Barkingside clampers ordered to repay fine
�A clamping firm described as a “blight on the borough” must repay a driver more that �1,000 after a court ruling.
Plumber Ryan Murphy described parking enforcer Securak as “scamming” and “bullying” in the claim over the clamping of his van behind a flat in High Street, Barkingside last August.
His employer, PGS Services, was awarded �1,015 at Dartford County Court, after Securak failed to turn up to defend the claim.
PGS called in the help of Sam Heeley, who used to work for a clamping firm, to bring the ruling against the rogue parking enforcers.
Mr Heeley said: “Hopefully more victims will make claims against the firm.
You may also want to watch:
“When I worked for a security firm, I heard lots of the horror stories about what the clampers were up to. Now I have seen the light. The only problem now is how we get them to pay it.”
When asked if he knew how many county court judgments Securak had against it, director Kevin Stokes told the Recorder: “I’m not aware, it doesn’t really bother us to be honest. We don’t go to any court cases because judges don’t really like clampers.”
- 1 Ilford charity boss named in Queen’s Birthday Honours
- 2 Ilford GP criticises NHS patient data sharing plans
- 3 Thousands sign petition opposing gas company plan to take over allotments
- 4 Ilford's Mercato Metropolitano to open in November
- 5 Ilford primary teacher joins campaign to get people teaching
- 6 Man with Hainault links wanted on recall to prison
- 7 Man jailed after gun and cocaine worth £1m found at Ilford home
- 8 Pupils prepare for summer singing festival at Kenneth More Theatre
- 9 Fairlop woman ordered to pay £1k over Dagenham cigarette littering
- 10 Police officer guilty of spying on woman in the shower
Mr Stokes later said he will appeal against the court decision and plans to “sort out” any CCJs against his company.
He added: “I try to attend court cases but they can take all day, and it all depends on the judge that day.”
Ilford North MP Lee Scott, who previously described Securak as a “blight on the borough”, said around 20 constituents had complained to him about the firm. He said: “The first thing I tell people is to go through the appeals process and then to go to the small claims court.
“If these judgments are not paid then Securak is in contempt of court.”
A clause of the Home Office Bill, being discussed in the House of Lords, will outlaw many of the techniques used by firms like Securak. If agreed it could be passed by early autumn.