WHEEL CLAMPING
FEATURE
to say that he (in this case she) had not seen the notices. The Court of Appeal rejected this approach that the trial judge has adopted.
Making things clear
There had been two adjacent parking bays and the notice about clamping was not in the bay that Mrs Vine used. A Range Rover had been in the other bay, and although Mrs Vine would have seen the notice above the roof of the Range Rover when she got out of her car, she could not see it when she drove into the space.
A second case of vehicle immobilisation has now reached the Court of Appeal. In the case of Arthur vs. Anker, the court held that the driver of the vehicle clamped had seen the notices warning of clamping and had voluntarily accepted the risk that the car might/would be clamped until he paid the release fee. The court also held that a fee of £40 was ‘reasonable.’
By contrast, in the more recent case of Vine vs. London Borough of Waltham Forest, 2000, the Court of Appeal had to consider a situation where the county court judge (in other words the trial judge) had found that Mrs Vine had not, in fact, seen the wheel clamping notices. Nevertheless, he had rejected Mrs Vine’s claim for repayment of the release fee, as he took the view that once it had been established that sufficient and adequate warning signs were in place, the car driver could not be heard
www.britishparking.co.uk
It happened that she was feeling extremely ill at the time (the court accepted that) and she had left her car as quickly as possible. The Court of Appeal said that to show that the car owner had willingly assumed the risk of clamping, it must first and foremost be established that the car owner was aware of the consequences. The court held that Mrs Vine was entitled to a return of the £105 clamping fee. They, therefore, did not have to decide whether such a fee was ‘reasonable.’ The court also made the point that it was not intrinsically obvious, apart from the signs, that the area really was private property. It looked as if it could have been part of the highway. Followers of the parking enforcement profession will be interested to note that what the House of Lords did was to set up two precedents such that future trial judges can choose between two decisions to follow, instead of just being bound by one decision from the law lords. This amply illustrates the versatility of English law and the ability of the judges to self-navigate through the minefield of authoritative previous rulings by the apex court.
The justices of appeal said they had appreciated that their decision might make it easier for people to avoid clamping charges by just saying that they had not seen the warning notices in the first place. However, they were unable to offer practical advice to motorists to help them overcome that difficulty. It seemed likely that the controversy surrounding clamping would continue for some time. ■ Next issue: further legal implications of wheel clamping.
ABOUT the AUTHOR: Ali Ismail is research assistant at FlashPark
NOVEMBER 2012 37
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52