DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 101208--------------------------------------------------
CAR TOWED on private land 7 DAY TORT NOTICE
DIR By: bimmerfan
Date: December 5, 2025, 2:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Background: I have 29 PCNs from PPS private parking company -
all at the same location (where I live) and on 3 July 2025 I
was served a 7 DAY TORT NOTICE attached to my vehicle
windscreen. Since then I have not parked there, but today on 5
December 2025 I regretfully parked at the location and my
vehicle was clamped, Police came and it was a whole scene.. and
now my vehicle has been towed. They are now asking for £5325.00
consisting of £575.00 removal fee, £4750 car parking charge
consisting of 29 fines which have multiplied in costs (My plan
was to wait for LOC to arrive for PCNs and argue). Storage fee
of £40 a day and after 90 days my vehicle will be sold with them
keeping the funds. What should I do? I argued that my vehicle
was not abandoned but I was helpless with the police supporting
the bailiffs. Advice needed! Solicitors need to be instructed?
I was parked on private land - Carnation Way - GSV:
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/4tWsrwWJV8nvLwDH8
HTML https://ibb.co/Y4t4Qww1
- Sign at location
HTML https://ibb.co/C3nSgXTW
- NOTICE THAT GOODS HAVE BEEN SECURED
05/12/2025
HTML https://ibb.co/whkssqD6
- 7 DAY TORT NOTICE 03/07/2025
HTML https://ibb.co/Xr0rqLcC
- Warning of immobilisation (on
windscreen when vehicle was clamped)
#Post#: 101215--------------------------------------------------
Re: CAR TOWED on private land 7 DAY TORT NOTICE
DIR By: bimmerfan
Date: December 5, 2025, 3:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It is a Criminal offence under section 54 of pofa protection of
freedoms act 2012 for private parking companies to clamp and or
tow vehicles. Yet they have done so, I note the ongoing dispute
in relation to the parking invoices that they have given me, yet
my vehicle was clearly not abandoned as I drove it and parked it
there today, yet the police keeps stating this is a civil matter
and won't allow me to report it as a crime when it is clearly
criminal.
#Post#: 101216--------------------------------------------------
Re: CAR TOWED on private land 7 DAY TORT NOTICE
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: December 5, 2025, 4:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This is a new one on me, and I suspect everyone else on this
forum.
S. 54 PoFA makes it an offence to immobilise a vehicle without
lawful excuse. You do not need to bump your thread to tell us
this (or even an edited version that you feel strengthens your
case).
Bailiffs executing a warrant of control, for example have lawful
excuse to immobilise a vehicle they have "seized".
However, it is not immediately obvious that the Torts
(Interference with Goods) Act 1977 provides a lawful excuse to
immobilise a vehicle. Nor is it immediately obvious that a
notice warning of sale if the vehicle is not removed, issued
some months ago, applies after the vehicle has been removed and
to any subsequent instance of it returning. Nor is it
immediately obvious that it permits holding the vehicle for
ransom to recover a dubious purported contractual debt.
#Post#: 101223--------------------------------------------------
Re: CAR TOWED on private land 7 DAY TORT NOTICE
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: December 6, 2025, 2:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Is there any chance that the car is still under finance? I ask
this because it creates a scenario where the car actually
belongs to the finance company.
#Post#: 101231--------------------------------------------------
Re: CAR TOWED on private land 7 DAY TORT NOTICE
DIR By: Half way
Date: December 6, 2025, 5:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You said "where I live"
Is this your own parking space that is part of your property, or
something else?
#Post#: 101236--------------------------------------------------
Re: CAR TOWED on private land 7 DAY TORT NOTICE
DIR By: roythebus
Date: December 6, 2025, 5:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
A new one on me as well. The sign is very contradictory,NO
PARKING AT ALL, then underneath, ... How can they tell you not
to park then say you will be charged of if you do!
I'don't know how to proceed. Under POFA they have broken the law
and taken your car. Have you had any correspondence with them?
If so have you mentioned tht you were the driver? You should
follow the advice given here by never revealing who the driver
was, always use the third person " the driver parked" NOT "I
parked". Don't phone them, I'd suggest sending them a letter or
email once you've had some more helpful advice from others. Any
contract is with the driver and this errant bunch of chancers.
It seems they may just have found a way round the POFA parking
laws and is a worrying development. Does your motor or household
insurance cover legal fees, if so it's worth getting onto them
PDQ.
Edited to add a quick internet search throws up this helpful
link:
HTML https://hamlins.com/insight/the-torts-interference-with-goods-act-1977-guidance-for-landlords/#:~:text=The%20Torts%20(Interference%20with%20Goods)%20Act%201977,Ensure%20items%20are%20not%20damaged%20or%20destroyed
#Post#: 101238--------------------------------------------------
Re: CAR TOWED on private land 7 DAY TORT NOTICE
DIR By: roythebus
Date: December 6, 2025, 6:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here's what s12 of the Act says: Bailee’s power of sale.
(1)This section applies to goods in the possession or under the
control of a bailee where—
(a)the bailor is in breach of an obligation to take delivery of
the goods or, if the terms of the bailment so provide, to give
directions as to their delivery, or
(b)the bailee could impose such an obligation by giving notice
to the bailor, but is unable to trace or communicate with the
bailor, or
(c)the bailee can reasonably expect to be relieved of any duty
to safeguard the goods on giving notice to the bailor, but is
unable to trace or communicate with the bailor.
(2)In the cases of Part I of Schedule 1 to this Act a bailee
may, for the purposes of subsection (1), impose an obligation on
the bailor to take delivery of the goods, or as the case may be
to give directions as to their delivery, and in those cases the
said Part I sets out the method of notification.
(3)If the bailee—
(a)has in accordance with Part II of Schedule 1 to this Act
given notice to the bailor of his intention to sell the goods
under this subsection, or
(b)has failed to trace or communicate with the bailor with a
view to giving him such a notice, after having taken reasonable
steps for the purpose,
and is reasonably satisfied that the bailor owns the goods, he
shall be entitled, as against the bailor, to sell the goods.
(4)Where subsection (3) applies but the bailor did not in fact
own the goods, a sale under this section, or under section 13,
shall not give a good title as against the owner, or as against
a person claiming under the owner.
(5)A bailee exercising his powers under subsection (3) shall be
liable to account to the bailor for the proceeds of sale, less
any costs of sale, and—
(a)the account shall be taken on the footing that the bailee
should have adopted the best method of sale reasonably available
in the circumstances, and
(b)where subsection (3)(a) applies, any sum payable in respect
of the goods by the bailor to the bailee which accrued due
before the bailee gave notice of intention to sell the goods
shall be deductible from the proceeds of sale.
(6)A sale duly made under this section gives a good title to the
purchaser as against the bailor.
(7)In this section, section 13, and Schedule 1 to this Act,
(a)“ bailor” and “ bailee” include their respective successors
in title, and
(b)references to what is payable, paid or due to the bailee in
respect of the goods include references to what would be payable
by the bailor to the bailee as a condition of delivery of the
goods at the relevant time.
(8)This section, and Schedule 1 to this Act, have effect subject
to the terms of the bailment.
(9)This section shall not apply where the goods were bailed
before the commencement of this Act.
Modifications etc. (not altering text)
C1
#Post#: 101250--------------------------------------------------
Re: CAR TOWED on private land 7 DAY TORT NOTICE
DIR By: bimmerfan
Date: December 6, 2025, 7:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately my vehicle is not financed, and I have no
insurance to cover legal fees so I'll have to pay any legal
expenses myself, I previously rented a apartment at the building
but have since moved out some months ago. The enforcement agent
failed to give me a original copy of the tort notice in June
2025 and instead sent me this picture when I asked:
HTML https://ibb.co/QvNKLQ7r
His words were: you can zoom in to read it. They have also
refused to tell me where the car was towed to.
Clearer picture of notice that goods have been seized:
HTML https://ibb.co/MxT4bdTp
#Post#: 101259--------------------------------------------------
Re: CAR TOWED on private land 7 DAY TORT NOTICE
DIR By: b789
Date: December 6, 2025, 8:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Oh dear... The images of the notices you have posted make the
legal position clearer, and the overall picture is extremely
troubling. Here is my considered view of the situation.
The documents issued by LME Services Ltd are presented as if
they were statutory enforcement paperwork, but nothing in the
notices shows any lawful authority to immobilise or remove the
vehicle. Each notice you have shared relies solely on the Torts
(Interference with Goods) Act 1977. That Act does not provide
any power to seize goods. It only provides a mechanism for a
landowner who is already in lawful possession of genuinely
abandoned goods to dispose of those goods after giving proper
notice. The Act cannot be used to enforce private parking debts,
nor can it override section 54 of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012, which makes it a criminal offence for a private party to
clamp or tow a vehicle on private land without lawful authority.
None of the documents you have posted indicate the existence of
a court judgment or a warrant of control, and without either of
those no private firm has lawful authority to seize or clamp a
moving vehicle for an alleged civil debt.
The “7 Day Tort Notice” from June 2025 identifies the vehicle as
allegedly abandoned, yet the notice you received on 5 December
asserts trespass and disruption. These are mutually incompatible
grounds. A vehicle being used regularly and moved on and off the
site cannot reasonably be treated as abandoned for the purposes
of the Act. The Torts Act requires the person giving notice to
take reasonable steps to communicate with the owner before
exercising any sale power. Here, the notices are addressed to
“persons unknown” despite the landowner and PPS already having
the keeper’s details on record from DVLA enquiries for the
parking charges. That failure alone likely invalidates reliance
on the Act. The Act also does not permit seizure to recover
disputed sums. Using the Act as a debt recovery mechanism is not
a lawful purpose.
The figure of £5,325 is itself revealing. It comprises a removal
fee, storage, and the addition of 29 private parking charges
that have never been adjudicated by a court. This makes the true
purpose of the immobilisation and removal obvious: to coerce
payment of private parking charges. That is a ransom demand in
substance. The notices state that the vehicle will be sold after
90 days and the proceeds kept to offset the claimed debt. But
because the original seizure appears unlawful, any sale would
amount to conversion. If the vehicle is sold, you, the owner,
can claim the full market value at the time of conversion, plus
consequential losses. LME Services Ltd and possibly PPS would be
jointly and severally liable.
The “Warning of Immobilisation” also fails to establish lawful
authority. It states the vehicle is immobilised because it was
trespassing or abandoned. Neither description is accurate on the
facts. Even if trespass occurred, self-help remedies such as
clamping or towing are forbidden by section 54 PoFA. Trespass
alone does not confer seizure powers. The signature box
describes the operative as an “Enforcement Agent”, which can be
misleading. A certificated enforcement agent has powers only
when acting under a warrant of control. The notices do not
mention any warrant, court reference, creditor, judgment date,
or certification details. Without that, the immobilisation is
not enforcement but an unlawful act.
The site signage includes the statement “No Parking At Any Time”
followed immediately by an offer that unauthorised parking will
result in a £100 parking charge. This contradictory wording
undermines the creation of any contract. If parking is
prohibited, no contract is offered, and therefore no contractual
charge can arise. If parking is allowed upon payment of a sum,
the “no parking” headline is false. Ambiguous or contradictory
signage cannot form the basis of a legally enforceable contract.
This affects the validity of every PCN issued at the site.
You have several possible courses of action. First, you may
choose to make an emergency application to the County Court for
an interim injunction requiring immediate release of the
vehicle. This is the strongest legal remedy because the seizure
appears unlawful and the threat of sale is imminent.
Second, if urgent injunctive action is unaffordable, you may pay
the minimum sum required solely to recover the vehicle and then
immediately pursue a civil claim for damages. Any payment should
be made under protest and without admission of liability.
Third, you could allow the seizure to continue and sue for the
full value of the vehicle once conversion occurs, although this
is risky and leaves you without the vehicle for months.
Fourth, formal complaints should be made to the police in
writing, expressly quoting section 54 PoFA and the absence of
any lawful authority. If refused, the matter should be escalated
through Professional Standards and, if necessary, the IOPC.
Fifth, complaints should also be submitted to Trading Standards,
the DVLA, and the BPA regarding the misuse of the Torts Act to
enforce private parking debts.
The key point is that nothing in the notices suggests any lawful
authority to immobilise or tow the vehicle. The action taken is
very likely unlawful under both criminal and civil law. You
should take urgent steps to protect the vehicle from sale and to
preserve their rights to claim damages.
As this clamping and removal is not just a "civil matter" as the
police stated but clearly involves criminality, this is what you
should do, step by step, about the police refusing to treat it
as a crime.
1. Write everything down
– Date and exact time of the tow and clamp.
– Which force attended.
– Names and shoulder numbers of every officer present (from
their epaulettes/body armour).
– Any CAD/incident number given on the day.
– What each officer said, as close to verbatim as you can
recall.
– Keep all photos of the notices, signage, and any video of
the interaction.
2. Make a fresh written crime report to the force
Use the force’s online “report a crime” form or an email
address if they provide one. Do NOT rely on phone.
Set it out clearly:
– State you are reporting an offence under s54 Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 (unlawful immobilisation and removal of a
motor vehicle on private land without lawful authority).
– Confirm that the clamp and tow were carried out by LME
Services Ltd on [date] at [location] to enforce unpaid private
parking charges, that there is no court judgment or warrant of
control, and that they rely only on the Torts (Interference with
Goods) Act 1977.
– Explain briefly why the Torts Act does not give seizure
powers and why this is not “lawful authority” under s54.
– State that you reasonably believe a recordable criminal
offence has been committed and request a crime reference number
and investigation.
– Attach copies of the “7 Day Tort Notice”, “Warning of
Immobilisation”, “Notice that goods have been secured”, and a
photo of the PPS sign.
3. In the same letter/email, challenge the officers’ earlier
decision
– Say that officers who attended on [date] refused to record
the matter as a crime and incorrectly told you it was “civil
only”.
– Explain that this refusal appears to breach the National
Crime Recording Standard, which requires forces to record a
crime when the victim reasonably believes one has been committed
unless there is clear evidence to the contrary.
– Ask that the incident be re-assessed by a supervisor and
that you be told, in writing, why it is said that s54 PoFA does
not apply on these facts if they continue to refuse to record
it.
4. Make a formal complaint to Professional Standards
Every force has an online “complaints” or “Professional
Standards Department (PSD)” form. Use it.
– Refer to the same facts as above.
– Attach your written crime report and any reference number.
– State that you are complaining about officers’ failure to
record and investigate a clear s54 PoFA offence, and about their
misdirection that the matter is purely civil.
– Make it clear you are not asking PSD to investigate
PPS/LME; you are complaining about police inaction and failure
to apply the law correctly.
– Ask for the complaint to be logged formally and for a
written outcome.
5. Copy in the Police and Crime Commissioner/Mayor’s office
– If this is the Met, copy the complaint to MOPAC; otherwise
copy it to the local Police and Crime Commissioner for that
force area.
– Keep it short: say you have reported what you believe is an
unlawful clamping/towing offence, that the force is refusing to
treat it as a crime, and you would like the PCC/Mayor to ensure
the matter is properly reviewed.
6. If the PSD outcome is poor, escalate to the IOPC
– Wait for the final response from Professional Standards.
– If it still dismisses your concerns or misstates the law,
lodge a review/appeal with the IOPC (or the local review body if
specified in the outcome letter).
– Attach all correspondence, emphasising: unlawful
immobilisation on private land; no warrant or statutory power;
use of the Torts Act as a fig-leaf for private debt recovery;
and the force’s refusal even to record it as a crime.
7. Involving your MP
– Send your MP a copy of your crime report and the police
responses.
– Ask them to write to the Chief Constable/Commissioner about
the misuse of “civil matter” as a way of ducking section 54
PoFA.
8. Keep this separate from your civil action
– The police’s failure to act does not stop you bringing your
own civil claim or seeking an injunction.
– In any civil claim you can exhibit the police
correspondence to show you have tried, unsuccessfully, to get
the authorities to address the criminal element.
You can use these for your complaints to both the respective
police force and their Professional Standards Department.
Ideally send them as an email or as a PDF attachment to an email
and CC yourself for each one:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Criminal offence under s54 Protection of Freedoms Act
2012 – unlawful immobilisation and removal of motor vehicle
>
> To: [Force name] Police
>
> I am reporting what I believe is a clear criminal offence
under section 54 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“PoFA”)
and request that a crime be recorded and investigated.
>
> 1. Incident details
>
> Date of incident: 05/12/2025
> Time: approximately 16:45 onwards
> Location: Thames City development, Carnation Way, London SW8
5GZ (private access road)
>
> Vehicle: BMW 530e, registration [VRM]
>
> Parties involved:
> – Private Parking Solutions London Ltd (PPS) – BPA “approved
operator” managing the site.
> – LME Services Ltd, 128 City Road, London EC1V 2NX, company
number 14082700 – described on the paperwork as “Enforcement
Agent” and “Involuntary Bailee”.
>
> 2. What happened
>
> On 5 December 2025 my vehicle was parked on the above private
land when it was immobilised with a wheel clamp by an operative
of LME Services Ltd. A “Warning of Immobilisation” notice was
attached to the car stating that the vehicle had been clamped
because it was “trespassing and/or abandoned on private land”.
>
> Shortly afterwards, the vehicle was removed from the site on a
recovery truck. I was not given the vehicle’s destination and
was told that it would only be released on payment of £5,325.
This sum comprises:
>
> – £4,750 for 29 “car parking charges” previously issued by PPS
> – £575 removal fee
> – storage at £40 per day
>
> I have attached photographs of:
>
> – the “Warning of Immobilisation” dated 05/12/2025 and signed
by “Mr V. Ebrahim” of LME Services Ltd
> – the “Notice that Goods Have Been Secured and Notice of
Intention to Sell Goods” dated 05/12/2025, quoting a release fee
of £5,325 and storage of £40 per day, and threatening sale of
the vehicle after 3 months
> – a “7 Day Tort Notice” dated 26/06/2025 purporting to be
issued under the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977,
warning that the vehicle would be removed “on or after
03/07/2025”
> – the PPS site sign at Carnation Way headed “NO PARKING AT ANY
TIME – £100 Parking Charge Notice”
>
> There is no county court judgment or warrant of control in
respect of any of the 29 parking charges. LME Services Ltd are
private contractors, not acting as certificated enforcement
agents under a warrant.
>
> 3. Why this is a criminal offence
>
> Section 54 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) makes
it an offence to immobilise, move or restrict the movement of a
motor vehicle on private land without lawful authority. The only
examples of lawful authority are statutory bodies or
certificated enforcement agents acting under a warrant of
control. Private parking companies enforcing civil parking
charges do not have “lawful authority” within the meaning of
s54, and this cannot be created by contract or signage.
>
> In this case:
>
> – The clamp and tow were carried out on private land.
> – The purpose was to coerce payment of disputed, unadjudicated
private parking charges.
> – LME Services Ltd rely only on the Torts (Interference with
Goods) Act 1977 as justification. That Act deals with disposal
of abandoned goods by a bailee and does not confer any power to
seize or immobilise vehicles for debt enforcement.
> – There is no warrant, no court judgment and no statutory
power authorising the immobilisation or removal.
>
> I therefore reasonably believe that the immobilisation and
removal of my vehicle amounts to an offence under section 54
PoFA.
>
> 4. Previous police attendance
>
> Officers from [force name] attended on 05/12/2025 (incident at
Carnation Way, Thames City) after I called 999/101. They refused
to record the matter as a crime and stated that this was a
“civil matter” between me and the parking company. I explained
section 54 PoFA, but the officers still declined to treat it as
a criminal offence. I understand this may have been recorded
under CAD/incident number [insert if known].
>
> 5. What I am asking the police to do
>
> I request that:
>
> a) A crime be recorded for an alleged offence under section 54
PoFA (and any other relevant offences, such as theft or fraud if
considered appropriate).
> b) An investigation be opened into the actions of LME Services
Ltd and any instructing party (such as PPS or the managing
agents for Thames City).
> c) I be provided with a crime reference number and the details
of the officer in charge of the investigation.
>
> If the force takes the view that no crime will be recorded, I
request a written explanation setting out specifically why
section 54 PoFA is said not to apply to the above facts, so that
I can consider my rights to complain or seek independent legal
advice.
>
> Please confirm receipt of this report and provide a reference
number.
>
> Yours faithfully
>
> [Name]
> [Address]
> [Contact details]
--- End Quote ---
And to Professional Standards regarding the police failure to
record/investigate:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Complaint about failure to record and investigate s54
PoFA offence – unlawful clamping/towing at Carnation Way SW8
>
> To: Professional Standards Department, [Force name] Police
>
> I wish to make a formal complaint about the conduct and
decision-making of officers from [Force name] Police in
connection with an incident on 05/12/2025 at Carnation Way,
Thames City, London SW8 5GZ.
>
> 1. Summary of incident
>
> On 05/12/2025 my BMW 530e, registration [VRM], was immobilised
with a wheel clamp and then towed away from private land at
Carnation Way SW8 by an operative of LME Services Ltd, acting on
behalf of Private Parking Solutions London Ltd (PPS) / the site
management. I attach copies of the notices left on the vehicle
and subsequent paperwork:
>
> – “Warning of Immobilisation” dated 05/12/2025
> – “Notice that Goods Have Been Secured and Notice of Intention
to Sell Goods” dated 05/12/2025, demanding £5,325 for release
and threatening sale after 3 months
> – “7 Day Tort Notice” dated 26/06/2025 purporting to rely on
the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977
> – Photo of the PPS sign at Carnation Way headed “NO PARKING AT
ANY TIME – £100 Parking Charge Notice”
>
> There is no court judgment or warrant of control for any of
the underlying parking charges. The figures demanded are
entirely private civil sums.
>
> 2. Police attendance and refusal to record a crime
>
> I contacted the police when the vehicle was clamped and later
towed. Officers from [force name] attended at the scene
(CAD/incident number [if known]). I explained that:
>
> – The clamping and towing took place on private land.
> – LME Services Ltd are private contractors enforcing private
parking charges.
> – They rely only on the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act
1977, which does not confer seizure powers.
> – Section 54 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 makes it a
criminal offence to immobilise, move or restrict the movement of
a motor vehicle on private land without lawful authority.
>
> Despite this, the attending officers refused to record the
matter as a crime and repeatedly stated that it was “a civil
dispute” between me and the parking company. No crime reference
number was issued. I was left in the position that a private
company had removed my car and was demanding £5,325 for its
return, with the police unwilling to treat the matter as a
criminal offence.
>
> 3. Grounds of complaint
>
> My complaint is that:
>
> a) The officers failed to apply the law correctly. Section 54
PoFA expressly criminalises clamping and towing on private land
without lawful authority. Private parking companies enforcing
civil parking charges do not have such authority. The use of the
Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 for abandoned goods
does not create lawful authority to seize and hold a vehicle for
ransom.
>
> b) The officers appear to have breached the National Crime
Recording Standard and HOCR by refusing to record a crime when
I, as the victim, clearly and reasonably believed that a crime
had been committed, and where there was no clear evidence to the
contrary.
>
> c) The blanket response that this is “a civil matter” shows a
lack of understanding of PoFA and leaves me without the
protection of the criminal law, despite an apparent offence
having been committed.
>
> 4. Outcome sought
>
> I am asking that:
>
> 1. My complaint is formally recorded and handled in accordance
with the statutory police complaints procedure.
> 2. The incident is reviewed by a supervisor with legal
knowledge of section 54 PoFA.
> 3. If, on proper consideration, the force accepts that the
facts disclose an apparent offence, a crime should be recorded
and an investigation opened, with a crime reference number
provided to me.
> 4. If the force maintains that no crime will be recorded, I
would like a detailed written explanation setting out the legal
reasoning as to why section 54 PoFA is said not to apply, so
that I can consider exercising my right of review to the IOPC or
other appropriate review body.
> 5. Any learning or training issues identified regarding
officers’ understanding of PoFA and unlawful clamping/towing on
private land are addressed.
>
> I confirm that everything I have stated is true to the best of
my knowledge and belief and I am willing to provide further
information or attend an interview if required.
>
> Yours faithfully
>
> [Name]
> [Address]
> [Contact details]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 101266--------------------------------------------------
Re: CAR TOWED on private land 7 DAY TORT NOTICE
DIR By: b789
Date: December 6, 2025, 9:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
After further consideration and some consultation, this is what
you should also do now in conjunction with the police complaint
above. You need to work on two tracks in parallel: (1)
protecting the car from sale and limiting storage fees, and (2)
preparing for a civil claim.
1. Get the car’s whereabouts and legal basis in writing
– Write (email if possible, otherwise by first class post
with a free Proof of Posting certificate from any post office)
to:
• LME Services Ltd
• Private Parking Solutions London Ltd (PPS)
• The site managing agents/“Thames City” management office
– Demand, in very clear terms:
• The exact location where the vehicle is stored.
• The legal basis they say allows them to immobilise and
remove the car (judgment number, warrant of control number, or
statutory power).
• A full breakdown of the sum they are demanding.
• Copies of any “authority” from the landowner authorising
LME to clamp or tow vehicles and to sell them.
– State that unless they provide this, you will treat the
seizure and continued detention as wrongful interference with
goods and conversion and will claim damages and costs.
2. Put them on notice about unlawful conversion and sale
In the same letters, state clearly:
– You do not accept that the vehicle was abandoned.
– You do not accept that the Torts (Interference with Goods)
Act gives them any power to seize or to hold the car as security
for alleged parking debts.
– Any sale of the vehicle will be treated as conversion, and
you will pursue the full market value of the car, plus
consequential losses and costs, against LME, PPS, and the
landowner/management company jointly and severally.
This is to make it very hard for them later to say they
thought you had consented or did not object.
3. Decide quickly: injunction or pay-and-sue
You now have to make a hard, practical decision.
Option A – urgent injunction
– Ring around solicitors who do civil litigation and have
experience with injunctions or property/contract disputes (I may
have a contact for you)
– Ask for an urgent appointment and bring all paperwork and
photos.
– If the solicitor agrees there are good prospects and you can
afford the court fee and initial costs, pursue an application
for an interim injunction for immediate release of the car and
to restrain sale.
Option B – pay under protest, then sue
If an injunction is not realistic and you can raise the money:
– Get an email or text from LME confirming the exact sum
required for release.
– Pay only what is absolutely necessary to get the car back.
– At the moment you pay, send them a short email saying:
• This payment is made under protest and without admission of
liability.
• You dispute both the parking charges and the lawfulness of
the clamp/tow.
• You reserve all rights to claim a refund and damages.
– Once the car is back, you prepare a county court claim to
recover the money and damages for wrongful interference with
goods.
You should not wait long to choose. Every day increases the
“storage” demand and gives them more leverage.
4. Preserve and gather evidence
Immediately:
– Photograph and scan:
• All notices (7 Day Tort, Notice that Goods Have Been
Secured, Warning of Immobilisation).
• The PPS sign and surrounding area.
• Any PCNs you still have.
– Write a short dated note of everything that happened on the
day, including what the police and the clampers said.
– If any neighbours or witnesses saw the clamp/tow or heard
conversations, get their contact details and ask them to write a
brief note now while memories are fresh.
5. Contact the managing agent/landowner separately
– Go to or phone the Thames City estate office and ask who
the managing agent is and who instructed PPS and LME.
– Then send that agent/landowner a separate formal complaint:
• Explain what has happened and that their contractors
have almost certainly committed a criminal offence and serious
civil wrongs.
• Put them on notice that you hold them jointly liable and
that you will name them as a defendant if you need to issue
proceedings.
• Ask them to urgently instruct their contractor to
release your vehicle with no charge.
Sometimes the landowner or big managing agent will intervene
once they realise they could be sued.
6. Put DVLA and BPA on notice (early, even if fuller complaints
follow)
– Email DVLA complaints saying PPS have passed your keeper
data to a third party who has then used that data as part of a
scheme to clamp and tow vehicles in apparent breach of section
54 PoFA, and that this seems outside any reasonable “parking
management” purpose for which data was supplied.
– Make an initial complaint to the BPA about PPS’s use of a
“tort” contractor to clamp and tow and demand PCNs in this way.
These are not urgent for getting the car back, but sending
short early complaints fixes the timeline and may help later.
7. Check insurance and finance again, properly
Even if you think there is no cover:
– Re-read the motor insurance policy schedule and booklet
looking specifically for “legal expenses”, “motor legal
protection”, or “uninsured loss recovery”.
– Check any home insurance for “family legal protection”.
– If there is any such cover, call that helpline, not the
standard claims line, and treat this as an uninsured loss/civil
dispute over unlawful removal of a vehicle.
– If the car had any form of finance, even HP long since
almost paid off, check whether title still sits partly with the
finance company – they may be willing to act because their asset
has been seized.
8. Do not negotiate away your position by phone
– If you must speak to LME or PPS by phone, treat it as
purely to ask “where is the car and how much are you demanding
today for release”.
– Do not accept or suggest that you are paying “the fines”.
– Do not agree that the vehicle was abandoned or trespassing.
– Follow every call immediately with a short email record of
what was said.
9. Start drafting a Letter Before Action
Even if you have not yet decided whether to go for an
injunction or to pay and sue, start preparing a clear letter
before action to LME, PPS and the managing agent, setting out:
– The facts.
– The statutory ban on clamping and towing on private land
without lawful authority.
– Why their reliance on the Torts Act is misconceived.
– What you will claim (release of vehicle and/or damages).
Having this drafted now means you can move quickly once the
car is back or if they refuse to release it.
In short: act immediately against LME, PPS and the landowner in
writing; decide very quickly between injunction versus
pay-and-sue; secure and organise all evidence; and open as many
parallel pressure points as you can (management, DVLA, BPA,
insurers) without letting any of that distract from the central
aim of stopping the storage clock and preventing sale.
Here is a draft Letter Before Action (LBA) you can use if you
decide to go with a suit against LME, PPS and the
landowner/managing agent. At Thames City Carnation Way, PPS
(Private Parking Solutions London Ltd) is almost certainly
contracted by Thames City Property Development Ltd (the
developer’s UK subsidiary) or its appointed estate managing
agent. The signage and disclosure of the contract will confirm
which entity actually signed them on. Include them in any LBA.
--- Quote ---
> [Your name]
> [Your address]
> [Postcode]
> [Email]
>
> [Date]
>
> BY EMAIL AND POST
>
> hello@lmeservicesltd.co.uk
>
> LME Services Ltd
> 128 City Road
> London
> EC1V 2NX
>
> and
>
> info@privateparkingsolutions.co.uk
>
> Private Parking Solutions London Ltd
> PO Box 1115
> West Drayton
> UB8 9XD
>
> Letter Before Action – Unlawful immobilisation, removal and
detention of motor vehicle; threatened sale; intended claim for
damages
>
> 1. I write in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt
Claims and the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct. This
letter concerns the clamping, removal and continuing detention
of my motor vehicle by your companies and the threatened sale of
that vehicle. Unless the matters set out below are resolved
within 14 days, I intend to issue proceedings in the County
Court without further notice.
>
> Parties
>
> 2. I am the owner and keeper of a BMW 530e motor car,
registration [VRM] (“the Vehicle”).
>
> 3. LME Services Ltd (“LME”) is a private company which
describes itself in its paperwork as “Enforcement Agent” and
“Involuntary Bailee”. Private Parking Solutions London Ltd
(“PPS”) is a private parking operator and BPA member responsible
for the management of parking at the Thames City development,
Carnation Way, London SW8 5GZ (“the Site”).
>
> Factual background
>
> 4. PPS has previously issued 29 Parking Charge Notices
(“PCNs”) to me in respect of the Vehicle at the Site. All of
these notices are disputed. No County Court claim has been
issued, no judgment entered and no warrant or writ of control
has been granted in respect of any of the alleged PCNs.
>
> 5. On or about 26 June 2025 a document headed “7 DAY TORT
NOTICE” was attached to my vehicle. This document purported to
rely on the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 (“the 1977
Act”) and asserted that the Vehicle was an “abandoned vehicle”
which would be removed and scrapped “on or after 03/07/2025”
unless removed from the Site. The notice named PPS as the party
managing the Site and stated that “a removal contractor has been
authorised and are acting on behalf of the land owner / managing
agent”. The notice gave the address “Carnation Way, Nine Elms,
London SW8 5GZ”. I attach a copy of this notice.
>
> 6. The Vehicle was not abandoned at any time. I was using the
Vehicle regularly and continued to do so after June 2025. The
assertion of abandonment was and remains false.
>
> 7. On 5 December 2025 I parked the Vehicle on the private road
at Carnation Way SW8 5GZ. At approximately 16:45 an operative of
LME applied a wheel clamp to the Vehicle. A notice headed
“WARNING OF IMMOBILISATION” was attached to the Vehicle. This
states that the Vehicle has been immobilised because it was
“trespassing and or abandoned on private land”. The notice is
dated 05/12/2025 and signed “K. Ebrahim” as “Enforcement Agent”,
naming “LME Services Ltd” and quoting reference “[VRM]”. I
attach a copy.
>
> 8. Shortly afterwards, without my consent, the Vehicle was
removed from the Site by LME using a recovery truck. I was not
provided with any original paperwork nor informed where the
Vehicle was being taken. The police were called but declined to
intervene, stating incorrectly that this was a “civil matter”.
>
> 9. LME subsequently left a document headed “NOTICE THAT GOODS
HAVE BEEN SECURED and NOTICE IMPOSING OBLIGATION TO COLLECT
GOODS and NOTICE OF INTENTION TO SELL GOODS” (“the Secured Goods
Notice”) dated 05/12/2025. This again purports to rely on
section 12 of the 1977 Act. It identifies the Vehicle and gives
the location as “Thames City Carnation Way SW8 5GZ”. It demands
a “Release Fee” of £5,325 and “Storage Fee £40/day”. In
manuscript it breaks down the £5,325 as “29 x Car Parking
Charges £4,750” and “Removal Truck £575”. It further states that
if I fail to arrange collection of the Vehicle within 3 months
of the date of the notice, LME intends to sell or dispose of the
Vehicle and deduct from the proceeds “the costs of the use of
the land, securing the goods, removal, storage and sale or
disposal”. The notice is signed “Mr K. Ebrahim (Enforcement
Agent)”. I attach a copy.
>
> 10. At no stage has LME or PPS provided any County Court claim
number, judgment reference, warrant of control or any other
lawful authority entitling them to immobilise, remove or retain
the Vehicle. They have repeatedly refused to disclose the
storage location of the Vehicle unless I agree to pay the
demanded sums.
>
> 11. PPS’s own signage at the Site states “NO PARKING AT ANY
TIME – £100 Parking Charge Notice” followed by wording that
unauthorised parking will result in a Parking Charge Notice.
This is plainly directed at contractual parking charges and
civil recovery, not at seizure of vehicles. I attach a
photograph of the sign.
>
> Legal position
>
> 12. Section 54 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“PoFA
2012”) makes it a criminal offence for a person, without lawful
authority, to immobilise a motor vehicle by attaching to the
vehicle, or to a part of it, an immobilising device, or to move
or restrict the movement of such a vehicle by any means. Neither
PPS nor LME is a statutory authority. Neither has, or has
claimed to have, any warrant or writ of control. Accordingly,
they have no “lawful authority” within the meaning of PoFA 2012
to clamp or remove vehicles on the Site.
>
> 13. The 1977 Act does not confer any substantive power to
seize goods. Section 12 and Schedule 1 merely prescribe a
procedure for a bailee who is already in lawful possession of
goods (typically genuinely abandoned goods) to sell those goods
after appropriate notice has been given and to account to the
bailor for any net proceeds. The Act does not authorise private
parties to seize vehicles in order to secure disputed civil
debts, nor does it override the criminal prohibition on clamping
and towing on private land contained in PoFA 2012.
>
> 14. Even if the 1977 Act were capable in principle of
assisting, its preconditions are not satisfied. The Vehicle was
not abandoned, and both PPS and the landowner had my name and
address from DVLA enquiries for the PCNs. They cannot credibly
contend that they were “unable to trace or communicate with the
bailor” or that they are simply seeking to dispose of
uncollected goods. The Secured Goods Notice openly admits that
the true purpose of the seizure is to compel payment of 29
disputed Parking Charge Notices.
>
> 15. On the above facts, the immobilisation, removal, detention
and threatened sale of the Vehicle are wrongful at common law
and statutory law. The causes of action include trespass to
goods, conversion, and wrongful interference with goods contrary
to the 1977 Act. In addition, your conduct amounts to an
unlawful and oppressive attempt to enforce disputed civil
parking charges by means expressly prohibited by PoFA 2012,
causing me financial loss, distress and inconvenience.
>
> Intended claim
>
> 16. Unless you remedy matters as set out below within 14 days
of the date of this letter, I intend to issue a County Court
claim against LME and PPS (and, if necessary, the
landowner/managing agent for the Site) seeking:
>
> a) Delivery up of the Vehicle (if still detained) and an
injunction restraining any further immobilisation, removal or
sale; and/or
>
> b) Damages for conversion and wrongful interference with
goods, being either:
> i) the full market value of the Vehicle at the date of
conversion if the Vehicle has been sold or destroyed; or
> ii) the sums paid by me to secure release of the Vehicle (if I
am forced to pay for its release) together with any storage
charges and consequential losses; and
>
> c) General damages for loss of use of the Vehicle and
inconvenience;
>
> d) Interest pursuant to section 69 County Courts Act 1984; and
>
> e) Costs, including litigant in person costs.
>
> 17. Based on current market evidence, I estimate the value of
the Vehicle at approximately £[insert]. If the Vehicle has been
sold or is not returned in the same condition in which it was
taken, I will claim that full value together with any
consequential losses (including alternative transport costs) and
interest. If the Vehicle is returned, I will claim damages for
the sums I have been forced to pay (if any) in order to secure
its release, together with damages for loss of use, any proven
damage caused by your actions, and interest. Subject to further
information and disclosure, I currently estimate that the total
value of my claim will be in the region of £[ballpark figure]
and in any event not less than £[minimum figure].
>
> What you must do now
>
> 18. To avoid proceedings, within 14 days of the date of this
letter you must:
>
> a) Confirm in writing the exact location of the Vehicle and
that it is safe, secure and fully insured;
>
> b) Confirm in writing that no further storage charges are
being added pending resolution of this dispute;
>
> c) Confirm in writing that the Vehicle will not be sold,
disposed of, damaged or interfered with in any way;
>
> d) Confirm in writing that you will release the Vehicle to me
forthwith, at no cost, at an agreed date and time, and that all
Parking Charge Notices and all associated charges and fees are
cancelled in full; and
>
> e) e) Provide the following documents:
> i) A complete copy of any contract(s) between Private Parking
Solutions London Ltd (“PPS”), LME Ltd, and Thames City Property
Development Ltd (the UK subsidiary of R&F Properties/CC Land
Holdings, being the landowner of Thames City, Carnation Way,
London SW8 5GZ) authorising enforcement activities at the Site,
including but not limited to clamping, towing, immobilisation,
removal, or sale of vehicles. This request includes all
schedules, annexes, variations, and evidence of consent by the
landowner/managing agent.
> ii) Copies of any court judgments, warrants of control or
other orders which you say justify your actions;
> iii) A full statement of account showing all sums you allege
are owed, with dates and contractual/legal basis;
> iv) Copies of all DVLA keeper enquiries made in relation to my
Vehicle;
> v) A copy of LME’s complaints procedure and PPS’s internal
complaints procedure.
>
> 19. If you contend that you did have lawful authority under
PoFA 2012 or under any other legislation to clamp and remove my
Vehicle, please provide a detailed explanation, with statutory
references, in your reply.
>
> 20. If you fail to provide a satisfactory response within 14
days, I will commence proceedings without further notice. I will
rely on this letter and your response (or lack of response) when
the court comes to consider costs.
>
> Directions for reply
>
> 21. Please send your substantive response, and any documents,
to me at the postal address and email address shown at the top
of this letter.
>
> Yours faithfully
>
> [Name]
> Owner of BMW 530e registration [VRM]
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 6
DIR Next Page