How a private company, for and on behalf of Nottingham Executive Transport (NET) is illegally clamping vehicles and demanding a £180 release fee in what is a blatant extortion racket.
Highway Robbery Did Not End, it Morphed into a legal system of Extortion the precepts of which are the same as they always have been.
Since 2012 the rogue practice of clamping vehicles without issuing a PCN first has been illegal.
The 2012 Protection of Freedoms Act, schedule 54 states,
54 Offence of immobilising etc. vehicles
(1) A person commits an offence who, without lawful authority—
(a) immobilises a motor vehicle by the attachment to the vehicle, or a part of it, of an immobilising device, or
(b) moves, or restricts the movement of, such a vehicle by any means,
intending to prevent or inhibit the removal of the vehicle by a person otherwise entitled to remove it.
(2) The express or implied consent (whether or not legally binding) of a person otherwise entitled to remove the vehicle to the immobilisation, movement or restriction concerned is not lawful authority for the purposes of subsection (1). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/section/54
However, since 2022, a private company has been unlawfully clamping cars on the Forest Recreation Ground carpark. That company is called CPS (Midlands) Ltd (company number 06769370).
How the extortion works:
a car that is parked without the driver having bought a ticket for the tram is clamped by the parking bandit and a £180 payment is demanded for the clamp to be removed.
It is, when all is said and done, highway robbery (albeit in a carpark) – an extortion racket that operates for the profit of the company which is a private agency working for and on behalf of the bankrupt Nottingham City Council and to the detriment of hundreds of drivers who have fallen for the racket.
Shooting Fish in a Barrel
The effect is that the driver and any passengers are held to ransom, the car not being released unless payment is made, which is the very definition of an extortion racket.
I do not know yet how many victims have fallen prey to this racket and will file a DSAR in order to ascertain the numbers. For now, let’s make a conservative estimate and state that if 10 cars a week are captured in the NET’s net, then that would result in a net heist of £1,800 per week or £56,160 per annum. And that is from just one of the carparks the bandits operate in.
Knowledge is Power
Along with the quoted legislation, there is also the fact that a clamp cannot be fitted on a vehicle by a debt-collector or ‘bailiff’ without an order from a Magistrates’ Court. Neither can a debt-collection agency, such as Marston’s take any steps to pursue an alleged debt when none of the notices have been received.
At law, whilst a missive sent by post is deemed to be delivered, that is not the same as received. The logical conclusion to which is that if you return any and all unsolicited mail to the sender or simply throw it in the bin, the missive has not been received and the targeted individual can stand on that fact in order to have the entire matter dismissed.
To return to the carpark, over the last 3+ years, I have witnessed first hand a number of cars and owners who have been subject to the extortion racket.
Most people who get caught in the NET will doubtless pay the extortion fee. However, for the small band of folk who are prepared to stand their ground, then the following will be of interest.
This sanitised affidavit was submitted to Nottinghamshire Police and provides my first hand testimony to the facts of the matter:
c/o Welby Avenue, Nottingham.
WITNESS STATEMENT OF MR AMICUS CURAE
On the afternoon of Friday, 31st July, 2025 my friend, Jim came to my home in Forest Fields, Nottingham. He informed me that his work vehicle had been illegally clamped on the car park at the Forest recreation ground.
No notice had been issued and, in any event, having dealt with such matters previously, I knew that this was illegal pursuant to the law which states that a clamping order must be applied for before any such action can be taken. A clamping order can only issued by a Magistrates’ Court and, as was the case here, the ‘Clamper’ did not have one. (Ref: https://nationaldebtline.org/get-information/guides/magistrates-court-fines-ew/ )
Knowing this to be the case, Jim went home and returned with his toolkit.
We went to the carpark and it was immediately obvious to me that there was a clamp on the front offside wheel of his work vehicle.
As Jim prepared to remove the clamp, the offending ‘Clamper’ drove across in his van and I went to speak to him.
I informed him that his actions were illegal and suggested to him that he should remove it before Jim would lawfully do so himself.
I also informed said clamper he had no lawful right to fit the device on the basis that a PCN has to be issued before clamping, unless the vehicle was causing an obstruction, which was not the case here.
Being an agent for a private company, he had no right to fit the clamp without giving lawful notice and therefore, he could only issue a PCN. Further, he falsely claimed that he was relying upon a bylaw which would only apply in the event of an individual consenting to it.
I informed him that this was nonsense and said that he was being given another and final opportunity to remove it and that this amounted to nothing less than criminal extortion.
He declined the offer to remove it and Jim proceeded to remove the clamp. The lock and clamp being duly removed, we departed, leaving said behind for the clamper to retrieve.
To reiterate: the clamper was given every opportunity to remove the clamp and cure his illegal trespass on the vehicle and each time declined to do so, refusing to even step out of his van when invited.
In the light of the foregoing, it stands to reason that said clamper acted unlawfully by not providing notice before immobilising the vehicle and that having informed the clamper of such, Jim had every right to remove the clamp by whatever means were necessary.
I swear that the foregoing statements are true.
Signed………………………………………………………………. Date: 16th August, 2025
Mr Amicus Curae
That along with Jim’s Affidavit should have been enough for the matter to go away. Unfortunately, Nottinghamshire Police Force’s Chief Constable, a woman going by the nomenclature, ‘Mr’ Kate Meynell (sic) no less, decided to act outside logical boundaries and foolishly chose to charge Jim with criminal damage. A summary hearing was scheduled for 11th December, 2025 at Nottingham Magistrates’s Court.
“If you are in court and not enjoying yourself, then you must be doing something wrong,”
Eustace Mullins on being a litigant in person (LIP).
Jim and I duly arrived at the court around 9.40 am and I asked the usher if it would be possible for us to speak briefly with the Clerk to the Justices (the legal advisor to the magistrates) and for her to arrange the hearing as the first of the day. Doubtless no one else made such a reasonable request but, for whatever reason, the usher declined to arrange it and we ended up waiting some two and half hours to be heard last whilst a collection of 17 lost souls were put through the ringer of what is, in the main, but another money-rinsing operation, where coercion is the name of the game.
A couple of points need to be noted here. Firstly, the Magistrates’ courts are not courts of record and, therefore, operating outside the common law. Secondly, as confirmed by Lord Blackstone, any and all administrative courts are unlawful under the law of the land. This, of course, is why they go to such great lengths to deceive the individual into accepting their jurisdiction and are at such pains to sucker the individual into mistakenly accepting that he is the all-capitalised NAME and thus liable for the charge. (Note the language: a charge is an energetic exchange, in this case an extraction of the man’s energies via the fake monetary system).
Another point that we need to be reminded of is that HMCTS is a captured operation, especially when it comes to the lower courts, for they are essentially run for the benefit of the hidden financiers and the criminal state and to the blatant detriment of the peoples of the Isles of Britain.
Nevertheless, and this is a key point, the individual who truly knows who he is may use his legal fiction as a battering ram against the kleptocracy, even when it is so clearly under the sway of Freemasonic allegiances.
On which note, as the photograph above shows, Nottingham’s inverted ‘Justice Centre’ is designed on Freemasonic architectural principles, with the twin column of Boaz and Jacqim standing as evidence of that fact.
Having had long experience of the extortion game that is played in these fake courts, I do know that when an individual knows who he is, what the law is and what the game is, then he can influence the proceedings in a positive and beneficial manner, providing he has the facts and the truth as his sword. I use the word deliberately as sword and words, being made of the same letters, are anagrams. The expression the pen is mightier than the sword springs to mind. I would also add that the individual needs to be polite, honourable and steadfast in his approach.
Jim was exactly this. With me in the role of his ‘MacKenzie friend’, he stated his grounds for entering a plea of No Case to Answer. As we anticipated, this valid plea is rarely accepted by these bogus courts and the attempt is made for him to enter a plea of Not Guilty.
The Law
As I relentlessly propound, there is but one law:
“Do unto others as you would have done unto you.”
Sadly, and in the main, there are very few so-called legal professionals who know the law. Instead, they rely upon the sticky and deceptive ‘legal system’, where even the language used (legalese) is used in support of their faux assertions.
In this case, both the Crown Prosecutor and the Clerk to the Justices were defeated at their own game.
Firstly, the CPS solicitor launched straight into playing the video footage of the removal of the clamp and then foolishly purported to claim that there are notices on the carpark that state the ‘Company Policy’.
He became excited at the sight of the sparks which flew off the angle grinder as the padlock was removed, “just look at the sparks!” He ejaculated as he replayed the footage.
Of course, by taking this approach he had already lost. Jim correctly pointed out that none of this was significant as the clamp was, under the statutory legislation/acts of Parliament, an illegal act for which the rogue agents had no authority. Indeed, it is the case that any and all registered companies, courts, tribunals, police, public servants, councils and governments are subject to the legislation: they cannot get around that fact, whereas said acts only apply to the individual if he consents to them.
Jim asked the prosecutor,
“Are you stating that company policy overrides the state legislature?”
To which there was only silence. The prosecutor was thus caught in a trap of his own ignorance and disarmed. Silence is acquiescence.
Credit where credit is due.
There were three magistrates on the bench – a gentleman in the middle, with two women to his side.
From the very outset, the man was polite and courteous, even to the point of allowing me to speak on Jim’s behalf. He was clearly of the view that Jim had a valid case against the rogue bandits but did suggest that, were he to take it to the Crown Court, in the event he lost, the costs would amount to some £1,000.
This is demonstrably a scare tactic but when I made the point that unless the matter went to the Crown Court, then the extortion racket would simply continue, to the detriment of the people who fell victim to it. The magistrate, demonstrating a natural empathy for the victim, stated that it was “a very good point.”
The Magistrates took note of Jim’s testimony that the lock which was ground off could be bought from Screwfix for between £15 and £20, far below the claimed value of £180.
At which point, the prosecutor came up with a deal which proved worthy of consideration. In exchange for agreeing to a charge of £20, the matter would end and Jim could walk out of the court without a conviction.
Jim and I asked for a recess in order to discuss the matter. Given that he is facing a number of other proceedings, with his ongoing battle over the Great British Mortgage Swindle and a fraudulent claim by Nat West Plc, along with an equally fraudulent bankruptcy matter, we agreed that it was probably best to accept the deal, especially as the case would not be heard before June of 2026 and, though he would undoubtedly win, the ensuing workload, along with the crown court proceedings would amount to opening up another front for which he didn’t have the resources.
Now, regardless of how some may choose to couch it, this was a significant victory, with the following unassailable facts being key –
1. There can be no criminal damage when an unlawfully fitted clamp is removed by the owner of the vehicle.
2. Since 2012, a clamp cannot be attached to a vehicle to immobilise it. As such, NET is operating a demonstrable illegal system of extortion: pay us £180 and we will remove the clamp.
3. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act, 2012, schedule 54 a PCN has to be issued first: the rogue clamper cannot go straight to immobilisation of the vehicle.
As a search engine, Grok was asked it to “provide the page reference to where it states that issuing of Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) and clamping cannot be simultaneous.”
The reply:
“The prohibition on simultaneous issuance of a PCN (or Parking Charge Notice) and vehicle clamping in private parking contexts stems from the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), specifically Schedule 54, which bans wheel clamping and towing on private land in England and Wales as a method of enforcement for parking contraventions. This legislation was enacted to eliminate rogue clamping practices, ensuring that operators cannot immobilise a vehicle at the time of issuing the charge notice—instead, they must rely on post-issue debt recovery.
This provision effectively prevents simultaneous clamping with PCN issuance, as immobilisation is prohibited entirely under the PoFA regime for parking charges on “relevant land” (private property). The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (2024/2025) reinforces this by treating any clamping without lawful authority (e.g., outside PoFA) as a Level 4 non-conformance (the most serious category, implying dishonesty), per page 54 of 57 in the Code PDF. However, the Code itself does not restate the ban verbatim, as it builds on the existing PoFA prohibition.For the full Act: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/54. This applies sector-wide since 2012, with the 2024 Code ensuring compliance for accredited operators.”
A debt collection agency cannot clamp a vehicle without a Magistrates’ court order.
Of further note: a clamp can be removed by way of picking the lock which eliminates any (faux) claim of criminal damage being available to the parking bandit.
The salient point is that following Jim’s statement of the facts, the Crown prosecutor realised that the grounds for a charge of criminal damage were unsustainable as the statutory legislation prohibits the immediate clamping and immobilisation of a vehicle.
All that was left for the Crown prosecutor to avoid an embarrassing future defeat in the Crown Court was to offer Jim a deal, which, to reiterate, amounted to this: agree to pay us £20 for the replacement value of the new lock and all this will go away. Both the prosecutor and the magistrates agreed that accepting the ‘set off’ (i.e ‘pay us for a new lock and this ends now) would mean that Jim could walk out with no conviction).
At which point I asked if we could adjourn for 5 minutes to discuss the offer.
In the ensuing recess, Jim and I considered the option. Having weighed up the fact that Jim has two other major cases progressing right now, we agreed that the offer was a good one. After all, this was supposed to be a summary hearing – ie the facts had been decided and it was largely a matter of fining the defendant and imposing a victim surcharge as well as other costs on him.
By accepting the offer, which was made because, when the facts were clear, there was no way Jim could be charged with criminal damage when the clamping was illegal, the CPS would save face and there would consequently be no conviction in return for £20.
Thus, because a rare victory had been obtained in the Magistrates’ Court – the CPS could not get round the facts of the matter – with the £20 charge for a replacement lock and no conviction being offered to bring it to an end on the spot, and that a Crown Court trial would necessitate running another set of proceedings, with all the extra work that would entail, the offer was accepted.
Note: this does not preclude a Tort claim of Trespass and/or Extortion being made against the parking bandit’s nominal CEO.
In the interim, the way is open for a DSAR which would include any and all footage taken at the time by Council’s CCTV and the video taken on the mobile device of the clamper himself. On which note, the footage shown in court had been edited to not show the interaction between yours truly and the ‘clampit’ when I told him twice that the act was illegal and gave him the opportunity to cure his trespass by removing the clamp.
In conclusion,
I would suggest that this is a fine example of what transpires when an individual stands only under the factual truth of the matter: Jim’s position was correct from the onset, the clamp had been illegally fitted to immobilise his vehicle and he had every right to remove it when the clamper refused to do so.
Most people, of course, will succumb to the extortion on the basis that they do not know their rights. However, fortune favours the brave and the informed and those who have the necessary spirit to resist such extortion will be further empowered by the content of this essay.
___________________________
Thank you for your attention. Should you be appreciative of my essays and RogueCasts, then please chuck a few quid into the BuyMeACoffee button and/or take out a paid subscription at my Substack page, where you will be the first to receive my work. Cheers
__________________________
Footnotes:
1. The Clerk to the Justices, an African woman, stated that I was not allowed to use my phone in court. When I pointed out that I was using it to bring up the information on the legislation that prohibits clamping, that the Crown Prosecutor had just used his computer to show the video and asked her if she was attempting to deny Jim “equality of arms”, she fell silent; thereby acquiescing to the point.
2. There were two be-wigged barristers who had also been hanging around all morning. When their client, a Mohammedan, carrying an overnight bag and accompanied by family members, swaggered in at around 12.30pm, he falsely claimed that he had received a phone call informing him that he didn’t have to attend until 2pm. The lie was blatant: the barristers knew it was a lie and, as soon as I heard it, I did too. After Jim’s hearing had ended and the Mohammedans had left for a lunch of dhaal, I took the opportunity to go over and inform them of the practice of Tacquiya, a tenet of the religion that permits the believer to lie to the Infidel, they admitted that they had never heard of it. I suggested they look it up and bear it in mind during the course of any future dealings with such a protected class of client.
3. The chief magistrate was polite, empathetic and fully-engaged with Jim’s legal points and for that, I salute him.
