Clamped!

Guy:Incognito

Stark wrote: »

Typical fine for NCT is between €80 and €150 and has to be imposed by a judge in a court. I've never heard of anyone being charged the full €2000. People are giving fair warning before it goes that far. It's in no way comparable to a randomer making up a ridiculous fine and using extortion to obtain it from you.

Typical fine my hole. You said the fine was €150 and I was makign figures up.

Stark wrote: »

It's €150 for not having your NCT disc displayed. You can't just make up silly figures when you actually need to pass laws in order to enforce them.

colm_mcm

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

https://maps.google.ie/maps?q=dublin+road,+naas&hl=en&ll=53.22099,-6.658459&spn=0.001457,0.003731&sll=53.344104,-6.267494&sspn=0.371809,0.955124&t=h&hnear=Dublin+Rd,+Naas,+County+Kildare&z=19&layer=c&cbll=53.22099,-6.658459&panoid=5dFZPb4QHl3xe1oa_IQe_g&cbp=12,155.77,,0,22.65

Is that the car park or another one?

That's the one i thought of. Hard to walk past your car to the machine and not see the clamp

Marlow

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Thats not a response thats you avoiding answering it. Why is charging for parking ok but charging for not paying for parking isnt?

Wheres the incentive to pay without clamping.

Obviously, you can't read.

Here the direct quote that was the answer to your question.

Marlow wrote: »

The op stated, he paid the fee. I'd pay the fee for parking, if there is one, as I use the service.

Marlow wrote: »

It's a matter of attitude.

The incentive to pay the fee is to be able to park there. If you need enforcement do it like a proper business man with a process that is easy to follow for your customer. Don't employ racketeers. Barriers are one way.

/M

Guy:Incognito

Marlow wrote: »

Obviously, you can't read.

Here the direct quote that was the answer to your question.





The incentive to pay the fee is to be able to park there. If you need enforcement do it like a proper business man with a process that is easy to follow for your customer. Don't employ racketeers. Barriers are one way.

/M

The question was why bother paying? Why would you pay parking if you dont recognise the consequences of not paying?

Surely if you hold the clampers in contempt , you have similar feeligns towards the person that employs them?
Why should they have to spend money fittign barriers when they dotn want to just because people wont respect their rules?

How is the incentive to be able to park there, when not paying and parking there anyway carries no consquences?

Anan1

Marlow wrote: »

Everybody, with the exception of you and 1 or 2 other people here in the thread and the clampers of course, are happy.

If by happy you mean happy with their fingers in their ears then yes, they are. If on the other hand you mean happy in the sense of being happy to expose their views to critical questioning then no, I don't think everybody's happy at all. It's hard to respect a viewpoint whose best response to challenge is 'shut up and go away'.

Stark

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Why should they have to spend money fittign barriers when they dotn want to just because people wont respect their rules?

Because the other options are operating outside the law and they have no right to complain when people lawfully refuse to pay the extornionists. There are advantages to hiring Mafia protection too but that doesn't make it right.

Anan1

Stark wrote: »

Because the other options are operating outside the law and they have no right to complain when people lawfully refuse to pay the extornionists. There are advantages to hiring Mafia protection too but that doesn't make it right.

Why would you park in a private car park and knowingly flout the owner's rules?

Marlow

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

How is the incentive to be able to park there, when not paying and parking there anyway carries no consquences?

Why does everything have consequences ? Somebody provides a service, you pay for the service. If everybody was acting fair, there was no need for enforcement.

Paying at exit is much more convenient for the person using the service, because they don't have to make up their mind before entering the carpark how to pay for the service, nor how long they want to stay.

The service provider gets their money guaranteed without having to pay anybody for enforcement. Just a matter of an initial investment, which pays for itself within a reasonable timeframe.

Pay and display on the other hand is the most hassleful way and general bordering on a scam. Simply because you have to decide how long you want to stay there in the first place. You then have to come back to get another ticket, if you decide to stay longer. And if you don't get back to your car in time or don't get a ticket in time, you get clamped and are required a fee, that doesn't scale at all to the parking fee.

In general pay and display is aimed at a quick buck. And as for the whole reason for this thread, legally more than vague when it comes to private pay and display, while publicly operated pay and display is legally very clearly regulated.

/M

Stark

Anan1 wrote: »

Why would you park in a private car park and knowingly flout the owner's rules?

Many people don't knowingly flout the rules. They err and get done for it. Why would anyone decide "oh you know what would be fun today? Getting myself clamped and paying people who I despise €120 for the possibility of saving a euro". Like Marlow said, punishing your customer because they didn't follow your rules to the letter isn't a good way of doing business.

Guy:Incognito

Stark wrote: »

Because the other options are operating outside the law and they have no right to complain when people lawfully refuse to pay the extornionists. There are advantages to hiring Mafia protection too but that doesn't make it right.

It all boils down to inconciderate people not able to park their cars with respect to the owners of the land.

How about that NCT thing?

MugMugs

Anan1 wrote: »

Stark wrote: »

Because the other options are operating outside the law and they have no right to complain when people lawfully refuse to pay the extornionists. There are advantages to hiring Mafia protection too but that doesn't make it right.

Why would you park in a private car park and knowingly flout the owner's rules?

Private car park? What about housing estates? Incidents where people are clamped in their own parking spaces?

Anan1

Stark wrote: »

Many people don't knowingly flout the rules. They err and get done for it.

The OP knowingly flouted the rules.

MugMugs wrote: »

Private car park? What about housing estates? Incidents where people are clamped in their own parking spaces?

What does this have to do with my question?

Drummerboy08

Lads, the last few pages of this thread is exactly why I don't post much in Motors anymore.

I got involved in removing this clamp earlier in the week, because I don't agree with how clampers go about their work. Not because the OP could or couldn't afford the parking ticket. I couldn't care less about that.

Nobody can disagree that the clampers are carrying out their business in a very underhanded manner at present. I was clamped very recently OUTSIDE MY OWN HOME because the CLAMPING COMPANY didn't send out the permit in time. That clamp was swiftly removed, and I am in the process of charging storage fees to the clamping company.

I am also very concerned that someone who most likely is not trained, nor insured to touch my vehicle in any way can and will do so.

If there was proper legislation brought in, and an assurance of a level of training for people who decide to become clampers is agreed upon, then I would have no problem with the practice.

So, lets get back to the point here, and come down off our high horses.

MugMugs

Anan1 wrote: »

Stark wrote: »

Many people don't knowingly flout the rules. They err and get done for it.

The OP knowingly flouted the rules.

That's a harsh statement. He went to.get change.

Guy:Incognito

MugMugs wrote: »

Private car park? What about housing estates? Incidents where people are clamped in their own parking spaces?

Did we not talk about that further up? Though you'll have to clarify the situation seeing as Stark and Marlow are moving the goalposts. Is the estate more than 50% still builder owned?

The people in the estate employ the clampers. They have the power to get rid of them.

Anan1

MugMugs wrote: »

That's a harsh statement. He went to.get change.

For 20 minutes? That's knowingly flouting the rules.

Guy:Incognito

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

So, lets get back to the point here, and come down off our high horses.

I'm amazed it took so long.

Stark

Care to justify the situation in Drummerboy's case of the clamping company clamping him because they didn't send out the permit in time? I suppose you expect him to just move out of home while he waits for them to get round to it.

MugMugs

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

MugMugs wrote: »

Private car park? What about housing estates? Incidents where people are clamped in their own parking spaces?

Did we not talk about that further up? Though you'll have to clarify the situation seeing as Stark and Marlow are moving the goalposts. Is the estate more than 50% still builder owned?

The people in the estate employ the clampers. They have the power to get rid of them.

Drummerboy just gave you an example. Also, not everybody in an estate owns their home therefore does not have a say on the board of the.management company.

Drummerboy08

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I'm amazed it took so long.

What took so long?

Guy:Incognito

MugMugs wrote: »

Drummerboy just gave you an example. Also, not everybody in an estate owns their home therefore does not have a say on the board of the.management company.

Someone owns the house. Are the landlords pro clampers?

MugMugs

Anan1 wrote: »

MugMugs wrote: »

That's a harsh statement. He went to.get change.

For 20 minutes? That's knowingly flouting the rules.

Perspective. Any amount of things could have presented themself to the OP in that time. It's not all as clear cut.

Are you a Clamper Anan1 ?

Stark

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Someone owns the house. Are the landlords pro clampers?

I sincerely hope that you're one day the victim of unfair clamping.

Guy:Incognito

Stark wrote: »

Care to justify the situation in Drummerboy's case of the clamping company clamping him because they didn't send out the permit in time? I suppose you expect him to just move out of home while he waits for them to get round to it.

Care to justify your post diving on me and claiming I made things up?

MugMugs

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

MugMugs wrote: »

Drummerboy just gave you an example. Also, not everybody in an estate owns their home therefore does not have a say on the board of the.management company.

Someone owns the house. Are the landlords pro clampers?

How pedantic is that statement?

Who cares what the landlords view is? They aren't the victim.

Guy:Incognito

Stark wrote: »

I sincerely hope that you're one day the victim of unfair clamping.

Whats that got to do with the homeowners employing the clampers and having the power to get rid of them?

The OP was not unfairly clamped either.

MugMugs wrote: »

How pedantic is that statement?
.

Not at all?

The peopel that own the estate want the clampers there. If your renting, dont rent somewhere that employs clampers if you dont want to. Theres no shortage of places to rent.

Anan1

Drummerboy - Do you honestly think that all clampers are the same, operating from some centralized bunker in the midlands? Has it ever occurred to you that just because you were clamped in the wrong it doesn't necessarily follow that the OP was too?

Bruthal

Anan1 wrote: »

For 20 minutes? That's knowingly flouting the rules.

His intention was to pay. It took 20 minutes. Not really flouting. How do we know the clampers will wait even 1 minute, or 5, or 10?

Anan1

MugMugs wrote: »

Are you a Clamper Anan1 ?

Is this a serious question?

robbie7730 wrote: »

His intention was to pay. It took 20 minutes. Not really flouting. How do we know the clampers will wait even 1 minute, or 5, or 10?

We all know they won't wait 20.

Guy:Incognito

MugMugs wrote: »

Perspective. Any amount of things could have presented themself to the OP in that time. It's not all as clear cut.
?

They didnt though. He chose to leave it there and go to the bank.

Stark

Anan1 wrote: »

Drummerboy - Do you honestly think that all clampers are the same, operating from some centralized bunker in the midlands? Has it ever occurred to you that just because you were clamped in the wrong it doesn't necessarily follow that the OP was too?

I'm sure the company you work for are all cuddly and friendly. Still operating in the illegal extortion business though. It's like listening to someone from charity X complaining to all and sundry that "our chuggers aren't like that".

Marlow

Anan1 wrote: »

Drummerboy - Do you honestly think that all clampers are the same, operating from some centralized bunker in the midlands? Has it ever occurred to you that just because you were clamped in the wrong it doesn't necessarily follow that the OP was too?

Well, in this very case both the OP and Drummerboy were clamped by the NCPS. But APCOA are actually worse as can be seen from various threads here and elsewhere.

Anan1 wrote: »

Is this a serious question?

Matter of fact, yes.

/M

MugMugs

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Stark wrote: »

I sincerely hope that you're one day the victim of unfair clamping.

Whats that got to do with the homeowners employing the clampers and having the power to get rid of them?

The OP was not unfairly clamped either.

MugMugs wrote: »

How pedantic is that statement?
.

Not at all?

The peopel that own the estate want the clampers there. If your renting, dont rent somewhere that employs clampers if you dont want to. Theres no shortage of places to rent.

And its so cut and dry isn't it? Why should you rent a home on the basis that you could be harrassed by a clamper? Why should you have to avoid them? If I.was renting a home frankly, is there a clamping service in operation would be the last thing going through my mind.

Drummerboy08

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Whats that got to do with the homeowners employing the clampers and having the power to get rid of them?

The OP was not unfairly clamped either.

To your first point, the clamping company are no longer employed in my estate, for various reasons. However, I had no say in this as I am only a tenant and do not have any contact with the management company.

To your second, I genuinely believe that the OP was clamped unfairly. To have a clamp on your car within twenty minutes of parking up smacks of greed an opportunism on the behalf of the clamping company.

IMO, there should be a grace period. Check the car, take note of the time, and details of the car and return 30 minutes later. If the car is still there with no ticket, then clamp away. If a ticket has been bought and is now on display then leave it alone.

That is the fair way of doing it, and will allow for people who genuinely have been caught short for change to go and get cash and return to pay for the parking.

MugMugs

Anan1 wrote: »

MugMugs wrote: »

Are you a Clamper Anan1 ?

Is this a serious question?

robbie7730 wrote: »

His intention was to pay. It took 20 minutes. Not really flouting. How do we know the clampers will wait even 1 minute, or 5, or 10?

We all know they won't wait 20.

It is, aye.

BUBBLE WRAP

Anan1 wrote: »

Is this a serious question?.

Is that your way of dodging the quistion?

Or are you going to answer it?

Bruthal

Anan1 wrote: »

We all know they won't wait 20.

Yes but if you have no change, and have to get some, and are delayed getting it, is that flouting the rules? As in intentionally not paying for parking?

Did the op deliberately not pay to park?

MugMugs

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

MugMugs wrote: »

Perspective. Any amount of things could have presented themself to the OP in that time. It's not all as clear cut.
?

They didnt though. He chose to leave it there and go to the bank.

He went to.get money to pay. Intent was there.

Guy:Incognito

MugMugs wrote: »

And its so cut and dry isn't it? Why should you rent a home on the basis that you could be harrassed by a clamper? Why should you have to avoid them? If I.was renting a home frankly, is there a clamping service in operation would be the last thing going through my mind.

Who said its on the basis of being harrassed. You dont agree with clamping as a rule, so dont rent a house that employs clampers , why would you?

Guy:Incognito

Your awfull quick to jump on people Stark, not so quick to admit when your wrong though, eh?

Stark wrote: »

Typical fine for NCT is between €80 and €150 and has to be imposed by a judge in a court. I've never heard of anyone being charged the full €2000. People are giving fair warning before it goes that far. It's in no way comparable to a randomer making up a ridiculous fine and using extortion to obtain it from you.

Typical fine my hole. You said the fine was €150 and I was makign figures up.

Stark wrote: »

It's €150 for not having your NCT disc displayed. You can't just make up silly figures when you actually need to pass laws in order to enforce them.

Stark

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

The peopel that own the estate want the clampers there. If your renting, dont rent somewhere that employs clampers if you dont want to. Theres no shortage of places to rent.

I moved out of the place I was renting as soon as the contract was up after the problems with the clampers. That you think it's okay for clampers to force people out of their homes speaks volumes. I suppose you work for them?

Anan1

Stark wrote: »

I'm sure the company you work for are all cuddly and friendly.

How about you - do you really think that i'm a clamper?

robbie7730 wrote: »

Yes but if you have no change, and have to get some, and are delayed getting it, is that flouting the rules? As in intentionally not paying for parking?

Did the op deliberately not pay to park?

Of course it is, you can't park without a ticket.

Guy:Incognito

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

IMO, there should be a grace period. Check the car, take note of the time, and details of the car and return 30 minutes later. If the car is still there with no ticket, then clamp away. If a ticket has been bought and is now on display then leave it alone.
.

Why though, why not 20 mins? We've already discussed it further back anyway. I've yet to see a situation where the machine is even 5 minutes away from the cars, nevermind 30.

The landowner could have made them give a grace period but didnt. His land, his rules.

MugMugs

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

MugMugs wrote: »

And its so cut and dry isn't it? Why should you rent a home on the basis that you could be harrassed by a clamper? Why should you have to avoid them? If I.was renting a home frankly, is there a clamping service in operation would be the last thing going through my mind.

Who said its on the basis of being harrassed. You dont agree with clamping as a rule, so dont rent a house that employs clampers , why would you?

Whose to say somebody considers this when renting? How can you justify a company disabling somebody's vehicle contrary toothed road traffic act in a housing estate where they pay their hard earned cash to live?

Drummerboy08

Anan1 wrote: »

Drummerboy - Do you honestly think that all clampers are the same, operating from some centralized bunker in the midlands? Has it ever occurred to you that just because you were clamped in the wrong it doesn't necessarily follow that the OP was too?

Do I honestly think that all private clamping companies are the same? Yes, I do.

Do I think that they all operate from a centralized bunker in the midlands? No, and it doesn't matter where they operate from.

I'm not stating that because I was clamped wrongly, that it must mean the OP was too. My opinion of the OP being clamped in the wrong was based on his comments here (mainly of how he was going to the bank to get cash and purchased a parking ticket on his return) and of actually speaking to him on the evening in question. He was a genuine young fella, and I don't think he was out to save himself a few quid on parking that day.

Stark

Marlow wrote: »

Well, in this very case both the OP and Drummerboy were clamped by the NCPS. But APCOA are actually worse as can be seen from various threads here and elsewhere.

I can just about tolerate NCPS but I won't shop anywhere where I see APCOA parking is in operation. No amount of apologists on boards is going to undo that sort of reputational damage.

Anan1 wrote:

How about you - do you really think that i'm a clamper?

I don't know. At least you're not as completely irrational as Guy:Incognito who seems to think it's acceptable to drive people out of their homes or clamp people as they're buying their tickets in the course of one's business.

Drummerboy08 wrote:

I'm not stating that because I was clamped wrongly, that it must mean the OP was too. My opinion of the OP being clamped in the wrong was based on his comments here (mainly of how he was going to the bank to get cash and purchased a parking ticket on his return) and of actually speaking to him on the evening in question. He was a genuine young fella, and I don't think he was out to save himself a few quid on parking that day.

^^ This

When you're faced with thugs who will go as far as making it impossible to live in certain areas without paying the equivalent of protection money then standing up to them is simply the right thing to do regardless of whether you feel individual victims deserved it or not.

Guy:Incognito

Stark wrote: »

I moved out of the place I was renting as soon as the contract was up after the problems with the clampers. That you think it's okay for clampers to force people out of their homes speaks volumes. I suppose you work for them?

Ah here. Force people from their homes? Theyre not the bloody black and tans. You do like the dramatics dont you?

Well you like to throw things out anyway, not so quick when proven wrong......

Anan1

MugMugs wrote: »

Whose to say somebody considers this when renting?

If i'm paying rent for a parking space then i'll want to know exactly what i'm paying for. Wouldn't you?

BUBBLE WRAP

Anan1 wrote: »

Is this a serious question?.

BUBBLE WRAP wrote: »

Is that your way of dodging the quistion?

Or are you going to answer it?

So, are you going to answer it?

MugMugs

Anan1 wrote: »

MugMugs wrote: »

Whose to say somebody considers this when renting?

If i'm paying rent for a parking space then i'll want to know exactly what i'm paying for. Wouldn't you?

You haven't answered my question