From: "Tim" 
Newsgroups: uk.finance
Subject: Re: Unauthorised Overdraft Charges
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 15:48:36 +0100

>>>>>> "tim....." wrote
>>>>>>> Is the charge for removing a (private) clamp:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a) a contractually agreed charge for removing the clamp
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> or,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> b) liquidated damages for parking
>>>>>>> somewhere that you shouldn't, for which
>>>>>>> the clamp is the enforcement mechanism?
>>>>>>
>>>>> "Tim" wrote
>>>>>> Well - it was found, in court, actually to be blackmail...
>>>>>
>>>> "tim....." wrote
>>>>> only in Scotland
>>>>
>>> "Tim" wrote
>>>> WRONG! - High Court, sitting in Birmingham, ENGLAND...
>>>
>> "tim....." wrote
>>> then obviously the circumstances of the case were very specific, ...
>>
> "Tim" wrote
>> It was against one specific clamping outfit, working
>> one specific area of land, but was otherwise quite
>> general - with a number of "victims" being clamped
>> & towed away.  The trial lasted a couple of weeks...
>
"tim....." wrote
> As I thought.
>
> The case where the clampers were
> not authorised by the land owners ...

Wrong again! - The clamping outfit was brought in *by*
the land owners, to try to keep people off their bit of land...

"tim....." wrote
> ... and where there were no official signs.

Eh?  The actual wording of the "official" signs (which
had been drafted by a solicitor, who gave evidence at
this trial), their size (shown on photograh exhibits at
the trial) & their location, was a large part of the case.