Legalised theft......
- Thread starter PaulStat
- Start date
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
fini said:Technically, if you leave an IOU saying that you plan to return it in 99 years, and you don't drive it away (will have to push then) you have committed neither theft nor taking and driving away and thus would not have committed any criminal offences
fini
Not really. The 'intention to permanantly deprive' element - which you are obviously referring to doesn't mean that if you take someones property, intending to return it in X amount of years or months or days, it is not theft.
Intention to permanantly depive is construed as 'treating the object as if it is your own'. Therefore, by you removing it from where the owner left it, and storing it on your driveway, or in a lockup etc, WOULD meet the requirement of the 'intention to permanantly deprive'.
Basically what the Theft Act says:
You don't think they'd leave a loophole THAT size in the law did you?
Last edited:
Woops, having now had the lectures on appropriation I see that it would be that...Quantic said:Not really. The 'intention to permanantly deprive' element - which you are obviously referring to doesn't mean that if you take someones property, intending to return it in X amount of years or months or days, it is not theft.
Intention to permanantly depive is construed as 'treating the object as if it is your own'. Therefore, by you removing it from where the owner left it, and storing it on your driveway, or in a lockup etc, WOULD meet the requirement of the 'intention to permanantly deprive'.
Basically what the Theft Act says:
You don't think they'd leave a loophole THAT size in the law did you?
In other news, I was chatting to one of my lecturers today and he was ranting on about how he thought parking tickets to be without any legal merit since it is up to the courts to impose fines for trespass and even then they are often disproportionate for what would amount to trespass. He's also decided that he's going to stick a sticker on his car saying 'Warning, authorised persons only may touch this car. Touching this car without authorization may result in a £50 fine.'. He figured if they can do it why cant he? Will laugh so hard if ever I see someone try to give him a parking ticket and he walks up to them and starts writing them a ticket.
fini
Well I won, i'm having full costs refunded to me within 28 days. So guys don't be afraid to challenge the man 
Here's the letter of complaint I sent to the council.
I refer to the above incident and am writing to express my concern at the fact my vehicle was clamped and towed away by your company from Grove Road despite there being no warning signs in existence.
I am attaching a photograph of the relevant area for your information clearly showing no signs were present warning of the danger of my vehicle being clamped or towed away.
I would refer you to the case of Arthur v Anker (1996) 3 All ER 783 which imposes the following conditions on the clamping of vehicles:
• That there is notice of the operation of the clampers.
• That the release fee is reasonable.
• That the vehicle is released promptly.
• That there is an available means of contacting the clamper.
As there were no signs in place I could not be held to have consented to, or voluntarily assumed the risk of, my car being clamped [Vine v Waltham Forest LBC (2000) 4 All ER 169]. There was no notice of the operation of clampers as required in Arthur v Anker.
I also believe the imposition of a fine of £147 to have my vehicle returned cannot be held to be a ‘reasonable fee’ and is, in fact, exorbitant.
There was no available means of contacting you and I had to telephone the council to obtain your telephone number.
As such I do not believe my vehicle was lawfully clamped and impounded. I would therefore require a full refund of the sum of £147 from your company or I will be seeking legal advice.
I trust this will not be necessary and look forward to hearing from you within the next seven days.
Ok so they didn't respond to me within the 7 days but that was more or less expected, anyway here's their response:
I refer to the representations, recently made by you, in connection with the removal of vehicle XXXXX from Grove Road on 18/02/2006.
Having had the opportunity to investigate the matter, I am of the opinion that the removal of your vehicle was in accordance with the provisions of the Removal and Disposal Regulations 1986 and the Road Traffic Act 1991, under which the contravention of 01 - Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours occured.
My apologies for the delay in replying to your letter, having now had the opportunity to investigate this matter the case you noted in your letter this refers to clamping on land. Bristol City Council used to clamp vehicles in car parks but this has now ceased. With regard to the removal of your vehicle, there are signs on all routes into Bristol advising that a tow away scheme is in operation at all times.
In respect of your comments relating to the photograph you enclosed I have requested the maintenance team to cut back the foliage.
However, In view of you comments and the circumstances involved in this case, I am willing to refund this Penalty Charge Notice and the charges made for the removal.
I almost stopped reading the letter half way through as it didn't sound good
And the fact that they mention there signs on city boundaries saying tow away operation scheme is in effect at all times, this seems pretty vague to me as the signs do not say anything about it applying to the whole city.
Oh well, whatever I'm happy
Here's the letter of complaint I sent to the council.
I refer to the above incident and am writing to express my concern at the fact my vehicle was clamped and towed away by your company from Grove Road despite there being no warning signs in existence.
I am attaching a photograph of the relevant area for your information clearly showing no signs were present warning of the danger of my vehicle being clamped or towed away.
I would refer you to the case of Arthur v Anker (1996) 3 All ER 783 which imposes the following conditions on the clamping of vehicles:
• That there is notice of the operation of the clampers.
• That the release fee is reasonable.
• That the vehicle is released promptly.
• That there is an available means of contacting the clamper.
As there were no signs in place I could not be held to have consented to, or voluntarily assumed the risk of, my car being clamped [Vine v Waltham Forest LBC (2000) 4 All ER 169]. There was no notice of the operation of clampers as required in Arthur v Anker.
I also believe the imposition of a fine of £147 to have my vehicle returned cannot be held to be a ‘reasonable fee’ and is, in fact, exorbitant.
There was no available means of contacting you and I had to telephone the council to obtain your telephone number.
As such I do not believe my vehicle was lawfully clamped and impounded. I would therefore require a full refund of the sum of £147 from your company or I will be seeking legal advice.
I trust this will not be necessary and look forward to hearing from you within the next seven days.
Ok so they didn't respond to me within the 7 days but that was more or less expected, anyway here's their response:
I refer to the representations, recently made by you, in connection with the removal of vehicle XXXXX from Grove Road on 18/02/2006.
Having had the opportunity to investigate the matter, I am of the opinion that the removal of your vehicle was in accordance with the provisions of the Removal and Disposal Regulations 1986 and the Road Traffic Act 1991, under which the contravention of 01 - Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours occured.
My apologies for the delay in replying to your letter, having now had the opportunity to investigate this matter the case you noted in your letter this refers to clamping on land. Bristol City Council used to clamp vehicles in car parks but this has now ceased. With regard to the removal of your vehicle, there are signs on all routes into Bristol advising that a tow away scheme is in operation at all times.
In respect of your comments relating to the photograph you enclosed I have requested the maintenance team to cut back the foliage.
However, In view of you comments and the circumstances involved in this case, I am willing to refund this Penalty Charge Notice and the charges made for the removal.
I almost stopped reading the letter half way through as it didn't sound good
And the fact that they mention there signs on city boundaries saying tow away operation scheme is in effect at all times, this seems pretty vague to me as the signs do not say anything about it applying to the whole city.
Oh well, whatever I'm happy
Well played
I know just the feeling... When I had my car in for saome work after someone else reversed into me they gave me a hire car which the insurance company paid for.
I had to travel to work in London however and the hire car was of no use on that particular day as I couldn't sort a parking permit for it in time (had to give 48 hours notice to arrange the permit, I only found out I had to go 24 hours before).
I therefore had to take the train and then get a taxi - whereas if I had my own car I woul dhave alreay had a valid permit.
The argued that the hire car was a like for like replacement for my car, and that they would not pay my trains and taxi costs.
A couple of strong letters later, I received a cheque for cost of train tickets, cost of taxi, as well as the cost of petrol getting to and from the station as well as the cost of parking at the station.
Sweet victory. It was only about £150 or something all in all, but certainly worth writing a few letters.
I know just the feeling... When I had my car in for saome work after someone else reversed into me they gave me a hire car which the insurance company paid for.
I had to travel to work in London however and the hire car was of no use on that particular day as I couldn't sort a parking permit for it in time (had to give 48 hours notice to arrange the permit, I only found out I had to go 24 hours before).
I therefore had to take the train and then get a taxi - whereas if I had my own car I woul dhave alreay had a valid permit.
The argued that the hire car was a like for like replacement for my car, and that they would not pay my trains and taxi costs.
A couple of strong letters later, I received a cheque for cost of train tickets, cost of taxi, as well as the cost of petrol getting to and from the station as well as the cost of parking at the station.
Sweet victory. It was only about £150 or something all in all, but certainly worth writing a few letters.
Last edited:
I read on teletext this morning that a man had his car clamped while he was sat in it. Then he was asked to pay £80 to have it released. It would have been a lot simpler to ask the man to move it, but then I guess you wouldn't make £80.
Full Story
Full Story
Actually, the legal definition of theft depends entirely on exactly what theft you're referring to, because the Act and section you'd be breaching varies. But the general case is s1 of the Theft Act, which says "dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it." Note the "dishonestly" bit of that. If property is removed in accordance with powers specifically granted by statute, it isn't 'dishonest' appropriation, and therefore isn't theft. But then, you knew that really, didn't you.PaulStat said:
wolvotim said:Well done mate
There must have been some wrong doing on their part as it's like getting blood out of a stone getting money out of a clamping company. That letter looked like they were trying to save face.
It was actually the Council who I got the money back from