Recently, on a Saturday morning back in May, I was unfortunate enough to leave my 'pride and joy' (a Ford Mondeo) parked in what I believed to be the Customer Parking Area for HSBC Bank in central Southampton.
I then went into the Bank, conducted my business, and returned between
5 and 7 minutes later, to find a large yellow wheel clamp attached to the front of my vehicle, and a fat security guard making his way back to his car, having 'done the deed'.When I enquired as to exactly why this gentleman had felt fit to apply said clamp, he referred me to a pair of Security International Group's signs, that were affixed to the opposite wall of the car park (facing away from the entrance). I have attempted to illustrate the situation using ASCII, below....
WALL - No signs ____________________ | | | == | | == X| WALL - 2 x SIG Warning Signs | == | approximately 4 metres from the ground | CAR | | X| | | | | | | | |______________________________ | | | | No Boundary ______________________________ | | | | | | | | | HSBC Bank's | | Customer Car Park | HSBC BANK BUILDING
Now, upon my entrance to what I (wrongly) assumed to be part of HSBC's car park, I did not encounter any Security International Group (SIG) warning signs. Of course, the Patrol Officer took great delight in referring me to the two signs that were not visible from the entrance, placed high up on the wall facing away from the entrace to this area.
When I politely explained that these signs did not seem to correspond to the area in which I was parked, he informed me that, previously, additional signs DID exist, but these were taken down, as the landlord of that particular building did not want them on his wall.
The Security Patrol involved did not seem interested in the fact that I had unwittingly parked for a maximum period of seven minutes on what transpired to be private land, unconnected with HSBC. When I contested payment, he picked up his mobile phone call, apparently to call out a 'tow truck'.
Referring to the two signs that I had since been made aware of, I noticed that the wheel clamp release fee charged by this 'outfit' was an extortianate £99! I then read on, to discover that the fee for vehicle recovery after a tow-away was a further £125....
By this time, it was 12:05, and I had an MOT test booked at a garage eight miles away for 12:30pm. Realising that I had no time to argue further, I eventually agreed to pay the fee, (albeit under duress!) The Patrol Officer informed me that the only methods of payment acceptable were Visa and Cash (!) Thinking that Visa would be easier to track for future correspondence, I reluctauntly handed over my card.
At this stage, the offending clamp (including chain looped through the front suspension) was removed; I was relieved of £99, and the Patrol Officer went on his way, telling me to "Have a nice day" as he went. As he departed, I told him that "I hoped there had been no damage" to which he replied "I hope so". It is not clear what he meant by this.
During the incident, I attempted to photograph the Patrol and his vehicle, for him then to tell me that, if I did so, he would leave immediately and summon the tow truck. Apparently my photography would contravene the Health and Safety at Work Act, as his identification on film might give rise to future events that could harm either himself or his family.
I was horrified to later discover that there was indeed a scratch on my car, on the wing where the wheel clamp had been applied. I suspect that this was done during application or removal of the clamp. The Patrol's manner seemed 'careless' at best, during the removal process.
I have sent a letter of complaint to S.I.G., demanding that the release fee is refunded, upon which I will drop the matter. I then went on to inform them that I would commence legal proceedings for the full amount of the release fee (£99) plus a spray job on the affected wheel arch (circa £100) plus my time and inconvenience. I enclosed a site photograph, taken on 01/05/04, and a damage photograph taken on
06/05/04.Security International Group replied, stating that they were not willing to refund the administration fee of £99. They claimed that their signage was sufficient (as did the Patrol Officer involved) and that "Hampshire Constabulary deemed that the two signs were enough". A phone call to Hampshire Police confirmed that no such conversations would take place, especially concerning the activities of private Security Companies such as S.I.G. The Company in question also stated that 'my photograph showing damage to the vehicle was taken almost a full week later'. Surely this is not relevant?
I am now contemplating whether it is worth taking this case to Southampton County Court, as a 'small claim'. Within my limited understanding, the following offences have been committed:
- Clamping cars without clearly visible signs in the IMMEDIATE area (two were removed)
- Demanding money with menaces (pay up or I will call the towing service)
- Extortion (£99 is not "reasonable"... £50 might be).
As an Epilogue to this little tale, I phoned HSBC Bank to ask if any other staff or Customers had fallen into this little S.I.G. trap. I spoke to a chap who told me that he was registered blind, and his driver had also been clamped by these cowboys. Despite carrying the orange badge, his driver had also been forced to pay up...
I have read up on the subject since this event (01 May 2004). The case of 'Arthur vs. Anker' comes to mind... Do you think it is worth pursuing further?
All comments and advice are welcomed.
Regards,
Alan.