Citywatch clamping update
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions
Imagine the scene. You've parked your car on your own property and thought it was safe, as it's the same spot you've been parking on for years. The only difference this time is that a clamping firm, with no authority to do so, trespasses on your land and tows your car away. Not only that - it then charges you hundreds of pounds to release it.
Sounds extraordinary but it's exactly what happened to Kalpesh Bhudia. He runs a pharmacy in Gants Hill, East London.
Watchdog first heard of Citywatch Parking Enforcement Ltd in February 2009. Watchdog reported how it towed a woman's car, with no authority, and then sold it without even telling her. We also revealed how the company staff broke the law by not displaying their licence numbers - refusing to show them to our undercover researcher when asked.
Kalpesh's situation, however, tops all of these instances. He's the leaseholder of the whole property at which his pharmacy is located - including the patch of land at the back of the shop. Kalpesh used to park his car there every day, but since Citywatch started monitoring the premises; he doesn't feel safe doing so.
Permission to clamp cars
Kalpesh's problems with Citywatch began when one of his temporary staff unwittingly signed a document, which Citywatch claimed gave it permission to clamp cars parked on his land. As soon as Kalpesh found out he cancelled the contract by letter and even received confirmation from Citywatch that it would cease activity at midnight on 10 April 2009.
However, within a few weeks of the deadline passing, Kalpesh found a car being clamped on his own property. Kalpesh went to talk to the clamper in order to ask him to stop, but the ensuing argument only resulted in Kalpesh having his own car clamped.
Citywatch demanded £365 to remove the clamp, even though it was Kalpesh's own private property. Kalpesh complained but Citywatch refused to refund him and the only thing it did pay Kalpesh was a second visit with its tow truck.
Clampers refused to listen
When it took his car a second time, the company knew it was his. It even began clamping while he was in the car and continued clamping once they saw him get out of the vehicle. Once again Kalpesh told Citywatch it had no authority to clamp his car and that it was on his private property. Citywatch refused to listen and towed his car anyway.
Even though the contract was cancelled, the whole endeavour so far has cost Kalpesh nearly £900 and potentially, via solicitors, another £2,000. He's understandably angry.
Lawyer Tim Cary specialises in traffic law. He told Watchdog he was astounded by Citywatch's behaviour. He said that what it has done is clearly unlawful - Kalpesh is the leaseholder and he's entitled to park on his property. He thinks Citywatch can't be allowed to continue.
Erected a sign
We hatched a plan to ensure that Citywatch gets that message too. Nicky Campbell and pharmacy owner Kalpesh set to, clearly marking out Kalpesh's private property, using a large yellow line to mark out his land. They even erected a sign stating:
NOTICE TO ALL CLAMPERS
THIS IS PRIVATE PROPERTY
NO CLAMPING ALLOWED
BY ORDER OF THE LEASEHOLDER
Let's hope that the sign makes it clear to Citywatch that Kalpesh's parking space is his private property. If it ever clamps on this patch of land again, it will know for sure that it's crossing the line.
Citywatch response
When Watchdog contacted Citywatch Parking Enforcement Limited regarding Kalpesh's problems it said it refused to comment on individual cases including his. It said:
"Since your programme broadcast on 2 February 2009, Citywatch has had the SIA licensing body and BPA review its practice and we enclose a further copy of the press statement that the BPA issued to your programme. We support industry good practice standards in the protection of private property rights."
The statement from the British Parking Association that Citywatch sent to us was from February this year, before Kalpesh's case was brought to light.
Citywatch's lawyers have also been in touch to make it clear that although their client "does not generally comment, as a matter of policy, on the specific facts of any individual matter," they had provided a "general comment updating the BBC on its position together with a further copy of the British Parking Authority (sic) ("BPA") statement issued to the BBC."
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~01~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Couldn't Kalpesh call the Police to say that Citywatch had stolen his car. As he had proof that the contract had been cancelled surely this could have been a matter for the police.
Complain about this comment
I'm surprised that Watchdog didn't mention the news story that the British Parking Association is changing its code of conduct. They've removed the phrase "recommended maximum fees" so clampers no longer have a maximum limit on the fees that they can charge. They now say Setting charges is a matter for operators. Unbelievable.
Complain about this comment
We should call these people thugs, thieves and extortionists and treat them as such. Prison. They do have faces and names and are not anonymous companies. They shelter behind Limited Company status and watchdog should out the faces! They do "phoenix" when pursued and have done for years. For example "[company removed] Ltd" in Southampton nearly 20 years ago - speciality clamping on land they had no permission to clamp on and chasing legitimate restaurants et. from the city centre by intimidating customers. How do we still put up with this persecution all these years later?
Complain about this comment
All clamping firms must be goverment licensed and wear a common uniform and run on a non profit making system with all fines going to the treasury/councils as with speed cameras/parking fines and not left to private racketering bully boys.
Complain about this comment
I have recently been clamped and had my vehicle removed by CityWatch. The officers who were carrying out the action did not have any ID visible on them, they were confused as to the reason why the vehicle had been clamped and told us the wrong reason.
I would advise people to have a good read through the adobe document, title: Licensing of Vehicle Immobilsation Business Consultation at the below website and see if their clampers adhere to all the requirements. I have just had a look and it says that the receipt given must show the officers' names and signatures, my receipt only contains their names. I will be spending more time this evening trying to fine other ways of putting these criminals out of business.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-2009-vehicle-immobilisation/
If we feel strongly that these companies should be more tightly regulated then we should take the time to fill in the questionnaire on the same web page.
Complain about this comment
Would it not be simpler ( I think Scots law has it in the simplest form). It should be theft to clamp or tow away or deprive someone of their car. Why has the idiots in the parliament taken to semi- legitamise clampers??
Complain about this comment
If you find yourself in the same situation as this poor chap then i would advise you to sit and stay in your car, They cant tow your car if your inside it, If they try to, call the local papers.
Complain about this comment
Here in Scotland it is against the law to clamp cars below is a story from someone who at a retail park dropped off their daughter for work and left the car park returned 8 hours later and was picked up on the retail parks NPR(number plate recognition) he received a
notice in the post and where and how to pay also if he did not pay he would also incur extra charges (doubled) well read this ,it is Law up here in Scotland and should be in England also after all this Great Britain
1)As you may be aware, in Scots law, there is no such procedure whereby any privately owned Parking Control company may lawfully impose penalty charges upon any vehicle owner parked in private property, even where there is a contract in place between the owners of the property and your company. This may be standard practice in England but it is not in Scotland.
In Scotland, wheel-clamping on private land is illegal. It was banned under a ruling in the sheriff court by the case of Black v Carmichael, 1992, SCCR 709, where a sheriff ruled that wheel-clamping was found to constitute criminal offences of extortion and theft.
I am advised that Civil Penalty Charge procedures may be regarded in similar terms and as such, since there is no offence to enforce, you have no basis in law under which you have a right to take court action. You should also be advised that in you letter you warn that subsequent enforcement action would be carried out by Bailiffs. I should advise you that English Bailiffs have no legal authority in Scotland and any action taken by them would be regarded as a criminal offence.
There is no obligation in Scotland to pay charges to private companies who base their demands on contract or trespass law (not criminal law or decriminalised parking regulations) and have no powers under any Road Traffic legislation to force a vehicle owner to declare who was driving the car at the time of the alleged trespass or breach of contract, i.e. the person who trespassed or breached the alleged contract. This is not a Penalty Charge Notice as prescribed in law, even if it purports to be so. It is an invoice for alleged breach of accepted contractual terms or an offer to settle before court action for damages due to trespass.
If you persist in this matter, I will have no option but to report this to the police as threatening behaviour tantamount to extortion and theft.
If you intend to raise an action in court I am advised that I should obtain from you a copy of the agreement between yourselves and your client under which you have a legal right to impose parking charges, together with a copy of the appropriate legislation upon which you intend to found jurisdiction, in order that I may consult my solicitor in order to prepare a defence to any action. I should be grateful, therefore, if you would forward these to me as soon as possible.
As you can see from this the Parking company have no leg to stand on
and for the fee for dropping off his daughter and returning later
he was not parked this matter was not taken further thats why this law should be adpted in the rest of the UK
Complain about this comment
Why was this even on watchdog?
The clamping company have trespassed onto his private land and effectively stolen his private property? I believe that's called theft.
Yet again I think our Great British Police Force have failed to protect and serve the Great British Public.
This was a story for Crimewatch not Watchdog.
Complain about this comment
Having just been to court with City Watch the process is painless and online. All you have to do is visit HMCS.gov.uk. But, please remember that you need to have your facts straight and that you are in right. i.e. Their operators display their SIA ID in plain sight at all times, the name, signature and ID number (check ID number via SIA website) are all on the receipt. Oh, and the land owner has given his consent for them to operate. It is worth reading the Private Securities Act and the SIA web sight. Well done Watch Dog for exposing people who many operate outside their bounds.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS