Clamped!

Marlow

Anan1 wrote: »

That's not how it looks from reading this thread. The OP arrived with no coins, parked the car, and came back 20 minutes later to a clamp. Putting aside for a moment the idea that if you want to buy a service then you should have payment ready, are you really trying to argue that 20 minutes isn't excessive?

I think I've made my point very clearly above. No need to start that discussion up again.

I consider a 30 minute grace period as also used as free parking period for other car parks in Ireland as adequate. That would cover all eventualities.

Why are you going in circles ? I've answered this question more than once throughout the thread.

/M

Anan1

Marlow wrote: »

I think I've made my point very clearly above. No need to start that discussion up again.

I consider a 30 minute grace period as also used as free parking period for other car parks in Ireland as adequate. That would cover all eventualities.

/M

One more question. Why do you think that you, and not the owner of the car park, should get to decide on how they charge for the use of their land?

Stark

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

At the end of the day, pay for your parking and abide by the rules of the person that owns the car park and it doesnt matter if the clamping release fee is €10 or €10000

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Marlow

Anan1 wrote: »

One more question. Why do you think that you, and not the owner of the car park, should get to decide on how they charge for the use of their land?

Also this, I have answered.

Marlow wrote: »

Get a judgement on what they're allowed to do or not. Lobby for a law that backs up what they do (or not) and then stick to that.

Have a appeals process, that is handled by somebody independant.

Until those are in place it's a money making racket and extortion. It has all been discussed in the thread and the relevant legislation that makes their actions questionable has been quoted.

/M

I'm not saying that I'm to make the judgement. I've stated:

Marlow wrote: »

Until those are in place it's a money making racket and extortion. It has all been discussed in the thread and the relevant legislation that makes their actions questionable has been quoted.

Marlow wrote:

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

At the end of the day, pay for your parking and abide by the rules of the person that owns the car park and it doesnt matter if the clamping release fee is €10 or €10000

Sure. And if you don't need the clamp released, then you pay no release fee. Like in the case of the OP archieved, fair play to those that helped. Hence there's also no comeback by the NCPS. They know it as well.

And you can hardly deny, that that isn't the case.

/M

Anan1

Marlow wrote: »

Also this, I have answered.



I'm not saying that I'm to make the judgement. I've stated:





And you can hardly deny, that that isn't the case.

/M

We're both in favour of regulation and an independent appeals process, so that's not an issue. Where we differ is in your complete disregard for the rights of the landowner. The OP was clamped because, and only because, they parked on private property without paying. No amount of waffle about the legality or otherwise of clamping can obscure this simple fact.

Stark

And the landowner/clamper decided the punishment with no law whatsoever to back them up. If the landowner slashed the person's tyres in order to cause inconvenience and expense, we'd be singing a different tune. It's only because people are seeing the council guys going around with the yellow boots that it's considered anyway acceptable.

Marlow

Anan1 wrote: »

We're both in favour of regulation and an independent appeals process, so that's not an issue. Where we differ is in your complete disregard for the rights of the landowner. The OP was clamped because, and only because, they parked on private property without paying. No amount of waffle about the legality or otherwise of clamping can obscure this simple fact.

Wrong. He paid. It just took him some time to make that payment. And this was only because a) there isn't enough grace period in the case of having to pay in advance with a limited amount of payment types or b) no possibility of paying at exit.

If the machines took debit/credit cards, then this could be avoided. If they took notes, this could most likely also be avoided. If you paid on exit, this could also be avoided.

If the landowner gives limited choices of payment, then an adequate grace period will have be calculated in calculation ALL eventualities in. That includes a walk to the bank and getting money from a teller. The landowner can also calculate how long it takes to get money.

If it takes 20 minutes to get to the bank and back, then 30 minutes is a minimum. The landowner knows the area, too. Lack of foresight.

/M

Anan1

Stark wrote: »

And the landowner/clamper decided the punishment with no law whatsoever to back them up. If the landowner slashed the person's tyres in order to cause inconvenience and expense, we'd be singing a different tune. It's only because people are seeing the council guys going around with the yellow boots that it's considered anyway acceptable.

Let us pretend for a moment that we all agree that every clamper in the country is a complete and utter scumbag with no other aim in life but to make the motorist miserable. Even then, the OP would still have deserved to be clamped, because they parked on private property without paying. It seems to me that you're trying to use your dislike of clampers as a smokescreen to mask the OP's abuse of another man's property.

Marlow

Anan1 wrote: »

Even then, the OP would still have deserved to be clamped, because they parked on private property without paying.

Why do you maintain, that he didn't pay? He paid. It just took him 20 minutes to get the money to pay for the ticket.

/M

Anan1

Marlow wrote: »

Wrong. He paid. It just took him some time to make that payment. And this was only because a) there isn't enough grace period in the case of having to pay in advance with a limited amount of payment types or b) no possibility of paying at exit.

If the machines took debit/credit cards, then this could be avoided. If they took notes, this could most likely also be avoided. If you paid on exit, this could also be avoided.

If the landowner gives limited choices of payment, then an adequate grace period will have be calculated in calculation ALL eventualities in. That includes a walk to the bank and getting money from a teller. The landowner can also calculate how long it takes to get money.

If it takes 20 minutes to get to the bank and back, then 30 minutes is a minimum. The landowner knows the area, too. Lack of foresight.

/M

The OP parked with no coins, and you're accusing the landowner of lack of foresight?

Marlow wrote: »

Why do you maintain, that he didn't pay? He paid. It just took him 20 minutes to get the money to pay for the ticket.

/M

That's not how it works, hence the clamp.

Stark

Anan1 wrote:

Let us pretend for a moment that we all agree that every clamper in the country is a complete and utter scumbag with no other aim in life but to make the motorist miserable.

Which they are and judging from the reactions of people to the clamping story, no amount of "you all get what you deserve" posting is going to save their reputations.

Anan1 wrote: »

It seems to me that you're trying to use your dislike of clampers as a smokescreen to mask the OP's abuse of another man's property.

And exactly how did he abuse another man's property? Did he somehow cause €120 worth of damage to another man's land by being twenty minutes late paying?

Guy:Incognito

Marlow wrote: »

Why do you maintain, that he didn't pay. He paid. It just took him 20 minutes to get the money to pay for the ticket.

/M

The OP reads like he didnt buy the ticket

God Father wrote: »

Feel screwed as was only gone up to the bank up the street to get money out and came back with change then to buy a ticket, but was clamped by then time I got back circa 20mins later..

Whos to say he didnt decide further on to just say he bought a ticket or to actually go buy a ticket in the mistaken belief that he could claim he had a ticket all along and was clamped in error? Your taking the word of an anonymous person on the internet that was tryign to build a case for themsleves beign wronged.

Stark wrote: »

And exactly how did he abuse another man's property? Did he somehow cause €120 worth of damage to another man's land by being twenty minutes late paying?

The other man sets out rules by which you can use his property. Anything that doesnt conform to that is abuseing his rules.
You set the rules on your property, leave him to set his rules and if either of you dont agree with the other, dont visit each other.

Marlow

Anan1 wrote: »

The OP parked with no coins, and you're accusing the landowner of lack of foresight?

Correct. Because the landowner KNOWS, what methods of payments he takes and how the area is layed out. He can make an educated estimation of the time it takes to pay.

Somebody that arrives in the parking lot has no clue what they need for payment until they get to the machine. Then they have to make alternative plans for organising payment, if they don't have adequate payment.

Anan1 wrote: »

That's not how it works, hence the clamp.

And in a fair world, the clamp would be released for free or a very minimal fee, if a ticket is produced, that is about the same or before the time the clamp was affixed. 90 EUR, which is more than 1 days worth of fees is extortion, because the car obviously hasn't been there that long, nor does it cost the clamping company that much to pay their personell for the time to clamp a car.

/M

Stark

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

The other man sets out rules by which you can use his property. Anything that doesnt conform to that is abuseing his rules.
You set the rules on your property, leave him to set his rules and if either of you dont agree with the other, dont visit each other.

So I can extort as much money as I like from anyone who calls to my door then? Next caller gets charged a €10000 release fee for calling without permission?

Anan1

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

The other man sets out rules by which you can use his property. Anything that doesnt conform to that is abuseing his rules.
You set the rules on your property, leave him to set his rules and if either of you dont agree with the other, dont visit each other.

Honestly, what part of this do people not get? The sense of entitlement is breathtaking.

Stark

Anan1 wrote: »

Honestly, what part of this do people not get? The sense of entitlement is breathtaking.

The part about landowners getting to flout the law by inventing punishments.

Marlow

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

The OP reads like he didnt buy the ticket

Marlow wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79292952&postcount=11

As he states, he went back (from getting change) to buy the ticket as soon as he could. Then found his car clamped. Yes, he has a ticket. That's also been stated several times later in the thread.

You still haven't read the whole thread. This has been more thoroughly explained later on. I just gave you one quote as you were too lazy to read the whole thread and you weren't believing me.

/M

Anan1

Stark wrote: »

The part about landowners getting to flout the law.

The OP would never have been clamped had he respected the landowner's rules.

Guy:Incognito

Marlow wrote: »

You still haven't read the whole thread. This has been more thoroughly explained later on. I just gave you one quote as you were too lazy to read the whole thread and you weren't believing me.

/M

For someone throwing aroudn the lazy readign card, you cant have read all of my post, here, I'll give you a quote because your being too lazy

Guy:incognito wrote: »

Whos to say he didnt decide further on to just say he bought a ticket or to actually go buy a ticket in the mistaken belief that he could claim he had a ticket all along and was clamped in error? Your taking the word of an anonymous person on the internet that was tryign to build a case for themsleves beign wronged.

Stark

Anan1 wrote:

The OP would never have been clamped had he respected the landowner's rules.

Rules that are in many cases unclear and provide no option for appeal of the punishment because no law exists for the punishment. And you expect people to respect such thuggery.

The legal option of a barrier system already exists for controlling how long people can park for. But you're trying to justify the landowner instead hiring thugs to extort money far in excess of money lost from parking too long in order to save a few quid for themselves.

Anan1

Stark wrote: »

Rules that are in many cases unclear and provide no option for appeal of the punishment because no law exists for the punishment. And you expect people to respect such thuggery.

The legal option of a barrier system already exists for controlling how long people can park for. But you're trying to justify the landowner instead hiring thugs to extort money from people in order to save a few quid.

I'll say it again. The OP was clamped because they didn't pay.

senordingdong

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

no sortin out needed lad but i wouldnt say no to a pint if i see ya out some night

Thanks for the step by step photos...but one thing I can't figure out is how did you get the wheel off when the clamp was blocking the nuts & bolts?

Dartz

Thugs are cheaper and require less maintenance and no planning permission.

Marlow

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

For someone throwing aroudn the lazy readign card, you cant have read all of my post, here, I'll give you a quote because your being too lazy

You're making assumptions. I know a few of the people involved personally to take their judgement for good.

The issue at hand is NOT the OP. It's the clamping racket and the lack of regulation and appeals process. The overcharging to get the clamp removed.

If an appeals process was in place and removing the clamp wasn't charged as it is, none of this would be an issue.

/M

Guy:Incognito

Stark wrote: »

Rules that are in many cases unclear and provide no option for appeal of the punishment because no law exists for the punishment. And you expect people to respect such thuggery.
.

The rules are very clear and the OP knew them. You turn up, you park, you buy a ticket at the machine.

Anan1

Marlow wrote: »

The issue at hand is NOT the OP. It's the clamping racket and the lack of regulation and appeals process. The overcharging to get the clamp removed.

Yes it is. The OP got themselves clamped.

Marlow wrote: »

If an appeals process was in place and removing the clamp wasn't charged as it is, none of this would be an issue.

/M

The OP would still have been clamped, no?

Marlow

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

The rules are very clear and the OP knew them. You turn up, you park, you buy a ticket at the machine.

And if the machine is bust ? And if the machine doesn't take the payment that is required ?

Again, lack of grace period. The only one that knows ALL the factors is the landowner and the grace period has to be calculated on those.

/M

Guy:Incognito

Marlow wrote: »

And if the machine is bust ? And if the machine doesn't take the payment that is required ?

Again, lack of grace period. The only one that knows ALL the factors is the landowner and the grace period has to be calculated on those.

/M

The machine wasnt broken from what I see and it takes the payment the owner wants it to take.

The owner doesnt want a grace period then sobeit. Thats their choice. They provide the machine and the carpark, if people dont want to use them the way the owner want, go elsewhere. No one is forced to use the carpark. This is not a mandatory public service, its a business offered that the op availed of, but didnt do so by the rules.

Marlow

Anan1 wrote: »

Yes it is. The OP got themselves clamped.

The OP would still have been clamped, no?

That depends on what the rules and the appeals process say. Speculation. He might, he might not.

I maintain though, that if an appeals process was in place (by an independant entity) and the ticket was on the exact or a time before the clamping being affixed he would get his clamp removed for free or his money back.

/M

lostboy

Gary ITR wrote: »

Thread deceased

this.

Anan1

Marlow wrote: »

And if the machine is bust ? And if the machine doesn't take the payment that is required ?

Again, lack of grace period. The only one that knows ALL the factors is the landowner and the grace period has to be calculated on those.

/M

But the machine wasn't broken. The OP just didn't bring any change.

Marlow wrote: »

That depends on what the rules and the appeals process say. Speculation. He might, he might not.

I maintain though, that if an appeals process was in place (by an independant entity) and the ticket was on the exact or a time before the clamping being affixed he would get his clamp removed for free or his money back.

/M

OP left the car without a ticket for 20 minutes. Even the most lax of regimes won't cover that, even if you think it should.

Marlow

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

The machine wasnt broken from what I see and it takes the payment the owner wants it to take.

The owner doesnt want a grace period then sobeit. Thats their choice. They provide the machine and the carpark, if people dont want to use them the way the owner want, go elsewhere. No one is forced to use the carpark. This is not a mandatory public service, its a business offered that the op availed of, but didnt do so by the rules.

Rules that are not backed up by law, hence can't be enforced legally.

Anan1 wrote: »

But the machine wasn't broken. The OP just didn't bring any change.

And you expect anyone, that comes from the outside of Naas, if they know the area or not, always to run around with change ?

That's not very business minded from the landowners perspective. Unless he's counting on income from the clamping, of course. But then it's a racket again.

/M

Guy:Incognito

Marlow wrote: »

Rules that are not backed up by law, hence can't be enforced legally.

So why bother paying for parkign in any carpark then, just tell the owners to **** off.
Sure its only their land they paid for, who are they to tell you how to use it.

Anan1

Marlow wrote: »

And you expect anyone, that comes from the outside of Naas, if they know the area or not, always to run around with change ?

That's not very business minded from the landowners perspective. Unless he's counting on income from the clamping, of course. But then it's a racket again.

/M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=409Pjtq7jzY

Guy:Incognito

Marlow wrote: »

And you expect anyone, that comes from the outside of Naas, if they know the area or not, always to run around with change ?

That's not very business minded from the landowners perspective. Unless he's counting on income from the clamping, of course. But then it's a racket again.

/M

Even if they didnt , they can head off to a shop or the garage there on the dublin road beside tesco that I'm sure will let you park on their forecourt while you buy somethign to get change.
Abandoning the car without paying isnt the way to do it though. You may as well ditch it on the double yellows outside the bank.

Dionysius2

Wonderfully informative thread. Many thanks to all those who spelled out that clampers and their employers are pure chancers. I never intend to pay a clamping fee again. I have paid three in the past 7 years but never ever again. I know I'm not a bad motorist because with all the other hardpressed motorists I'm just about carrying the economy on my back with all those fees and taxes that punish us every day of the week.

Marlow

Anan1 wrote: »

But the machine wasn't broken. The OP just didn't bring any change.OP left the car without a ticket for 20 minutes. Even the most lax of regimes won't cover that, even if you think it should.

The landowner still has to account for these eventualities. He knows the surrounds. The people parking there don't until they get out of the car and to the parking machine.

It's bad business practice. As a service provider you need to calculate all eventualities. I believe you have never heard of the term "customer is king".

/M

Guy:Incognito

Marlow wrote: »

The landowner still has to account for these eventualities. He knows the surrounds. The people parking there don't until they get out of the car and to the parking machine.
".

/M

No he doesnt. He doesnt have to account for anything. If he wants the machine to only work off 1794 flowing hair dollars then thats his choice.

Just like selling Mars bars for €400 , he's free to pratice business badly if he wants.

Marlow

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Even if they didnt , they can head off to a shop or the garage there on the dublin road beside tesco that I'm sure will let you park on their forecourt while you buy somethign to get change.
Abandoning the car without paying isnt the way to do it though. You may as well ditch it on the double yellows outside the bank.

So you think it's a great idea to be in the way of other people in a forecourt or double yellows instead of parking your car safely in a car parking spot to sort out the payment whatever time it may take.

That's very considerate of you.

/M

Anan1

Marlow wrote: »

The landowner still has to account for these eventualities. He knows the surrounds. The people parking there don't until they get out of the car and to the parking machine.

No, the customer has to account for these eventualities. The landowner provides the space, the customer pays for it. If you want to buy, you bring money.

Marlow wrote: »

It's bad business practice. As a service provider you need to calculate all eventualities. I believe you have never heard of the term "customer is king".

/M

That's your idea of how it should be, and that's fair enough. But the landowner gets to decide how it is. If the customer doesn't like it, then they're free to park elsewhere.

Guy:Incognito

Marlow wrote: »

So you think it's a great idea to be in the way of other people in a forecourt or double yellows instead of parking your car safely in a car parking spot to sort out the payment whatever time it may take.

That's very considerate of you.

/M

How are you in the way on a forecourt, its for customers, which you would be while buyign something to get change to go park properly in the pay and display carpark.

Again, if your not playing by the owners rules anyway, why bother paying for parking in the first place?

Marlow

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

No he doesnt. He doesnt have to account for anything. If he wants the machine to only work off 1794 flowing hair dollars then thats his choice.

Just like selling Mars bars for €400 , he's free to pratice business badly if he wants.

Sure. And the repercussions from running a bad practice business, like he does when he employs clampers is that he doesn't have the law on his side.

Which leads to a bunch of friendly people from the internet to ensure, that he is not able to get money from his racket.

/M

Guy:Incognito

Marlow wrote: »

Sure. And the repercussions from running a bad practice business, like he does when he employs clampers is that he doesn't have the law on his side.

Which leads to a bunch of friendly people from the internet to ensure, that he is not able to get money from his racket.

/M

So why bother paying for parkign at all?

Marlow

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

How are you in the way on a forecourt, its for customers, which you would be while buyign something to get change to go park properly in the pay and display carpark.

Have you sized up the forecourt opposed to the carpark ? How many people lacking change does it take to clogg up the forecourt ? Opposed to parking in the carpark and sorting payment then ?

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Again, if your not playing by the owners rules anyway, why bother paying for parking in the first place?

That's not an issue here. The op stated he paid for the parking ticket.

/M

Stark

Marlow wrote: »

Which leads to a bunch of friendly people from the internet to ensure, that he is not able to get money from his racket.

/M

Or in the Mars bar analogy, a friendly rival businessman offering to sell the customer a Mars bar for 90c thus saving the customer €400 in the process.

Guy:Incognito

Marlow wrote: »

Have you sized up the forecourt opposed to the carpark ? How many people lacking change does it take to clogg up the forecourt ?

Probably the same amount that would clog it up buying petrol. I'm sure the garage owner is happy of the business regardless.

Marlow wrote: »

That's not an issue here. The op stated he paid for the parking ticket.

/M

I'm talking in general . You seem fine with moving from this specific case to general ones so the question is valid. I was asking you, not the OP. Either way, are regardless of what he says later on, the OP reads like he didnt actually buy the ticket originally so I'll stick with that thanks

Stark wrote: »

Or in the Mars bar analogy, a friendly rival businessman offering to sell the customer a Mars bar for 90c thus saving the customer €400 in the process.

So your saying the lads did it for paid reward?

Anan1

Marlow wrote: »

Sure. And the repercussions from running a bad practice business, like he does when he employs clampers is that he doesn't have the law on his side.

Which leads to a bunch of friendly people from the internet to ensure, that he is not able to get money from his racket.

/M

Does the landowner get money from contract clamping? I don't know, but I don't think so. All the friendly internet people are doing is saving the OP the hassle of having to pay for parking.

brian plank

€400 mars bars

anyone who would try to justify an €80 fine for being 20 minutes late with a €1 payment is retarded. you wouldn't get that for murder in ireland :pac:

Stark

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So your saying the lads did it for paid reward?

The lads in this case didn't but when faced with the prospect of being offered a "release fee" for €120, it's a consumer's right to shop around for a better deal. Considering it is a release fee and not a fine after all, since a fine would you know, require some law to back it up.

Anan1 wrote:

Does the landowner get money from contract clamping? I don't know, but I don't think so. All the friendly internet people are doing is saving the OP the hassle of having to pay for parking.

And generating a bit of momentum that may result in finally seeing the vultures regulated.

Marlow

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Probably the same amount that would clog it up buying petrol. I'm sure the garage owner is happy of the business regardless.

What tells you, that the owner is getting business from people trying to change. And what margins he has on somebody buying a mars bar compared to somebody buying 70l of fuel ? While he's maybe loosing a few customers that would actually have spend money in the petrol station ?

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I'm talking in general . You seem fine with moving from this specific case to general ones so the question is valid. I was asking you, not the OP.

And this thread is about clamping, the lack of regulation, appeal and somebody who got clamped while he was out buying a ticket. Not somebody who didn't buy a ticket or how to get around to buy a ticket.

/M