PRACTICAL LEGAL RESEARCH

Practical Legal Research

Practical Legal Research

MEMORANDUM

From: anilparma@jordanmaxwell.co.uk

To: trainee@jordanmaxwell.co.uk

[Today]

Matter: Oceania Restaurant

This memorandum is written to help Russell whether he is able to deter his shoppers from parking in the Restaurant car park or not. Anil has been talking over this issue with Russell in an Attendance Note where Anil pointed out the main reason of the clamping of cars in the small car parking. The nearby luxury “Springarden” shopping area has clamped the small car parking of Oceania Restaurant because of which Russell has to lose many of his customers. But later on he erect two prominent signs that said “Customer parking only - clamping in effect”.

Clamping is probably considered to be a criminal act in the criminal law. However, one of the cases of Arthur and another v Anker was brought in to the court in 1995, which was supported in terms of favour of the clamper, the clamping of owners parking in the non clamping region was supported but only in few circumstances such as if the car parking is owned by Oceania Restaurant. If the parking is intended to be trespassed over a private land, it will result in a fine or a penalty fees only if a sign is being erected to aware or warn people parking in that private land.

The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 mentions practicable solution for the clamping of vehicles on private parking areas where parking is a big problem. It is mentioned in section 35 of this case where amendments are being made to permit local authorities to take over the clamping of car parking on to other private car parking areas.

An extract from the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Section 54 it has been newly introduced that liability for parking on private land has been restricted to the driver of the vehicle. It is applicable unless the owner of land has clear clarification of the relevant customer parking in the private land. There is a breach of parking contract in this case where clamp of car parking is occurring due to the luxury shopping arena to accommodate their customer's car parking in Oceania Restaurant's private parking area. The breach has been occurred because the sign in the car parking region clearly notifies that the parking is occupied for only customers of Oceania restaurant.

Another case of Vine v Waltham Forest London Borough Council 2000 illustrates that the petitioner sued for all the damages after her car was being clamped while parking on a private land. This case lead to three main issues that highlighted whether there is any kind of trespass of the car, level of notice or any damages that are appropriate. In Russell's case the damages are to be claimed by the clamping customers of “Springarden” shopping area. The reason is that the two signs erected by Oceania Restaurant, clearly notifies the customers that the parking is occupied for only Oceania Restaurant.

The law states that the traffic regulations permit the clamping of vehicles that are unlawfully parked in ...