Wheel Clamping - excessive fine question

[mhalstead]

I was recently clamped when parking on private land, The site did have clamping signs up that I failed to spot. When returning to my clamped vehicle, I could see that the signs are clearly marked and I therefore have no complaints that they are hard to read. My issue is not with hard to read signs, rather the unreasonable release fee and reasoning behind that which to me is open to abuse by the clamping firm, Parking Control Management of Slough, Berks. The AA web site states that 'Civil law has defined 'reasonable' as a release fee up to around �130 together with plenty of very noticeable, clear and unambiguous signs'. The clamping firm
does indeed charge a release fee of �130, but I was charged an additional �200 as in addition to the penalty notice, the clamper also placed an 'authorised for removal' notice apparently meaning that even though my car was not actually removed, I had to pay �335 (�5 for use of a credit card) to release it. That to me is not 'reasonable' according to the law and is open to abuse by Parking Control Management as what is to stop them from doing that in every case and gaining an additional �200 every time they clamp someone? I have appealed twice for them to rescind the �200 removal fee and have been turned down. The first letter says 'after a certain period your vehicle was authorised for removal'. I challenged them to let me know what that 'certain period' is as I can prove that the car was actually immobilised for little more than 1/2 an hour. Their second letter then stated that 'In order to protect our property from vandalism, in certain areas, we exercise our right to immediately remove any vehicle. Unfortunately, in this area if the tow truck is available, we operate such a policy; therefore your vehicle was authorised for removal immediately after immobilisation.' I would really appreciate some guidance on dealing with these cowboys!

[Twenty20]

Well, I guess you could take them to Court for the return of your �200 but I'd say it would be a waste of money. Apart from threatening Court action I can't really see what else there is. It would obviously be a different matter if there had been no signs, but, as there were, I think its something you'll just have to learn a lesson from.