DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 101292--------------------------------------------------
Re: CAR TOWED on private land 7 DAY TORT NOTICE
DIR By: b789
Date: December 6, 2025, 11:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
After further discussion of this case with a long serving
District Judge, they have agreed and just on the facts (and
without seeing any documents) they stated that there is no
lawful authority for any of the actions of LME.
Their suggestion: Report everything to the police immediately -
the obvious offence must be straightforward theft of the
vehicle. Issue a claim at the county court for an immediate
interim injunction - ordering the return of the car and
prohibiting further interference with it. Legal advice will be
needed.
#Post#: 101316--------------------------------------------------
Re: CAR TOWED on private land 7 DAY TORT NOTICE
DIR By: bimmerfan
Date: December 6, 2025, 4:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I have finally managed to convince the Police that this is in
fact a crime, and not a civil matter, so I have been issued a
crime reference number. I have also reported the crime using MET
police's online report a crime form, stating the facts.
I have made a complaint to the MET Police PSD for the officers'
failure to record my matter as a crime, also that they stated it
was a civil matter yet threatened to arrest me for breach of
peace if I did not exit my vehicle, the enforcement officer also
showed the police a print out of Tribunals, Courts and
Enforcement Act 2007, Schedule 12 Paragraph 68: seen here:
HTML https://ibb.co/QSCG1KC
to threaten me with arrest if I did not
leave the vehicle or intervened with the towing process.
I have also involved my MP, sending them an email, writing about
what you said. I have also sent relevant complaints to the DVLA
and BPA.
Unfortunately, after double checking my insurance I am not
covered for legal protection, therefore I will have to pay out
of my own pocket for legal expenses.
I have emailed LME Services Ltd, PPS, and Thames City management
to ask the whereabouts of the vehicle and legal basis, etc, as
you said. I'm planning to send letters tomorrow to ensure
delivery.
As I use my vehicle on a daily basis and at this time of year, I
really do need my vehicle back, if I go the urgent injunction
route, how long would it be expected for this process to take?
Or if I choose to pay under protest and then sue, wouldn't it be
potentially months until I can receive the funds back? And would
my case have a high likelihood of winning and receiving the
funds? I know these are questions which may be difficult to
answer without knowing the whole facts. I have not spoken to LME
or PPS by phone yet. Seeking recommendations for legal advice
and or solicitors.
Picture at the scene of towing:
HTML https://ibb.co/pvJvZnVX
#Post#: 101320--------------------------------------------------
Re: CAR TOWED on private land 7 DAY TORT NOTICE
DIR By: b789
Date: December 6, 2025, 7:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
As I’ve now had the benefit of an informal view from a
long-serving District Judge, and his take is very clear and very
helpful for you.
On the facts as you’ve described them, he sees no lawful
authority at all for anything LME have done. In other words, in
his view they have no legal leg to stand on for clamping,
towing, or threatening to sell your car. That is a very strong
endorsement of what we’ve been saying about the misuse of the
Torts Act and the complete absence of any warrant or statutory
power.
He also said that, putting the technicalities to one side, the
obvious criminal offence here is straightforward theft of the
vehicle. They have taken your car, with no lawful basis, are
refusing to return it unless you pay a ransom, and are
threatening to sell it. That comfortably fits the Theft Act
formulation of dishonestly appropriating property belonging to
another with the intention of permanently depriving the owner
(or at the very least treating it as their own to dispose of
regardless of your rights). The section 54 PoFA point is still
important, but it is entirely proper for the police to treat
this as suspected theft in parallel with PoFA and to investigate
it as such.
On the civil side, his advice is that you should apply to the
County Court for an immediate interim injunction ordering the
return of the car and prohibiting any further interference with
it. That means issuing a claim for conversion/wrongful
interference with goods and, at the same time, asking the court
for an urgent order that they must hand the car back and not
sell, dispose of, or otherwise deal with it. He is also clear
that you will need proper legal advice to do this – injunction
work is technical and time-sensitive, and you should not be
trying to bodge it alone.
Given that level of judicial endorsement, my advice is:
1. Treat theft as front and centre in your dealings with the
police now. You already have a crime reference number; make sure
your further contact with the officer in charge explicitly
refers to suspected theft as well as the PoFA section 54
offence. The fact that a District Judge regards it as
“straightforward theft” is something you can mention when
pressing for active investigation.
2. Put urgent injunctive relief at the top of your civil
options. A judge has effectively told you that, on these facts,
LME have no lawful authority. That substantially increases your
comfort that an injunction is not speculative and that your
prospects are good. The aim is to get the car back without
conceding any payment towards their bogus charges.
3. You still do not accept any liability for any “storage” or
“release” fee. The daily storage figures they quote remain
useful only as evidence of the pressure they are trying to
exert. You do not owe them and will not be offering to pay them.
The injunction application should be framed on the basis that
the car is to be released unconditionally, and any sums already
demanded are themselves part of the unlawful interference.
I would now strongly recommend that you speak to a specialist
who understands both the criminal overlay and the civil
remedies, and who is comfortable with interim injunctions in
this sort of context. In particular, I suggest you make contact
with Jackson Yamba at Contestor Legal
HTML https://contestorlegal.co.uk
. He has direct experience with
parking-related litigation. He should be able to give you a
realistic view on the mechanics, costs, and prospects of an
urgent County Court injunction in your case, using the material
you have already gathered and with the added weight of a
District Judge’s informal view that there is “no lawful
authority for any of the actions of LME”.
If you PM me, I will let Jackson Yamba know about this and to
expect contact from you.
#Post#: 101322--------------------------------------------------
Re: CAR TOWED on private land 7 DAY TORT NOTICE
DIR By: JustLoveCars
Date: December 7, 2025, 3:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This situation reminds me of the 2011 Mayhook v NCP case
(PePiPoo days), pre-PoFA.
Mr Mayhook's car was towed and clamped for around 30 outstanding
PCN's.
Mr Mayhook eventually won and was awarded large costs
(approaching £90k) and triggered bankruptcy for some of those
involved.
#Post#: 101342--------------------------------------------------
Re: CAR TOWED on private land 7 DAY TORT NOTICE
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: December 7, 2025, 7:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As per bp, I think you need legal advice.
bp's (and the District Judge's) advice is predicated on the
facts as we know them, my worry is that these might not be all
the relevant facts.
For example: : I have 29 PCNs from PPS private parking company -
all at the same location,
...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)
So what's happened? An approved operator, PPS, decided to
abandon(!) the Code of Practice and PoFA and out of frustration
use a different tactic to achieve their ends, or what?
Why would PPS take such an overt risk when their landowner
cannot indemnify them against their ATA's sanctions? Has this in
fact got anything to do with PPS? Their name appears under 'Site
Managed By' on the first notice after which they're not
mentioned.
What was said when the car was removed and the police attended?
How come this is 'theft' if the Enforcement Agent was acting
under a warrant?
You say 'As I use my vehicle on a daily basis and at this time
of year, I really do need my vehicle back..' so you need to act
urgently.
On the underlying issue, why were you parked where a sign
clearly says you may not? There's no offer of a contract, you
may not park or wait at any time 24/7. Perhaps you could post
one of the parking charge notices and notices to keeper?
#Post#: 101346--------------------------------------------------
Re: CAR TOWED on private land 7 DAY TORT NOTICE
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: December 7, 2025, 8:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
<mod hat on>
I agree that having the relevant facts is generally helpful and
sometimes necessary.
However, our role (as a site and as individual posters) is to
provide advice regarding the legal issues the OP is facing, if
we (individually) feel that the OP's case warrant's our time and
effort.
Our role is NOT to cast judgment on the OP's alleged motoring
misdemeanours which lead him to require advice. If any poster
feels that the OP's motoring misdemeanours are such that they do
not deserve their help, they are free to ignore the thread.
If they have wasted our time by misleading us or otherwise
contravening the rules of the site, that is a different matter,
although generally best left to the mods to deal with.
Perhaps you can show where in this thread (or elsewhere) it says
that the Enforcement Agent was acting under a warrant? If this
is something that we have all missed, then that is clearly a
very significant point.
We can probably assume that if the OP had some overarching right
to park there that he would have mentioned it. Otherwise why he
chose not to obey the sign is none of our business - not that it
would be immediately relevant to the case, unless it
subsequently resulted in a civil claim for breach of a purported
contract formed without an offer.
</>
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> As per bp, I think you need legal advice.
>
> bp's (and the District Judge's) advice is predicated on the
facts as we know them, my worry is that these might not be all
the relevant facts.
>
> For example: : I have 29 PCNs from PPS private parking company
- all at the same location,
>
> ...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)
>
> So what's happened? An approved operator, PPS, decided to
abandon(!) the Code of Practice and PoFA and out of frustration
use a different tactic to achieve their ends, or what?
>
> Why would PPS take such an overt risk when their landowner
cannot indemnify them against their ATA's sanctions? Has this in
fact got anything to do with PPS? Their name appears under 'Site
Managed By' on the first notice after which they're not
mentioned.
>
> What was said when the car was removed and the police
attended?
>
> How come this is 'theft' if the Enforcement Agent was acting
under a warrant?
>
> You say 'As I use my vehicle on a daily basis and at this time
of year, I really do need my vehicle back..' so you need to act
urgently.
>
> On the underlying issue, why were you parked where a sign
clearly says you may not? There's no offer of a contract, you
may not park or wait at any time 24/7. Perhaps you could post
one of the parking charge notices and notices to keeper?
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 101349--------------------------------------------------
Re: CAR TOWED on private land 7 DAY TORT NOTICE
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: December 7, 2025, 8:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If a warrant of control was not involved, then I apologise.
My post wasn't intended to challenge the OP's actions, but
instead to flesh out those parts which might assist.
Mr Ebrahim is a Certificated Bailiff according to the register.
The issue of PCNs and the signs and asking for a specimen was to
see whether in fact the issues arise under 'relevant contract'
or 'a relevant obligation arising as a result of a trespass or
other tort..' provisions of PoFA. The prohibitive wording of the
sign suggests it could be the latter.
My request to flesh out the underlying issue was to see even at
this stage whether any application to the court could be
bolstered by an assertion that the underlying claims are without
foundation.
#Post#: 101354--------------------------------------------------
Re: CAR TOWED on private land 7 DAY TORT NOTICE
DIR By: bimmerfan
Date: December 7, 2025, 9:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is a link to a PCN and NtK:
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bXxU-meS8OgFfVVHvRJLp-gcfCDZ9iFS/view?usp=sharing
Timeline of events on the basis of creating a clear picture:
5 December 2025 18:10
I phoned the number on the “Warning of Immobilisation” notice
after discovering my vehicle had been clamped.
I asked the enforcement agent why my vehicle had been clamped;
he replied that my car was “getting towed.”
Shortly after, I went to the vehicle, sat inside it, and called
999, explaining that my car was being clamped and removed on
private land without lawful authority and that this was unlawful
under s.54 POFA.
The call handler told me it was a civil matter and that police
officers would not be attending, despite my repeated attempts to
explain the criminal offence.
Approximately 18:40
The enforcement agent, Mr K. Ebrahim, arrived and demanded that
I exit the vehicle, stating that he had “seized” it.
I told him the clamping and towing were unlawful. He insisted he
could proceed and said he was calling the police.
Around 5 minutes later
Police officers arrived extremely quickly, which was surprising
given that the force had just told me they would not attend.
The officers then explained that they had been dispatched
urgently because the enforcement agent had reported that objects
were being thrown at him (a complete fabrication), which they
treated as a violent incident requiring immediate response.
The enforcement agent showed officers: The June “7-day tort
notice”, and The “Notice That Goods Have Been Secured / Notice
of Intention to Sell.”
I explained that the “7-day tort notice” issued in June 2025 was
a notice relating to abandoned vehicles, not a lawful authority
for clamping or towing. I pointed out that the vehicle could not
possibly be considered “abandoned” because:
I had driven it to the location that same day, and I was
physically present inside the vehicle at the scene when they
attempted to tow it.
Despite this, the officers continued to treat the June notice as
if it authorised the December clamp and tow.
The officers appeared to treat these documents as if they were
legally equivalent to a warrant or statutory authority.
They repeatedly told me this was a civil matter, yet
simultaneously threatened to arrest me for: Breach of the peace,
or
Intentionally obstructing a “lawful enforcement agent if I did
not leave my vehicle.”
I repeatedly explained that private clamping and towing without
lawful authority is a criminal offence under s.54 PoFA, but the
officers did not accept this.
I asked the enforcement agent where my vehicle was being taken.
He refused to tell me, stating I would only be given the
location after payment of the demanded £5,325.
Police officers stayed on scene to ensure I did not re-enter the
vehicle or prevent its removal. The vehicle was then loaded onto
a recovery truck and towed away. I was left without any
paperwork identifying where the vehicle had been taken. Time of
tow: 19:35
I can confirm there is no warrant of control from any statutory
authority, and I have no CCJ or court claims for the PCNs
associated with PPS.
I hope this provides clarification.
#Post#: 101368--------------------------------------------------
Re: CAR TOWED on private land 7 DAY TORT NOTICE
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: December 7, 2025, 11:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks very much.
As I understand it, a 'Torts Notice' and subsequent removal is
open to a landowner as a remedy against a nuisance caused when a
vehicle is left on their land without permission. But what is
not allowed is this 'self-help' means of securing payment of
unpaid parking charges which are based in PoFA.
If PPS were involved in instructing the Enforcement Agent, then
IMO they're in deep trouble with the BPA. But perhaps the
landowner went native and as the person responsible for managing
the property (PPS) could only shrug their shoulders and point to
the limiting nature of PoFA, they decided to employ other means
using LME Services Ltd. But as the NTK which you posted
identifies PPS(London) Ltd as the creditor, then the £5k+ demand
would appear to be bogus and unlawful as regards action under
the 1977 Act.
#Post#: 101372--------------------------------------------------
Re: CAR TOWED on private land 7 DAY TORT NOTICE
DIR By: bimmerfan
Date: December 7, 2025, 1:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
That makes a lot of sense, and I appreciate the explanation. If
LME were acting purely on instructions from the landowner and
not PPS, then PPS themselves might try to argue they are not
responsible. However, because LME’s demand includes the 29
PPS-issued PCNs, it strongly suggests PPS are involved in or
connected to this enforcement, which brings BPA compliance
issues firmly into play.
If the landowner had instructed LME independently, I would
expect the demand to relate solely to trespass/nuisance or
alleged abandonment, not to 29 PPS parking invoices with
itemised amounts copied directly from PPS’s own PCNs.
This suggests PPS are either complicit or are at least allowing
their accredited status to be used to justify what looks like an
unlawful workaround of PoFA.
If PPS did not authorise this, then LME appear to be enforcing
PPS’s charges without authority, which is a separate and very
serious issue for BPA and DVLA.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 6
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page