|
If it was clamped the chances are that it would be towed in due course if the money was not paid to remove...
I'm another wondering about the BB, though if they've checked the car prior to sale then it should have been sent back to the issuing council... has he checked?!
The final "mystery" is why he just didn't go along and pay up and get it... why just phone calls? I suspect it would have taken quite a while to "sell" it, so what was he doing during that time?
Much more we are not being told, I think...
|
>> Finally, the clamping company has county court judgments against it, which tells us something about
>> the way they conduct their business.
You're jumping to conclusions. It has yet to be proved that the county court judgements are justified.
|
>> You're jumping to conclusions. It has yet to be proved that the county court judgements
>> are justified.
>>
The company is featured in yesterday's London Evening Standard.
"A notorious “rogue trader” car clamping firm faces being dissolved for failing to file accounts.
LBS Enforcement, which is being investigated by police after allegations of fraud, has been given notice by Companies House and faces being struck off its register.
Its annual accounts are more than three months overdue, and if it fails to submit the documents by February 2 it will be dissolved, the Government's business regulator said.
LBS has faced a barrage of criticism for its “predatory” and “outrageous” behaviour towards motorists, and was exposed this year by a BBC Watchdog Rogue Traders investigation. Typical complaints include drivers being deliberately blocked in by staff in vans who then clamp the car and demand hundreds of pounds.
The company, run by directors Matthew Boosey and Mark Stone and based in Southend, was reported to Revenue and Customs by Barclays Bank and local Conservative MP James Duddridge in July for apparently using a Barclays VAT number.
Receipts given out by LBS seemed to feature a number matching that of the bank. It is also reported to have refused to pay more than £17,500 to creditors despite having 26 outstanding county court judgments.
Mr Duddridge said: “This is an evil company that preys on the vulnerable. The sooner they are closed down the better.”
An Essex Police source said complaints against the company were being examined, but most were civil matters. A spokeswoman said one complaint had resulted in two members of LBS staff being arrested on suspicion of fraud in relation to clamping in Clacton. Both men were released on bail. "
Last edited by: John H on Tue 23 Nov 10 at 11:14
|
...Finally, the clamping company has county court judgments against it, which tells us something about the way they conduct their business. ...You're jumping to conclusions. It has yet to be proved that the county court judgements (CCJs) are justified...
Les,
John H has researched this company in more detail than I could, but as a general point....
The CCJs are justified because they have been given after a court hearing.
Outstanding CCJs tell us a company has not paid its legitimate debts.
I think that does indicate the way a company does business.
|
>> The CCJs are justified because they have been given after a court hearing.
>>
>> Outstanding CCJs tell us a company has not paid its legitimate debts.
>>
>> I think that does indicate the way a company does business.
In the County Court it is possible to get judgement 'by default'. Basically, the summons is accompanied by a form inviting the defendant to either defend the claim or admit it and make an offer of payment. If the defendant fails to respond then the claimant can seek a default judgment and proceed to enforce by way of bailiff or whatever. The process will be carried out by a clerk without a judge ever seeing the papers. A defendant genuinely caught out can get the enforcement suspended while they apply to the judge to get judgement set aside.
Obviously, even in a well run PLC, one summons can slip the net and there are occasional stories of bailiffs turning up at company HQ to levy on computers etc. Multiple CCJs obtained this way imply a company with a a cavalier attitude to debt and probably to the court as well.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 23 Nov 10 at 13:21
|
|
If they aren't "justified" how could a County Court have made them?
|
>> It's about time these cowboys were totally outlawed. There can be no justification for this
>> type of behaviour.
>>
Do you mean the illegal parking or the legal (possibly imoral) clamping?
|
The tag line for the article is misleading.
The police have just said it is a civil matter, not a criminal offence, but no "right" to sell the car has been established or proven. They are probably "wrong" to sell the car, but the car owner has been told not to pursue it because they wont cough up, not because he wont win.
|
...but the car owner has been told not to pursue it because they wont cough up, not because he wont win...
True, but the police have not seized the car from its current owner in the way they do to the poor folk who buy a stolen car.
Furthermore, the police have declared the current owner 'innocent'.
If I owned this Alfa, it would be going through the first auction I could find.
|
How is this parking "illegal" as stated by one poster?
I am not aware of a criminal offence in relation to parking on private land especially one where it is within the remit of a private company to administer the law.
Perhaps the poster can provide details of the relevant criminal statute to demonstrate the "illegality" that has arisen here; or it that they are using weasle words to justify what at best is a puffed up interpretation of civil contract law which does not permit the levying of penalties or fines by private companies?
As always
Mark
|
>> How is this parking "illegal" as stated by one poster?
>>
As i said earlier not enough detail in the report... but down at the bottom it says he was clamped behind the shop he works at... sounds like he was parking on private land without the land owners permission?!
|
...sounds like he was parking on private land without the land owners permission...
Which makes the act of parking a civil matter, not a criminal one.
Simple trespass, apart from a few limited exceptions such as on the railway, is not a criminal offence.
|
|
Still "illegal" though, surely, regardless of whether its civil or criminal?
|
...Still "illegal" though, surely, regardless of whether its civil or criminal?...
Not illegal in the sense that you cannot be arrested for it, or be searched or have your goods seized by the police.
It is a dispute to be settled in a civil court, usually a county court.
In a county court, a judgment is made, but no one is found guilty and no penalties or punishments are handed down, only damages and costs.
This last point is important, because the clampers/lamdowners know they would only likely be awarded at best a sum for parking - loss of use of the land - and their reasonable costs.
They know the award would come to nowhere near the hundreds they demand, which is why next-to-none of these cases ever reach a civil court.
Put shortly, the clampers are frightened of a fair hearing.
|
|
The act of parking may be a civil matter but the clampers can still steal the car. Masquerading under the guise of a 'clamper' doesn't negate the intention in the clamper's mind. If they removed it with the intention of selling it and denying the owner the opportunity to recover it, then that's theft.
|
Just another example of criminal behaviour being dressed up a legitimate business behaviour.
The same goes for issuing parking fines and pretending that they are enforceable - which is basically obtaining money by deception.
If my next door neighbour owed me money and I just went next door, took his car and sold it, you better believe I would be nicked. Same if I just sent letters out to all my neighbours, saying that they owed me £50, and that it would be £150 if they didn't pay within 5 days - hoping that a few old dears would send me their pension money.
This is when you need private prosecutions to clarify the law.
|
>> Just another example of criminal behaviour being dressed up a legitimate business behaviour.
The parking or the clamping/selling?
Both, I feel...
|
I think Iffy has summed this up rather well
As he says it is a civil matter which at best would rely upon dispute resolution through contract law which as the clampers know will return nothing like the amount they hope to extort by clamping the car.
Any "illegality" claimed to exist by the clampers exists only in their deluded interpretation of contract law. The scam only works if the driver then believes the car is "illegally" parked and that he had better pay the "penalty" or "fine" demanded by the clampers. If the initial lie of "illegality" is believed then the jump to accepting a non police or court imposed "penalty" or "fine" also works. This is why the smarter clampers call it a release fee as if it went to court their status to raise or levy penalties or fines would be questioned on a number of fronts.
In practice the car is swiftly clamped and a release fee demanded as an alternative to going to court to resolve the dispute as they know should they ever go to court they would (assuming success) only receive a fraction of what they demand.
Interesting to note in Scotland that clamping is regarded as extortion and theft but not here yet.
Last edited by: Mark on Wed 24 Nov 10 at 12:50
|
|
Hear hear SS! This situation is farcical
|
It sure is, I mean what gives people the right to think they can park anywhere they want, even on land owned by others... whats the old saying, "there's no such thing as a free lunch"...
Lets get some perspective on this, if people didn't park wherever they want, even if that causes others problems, then these prats wouldn't be needed... and usually all for the sake of having to walk 100 yards further to their destination...
It takes two to tango, I'm not defending these cowboys, but some drivers need to look in a mirror to find the original culprit... Perhaps the owner of that car is one.... even though the outcome in this case is very wrong.
Last edited by: hobby on Wed 24 Nov 10 at 12:53
|
|
The " Right to think" is something we have fought two World Wars for! I agree it doesn't mean that people think straight. We don't really know enough of the background to this; there is a comment that he was parked behind a shop where he worked. Had he parked there before one wonders? Had he been warned off and persisted with the parking? Clamp, remove, sell seems a pretty tough outcome in any event. I still don't understand the actual legality of the events that have taken although the lack of police interest is no surprise.
|
>> The " Right to think" is something we have fought two World Wars for!
Sorry, PP, I worded it badly! Try:
"I mean what gives people the right to park anywhere they want, even on land owned by others.."
As far as I'm aware we didn't fight two world wars to be able to do that!
|
|
Spot on! I am back to join the pedants, who seem to be missing me!
|
If you google street the road you can see the area concerned. Yellow hatched restricted parking and what appear to be some form of enforcement signs on all walls around. Whilst I in no way agree with the clampers actions re. selling on the car etc, it still appears (and again you can only go on the info to hand) that the alfas owner has 'chosen' to park where he shouldn't and hoped to get away with it. You will also note via google street that there isn't exactly a shortage of parking around the area!!
Bottom line - if he had parked correctly none of this craziness would have happened.
|
...Bottom line - if he had parked correctly none of this craziness would have happened...
In this case I agree.
But the landlord has done nothing to help the situation and everything to provoke it.
Why not put up some lockable posts or a chain or railing of some sort?
Because that would cost money and there would be no chance of trapping parkers, albeit stupid ones.
Far better to leave it all open and inviting and get the cowboy clampers in.
|
|
We are guessing here, but how has the Landlord "provoked" it? If people weren't so selfish on how they choose to park then these guys wouldn't exist. The Landlord isn't provoking it, he's just reacting to someone else's bad manners, if anything its him thats being provoked!
|
>> Bottom line - if he had parked correctly none of this craziness would have happened.
>>
Entirely true. But that should be dealt with by way of some proper legal process, like it used to be (or so they tell me).
Flogging the fella's motor just for parking where he shouldn't have on one occasion cannot be justified though.
After all, it's not as if the owner of the land is likely to see much of the proceeds.
|
Clampers "had right to sell man's car" - PeteW
