Free Traffic Legal Advice

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.

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.

The BPA are a members club, who ostensibly exist solely to protect their paying members' interests (and less ostensibly to protect their own). Historically, they have somewhat begrudgingly applied minor sanctions to paying members who have done something so egregious that if they aren't seen to act, Government might be forced to do so. Members who are substantially in arrears tend to get binned for often less egregious acts. They are not a regulatory body, and do not act like one, regardless of how hard that DVLA tries to pretend that they can abdicate their responsibilities.

However, to be fair to the BPA, this is what trade bodies do, and compared to the IPC they are the love-child of Mother Teresa and the Dalai Lama.

Point being that in order to get the BPA to attack rather than defend their own member, it needs to be clear to them that they have no choice, or otherwise that protecting that particular member's interests is likely to harm their own interests.

Similarly, the DVLA as a self-contained department, is very keen on the ability to self-fund by selling keeper data at £2.50 a pop on the somewhat shaky grounds of automatic reasonable cause by dint of being an AOS member, and claiming that regulatory issues are down to the AOS.

FWIM, I don't see how it can be 'theft' because the person who has possession does not intend to permanently deprive the owner of their goods* but rather to release on payment of the stated sum. IMO, it's certainly a crime(bp listed several possibilities), but not theft.

I hope the OP has secured legal advice.

*- interestingly, the 'Torts' notice made no reference to a release fee, but to removal and scrapping(OP, this word is blurred, is it scrapping?) but the second notice does.

Update, (good news) LME have replied to my email with this reponse:

Thank you for your email in regards to your goods being removed.
Thames City have an obligation to keep that access road clear as there is a high volume of heavy goods vehicles traffic from neighbouring locations, which is why they operate a no parking policy on that access road.
By leaving your goods there you are causing distress and disruption to the lawful use of the land, the tort notice issued to your goods does clearly state that you must permanently remove your goods from the land.
Since then you have continued to leave your goods on the land without permission.
The involuntary bailee is entitled to secure goods that have incurred charges, i.e a removal truck.
No goods are exempt from TIGA 1977
TIGA 1977 provides lawful authority to remove goods. 

In the spirit of Christmas as we are closing down for the holiday season soon, we will only charge you the Keyless Removal Truck Fee.

Amount: £575.00

Is the best option now to pay under protest and then sue?

Is the best option now to pay under protest and then sue?

Have you taken up our suggestion of contacting a suitable solicitor? If so, see what they say.

At face value, reducing their demand from £5k+ to £500 "in the spirit of Christmas" doesn't sound like the actions of someone who is confident in the legal basis of their demands.

I specifically gave you contact details for Jackson Yamba. Have you not made contact with him yet? you appear to be relying on the advice given here which is not complete legal advice. We are not solicitors.

The email from LME is actually fantastic news for you. It confirms in writing that they have no lawful authority for what they did and that they are relying entirely on a completely false interpretation of the Torts Act. In other words, they have now provided you with written evidence that what they did was unlawful.

Their email admits several things that destroy their position. They claim the Torts Act gives them “lawful authority” to remove goods, which is legally wrong. The Torts Act only deals with disposal of genuinely abandoned goods that the bailee already holds lawfully. It gives no power at all to seize anything, and certainly not to enforce private parking charges. They also claim that “no goods are exempt” from the Act, which is nonsense. The question is not exemption but the total absence of any lawful seizure power. They likewise claim that they are the “involuntary bailee,” but you cannot become a bailee by unlawfully seizing someone else’s property. This admission effectively confirms that they know they took your car without a warrant and without legal authority.

Their collapse from £5,325 to £575 is the clearest sign yet that they know they have been caught out. If they believed for a moment that their actions were lawful, they would not be dropping the alleged debt by nearly ninety percent. They are now trying to save face and salvage the situation before the police close in further. It is also obvious that they understand the clamp and tow are being treated as a crime by the police.

At this point you really have two realistic options. One is to push the police to act immediately on the criminal side: tell the investigating officer about this email, tell them LME are admitting reliance on the Torts Act and demanding £575 to release a car they unlawfully seized, and make clear that they are continuing to detain property that they know they have no right to. That might encourage the police to intervene directly, but relying entirely on police urgency is unpredictable.

The other, and more practical option given that you need the car now, is to pay the £575 strictly under protest and then sue. Before paying, you must send them an email stating clearly that payment is being made under protest, without admitting liability, solely to recover your car, and that you will be pursuing full recovery of the money and damages. This protects you completely. Once the car is safely back in your possession, you can bring a civil claim for the £575, loss of use, and any other losses. Your prospects of winning that claim are extremely high based on everything they have written, what the police now accept, and the clear lack of any lawful authority for the tow.

In short, the LME email confirms you are in the stronger position legally. If you need the car urgently, paying under protest and suing afterwards is now a clean and effective strategy.