Know any Blue Badge supermarket victims?

If so, The Motorists Legal Challenge Fund lawyers would love to hear from you.

Supermarket parking limits 'breach' disability laws
BBC News
Supermarkets have started to limit the amount of time customers can park
The UK's big supermarkets are breaking disability laws by having strict time limits in about two-thirds of their car parks, charities have told the BBC.

Private firms run some of the parking areas for Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury's and Morrisons and customers face penalty charges for overstaying.
But under the Disability Discrimination Act, businesses need to make extra allowances for disabled people.
The supermarkets say they will review their policies on disabled parking.
Supermarkets are increasingly using private parking firms and automatic number plate recognition systems to limit customer parking, often to two hours.

'Acknowledge problem'
The restrictions are to discourage drivers from abusing the free parking spaces.
BBC Breakfast contacted 200 large supermarkets from the four main chains.
Of the 124 that imposed parking time limits, about two-thirds said they did not give disabled people any extra time to shop, which is a breach of the law.

Britain's motorists are being stealth taxed by another dubious practice
Neil Herron
Motorist campaigner

Neil Coyle, from the charity Disability Alliance, said: "Supermarkets need to acknowledge there is a problem, and secondly, very quickly they need to ensure their car parking procedures conform with the law.
"You or I can stamp our feet and say how outrageous it is but at the end of the day there is a law that protects disabled people from this happening."

He said the supermarkets needed to end the "unfair charges" or "they can wait until someone takes a legal case and potentially face a considerable compensation case".

Motorist campaigner Neil Herron said supermarkets should get rid of the "draconian" and "legally questionable" private enforcement process and handle car parking in house.
"If someone is abusing the system, clamp them, charge them a £2.50 clamp release fee, handled by their own staff.
"Britain's motorists are being stealth taxed by another dubious practice," he said.

The BBC's Keith Doyle said all four supermarket chains have said they will review their policies on disabled parking.
"If you do need extra time, the advice is to go to customer services in the supermarkets - they have all told us they will make allowances, they will review their policies - so give customer services your registration number and hopefully you won't get a ticket," he said.

Private clamping 'legally shaky'

BBC News

By Tom Symonds
Transport correspondent, BBC News
The clamping of cars by private companies in England and Wales is legally shaky and could breach human rights, the RAC Foundation has claimed.
It says sometimes "exorbitant" fines are demanded without legal process and it wants to see laws changed.

Clamping cars also prevents drivers from putting right the obstruction they caused, the motoring body argues.
The Home Office is carrying out a consultation and intends to tighten the regulations governing private clampers.

Private clampers are separate from the council parking attendants who look after on-street parking and public car parks.
They have the right, on behalf of the landowner, to clamp a vehicle and charge the owner for the clamp to be removed.

The current regulations require signs to be prominently displayed to warn drivers.
Individual clampers also have to be registered with the Security Industries Association in England and Wales. Clamping is outlawed in Scotland.
The Home Office consultation proposes a new system of regulation under which both individual clampers and their company have to be accredited and vetted.
They would have to introduce an appeals procedure for drivers who believe they have been unfairly treated.

'Perverse'
But in the RAC Foundation's report, barrister Dr Chris Elliot says clamping by such companies could breach human rights.
"The Home Office is proposing a new licensing regime for private clampers but it is arguable that, if the release fee is unreasonable, their actions are incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998, which demands that punishment should only come after a proper legal process."
He also argues clamping is perverse.
"The purpose of clamping is to prevent a vehicle being removed from land it should not be on," he says. "It causes the harm to the landowner to persist. It is in effect, a 'self-inflicted wound'".
The RAC wants someone to challenge the law in court, or for the government to set out new legislation to legitimise clamping.

Currently, some companies stick to the rules and keep the fee they demand for removing the clamp within guidelines issued by the British Parking Association.
But the industry has a major problem with "cowboy clampers".

In one case, 18-year-old Emily Ritson found her car had disappeared nine minutes after a parking ticket expired at 10 o'clock at night. The police told her it had probably been removed by a clamping company.
Her father, Nigel, told the BBC: "I was really upset and angry because she's only 18 and she was 80 miles from home."
"I suspect they just towed the car away the second the ticket had expired."
After he was asked to pay £390 pounds to get it back, his response was: "You've got to be kidding. She was only nine minutes late."
Emily had to be rescued by a distant relative because the company would not return her car until the morning.
Mr Ritson said: "The man on the other end of the phone just said 'That's not my problem' and put the phone down on me."
Mr Ritson later won compensation in court.
'Stupid money'

But there are legitimate operations which stay within the current, fairly loose rules.
Approved Parking Services, in Maidstone, Kent, told the BBC it was a licensed clamper that charges £125 to remove a clamp.
But the company claimed other companies worked without proper accreditation.
Craig Reade, the company's managing director, said: "I know of cowboys who put four clamps on a car and then charge £200 for each one to be removed.
"Some of these vehicles aren't even clamped. They're being towed away and charged stupid money to get them back."
Mr Reade said he was regularly approached by local landowners wanting their land patrolled. His company provides the service for free, but keeps all the proceeds from the fines.
However, motorists are not afraid to fight back.
Experienced clamper Clive Woodend said he had years of abuse from motorists.
"I've been kicked, punched, threatened with being stabbed and all sorts. People don't like to accept being clamped."
Clamper Clive Woodend: ''I have been kicked and punched''

A £50 bounty for every car clamped: Scandal of motorists targeted on private land

Daily Mail
'Bounty hunter' wheelclampers are being paid £50 for every car they immobilise.
Private firms are offering the service free to landowners - and are paying their workers commission from the charges they impose to free the vehicle.
Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat Transport spokesman who uncovered the figures, said clampers were being given an 'outrageous' incentive to immobilise vehicles for profit.

His party has produced a dossier which shows firms touting for business.
One internet advert for a company named Crown Guarding, operating in the Hertfordshire area but giving only a mobile phone number as a contact, is offering £50 per vehicle commission.

It sets a minimum target of 'five clamps per day' and is looking for a clamper 'prepared to work hard and who is hungry to earn money'.
The scandal coincides with a report from the RAC Foundation saying that clamping companies are acting illegally by imposing an exorbitant charge for releasing cars which have been clamped or towed away.

The RAC says the law is wrong and 'open to challenge', and that it will support with its evidence any attempt to challenge it in court.

Both the RAC Foundation and the Liberal Democrats are calling for car clamping on private land to be outlawed altogether, as has been the case since 1992 in Scotland where anyone trying it is guilty of 'extortion'.

'Private land' ranges from pub car parks to derelict lots in city centres and even land belonging to church buildings and community centres.
The Home Office is consulting on a review of clamping legislation and expects to issue a report which will propose compulsory licensing of clamping companies rather than simply their employees.

The LibDem dossier highlights scores of companies offering commission-only or free clamping services.

One, Regional Parking Services, said: 'Our services are completed free of charge.
Yes, that's right. You (our client) pay us nothing for regulating parking on your private property. This includes our wheel clamping services, vehicle towing and illegal parking.'

Mr Baker said: 'It is outrageous that a private company, whose income may be directly related to the number of clamps put on vehicles, can demand huge sums from motorists who may well have committed no offence or infringed no parking conditions.

'It is quite wrong that there should be financial incentives for private companies to go round clamping vehicles.
'Clamping should be carried out only by public bodies such as the police or councils, or agents acting for them on a fixed-contract basis.'
He added: 'In other cases, such as with parking tickets, a motorist has a right of appeal to the courts.

With clamps, they have to pay up there and then if they want their car back, no matter how exorbitant the fee, and even if they think it has been wrongly issued.
The RAC report says wheel clampers are acting illegally by imposing huge charges for the release of cars parked on private land.

The concept of one citizen 'punishing' another is alien in English law, according to barrister Dr Chris Elliott.
He adds that clamping vehicles on private land could also breach human rights and is 'perverse'.
Dr Elliott said: 'The Home Office is proposing a new licensing regime for private clampers, but it is arguable that, if the release fee is unreasonable, their actions are incompatible with the Human Rights Act.'