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:
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]
And to Professional Standards regarding the police failure to record/investigate:
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]
