Clamped!

Stark

Stark wrote: »

Getting away with something doesn't make it any less immoral.

So refusing to lift the barrier would be immoral

Stark wrote: »

How much did you charge? I'd have no problem saying to someone "give me what you owe me for parking". I would have a problem with refusing to give anyone and everyone regardless of their financial status, age or whatever their keys until they gave me €120 for going 10 minutes over on their ticket.

Can't remember tbh, it was back in 2001 I think, pre € days, IR£/hour or part of I think it might have been, not sure though. We allowed a 10 minute grace period before charging for the 2nd hour.

Anan1

MugMugs wrote: »

I don't agree with the process but if there was some sort of fairness in how its deployed I could be willing to accept it.

Do you think that there was some sort of fairness in how the OP was clamped?

Stark

Stark wrote: »

............

Presumably if you did try to charge a looney fine, the person would just have gone home and came back with a spare set of keys.

We'd would have blocked the car in with one or more other cars as required, when people came back we'd have to move a car or too to faciliate their exit, we only started moving cars once the parking fee was paid. Any car we didn't have the keys for would have been parked bumper to wall and another car blocking it in. We used to direct folks we didn't know not to park to the wall but to double park and leave their keys when getting their ticket, anyone who didn't fancy that (and there were many) were facilitated happily, as soon as they left on foot their car was blocked in.

Anan1

Stark wrote: »

And 20 minutes of parking without a ticket amounts to how much in unpaid parking fees exactly? Hardly deserving of a €120 punishment.

The OP chose to park in a car park where that was the penalty for not displaying a ticket. If they felt that €120 was an unreasonable penalty then they should have parked elsewhere.

Stark

RoverJames wrote: »

So refusing to lift the barrier would be immoral

Debatable but certainly on a far far smaller scale than extorting a week's rent out of someone and not even giving 10 mins grace.

RoverJames wrote: »

Can't remember tbh, it was back in 2001 I think, pre € days, IR£/hour or part of I think it might have been, not sure though. We allowed a 10 minute grace period before charging for the 2nd hour.

Fair enough. That's operating with common decency in mind.

Gary ITR

I think we should all discuss this over a few pints, first round is on the op

Marcusm

Gary ITR wrote: »

I think we should all discuss this over a few pints, first round is on the op

You might want to check in advance that he doesn't operate on the same basis as Her Majesty MugsMugs else you'll be settling the bill yourself; evidence to date not very encouraging.....:D

BUBBLE WRAP

Gary ITR wrote: »

I think we should all discuss this over a few pints, first round is on the op

Il get my coat.

sReq | uTeK

Anan1 wrote: »

The OP chose to park in a car park where that was the penalty for not displaying a ticket. If they felt that €120 was an unreasonable penalty then they should have parked elsewhere.

You argue purely for the sake of arguing.

Do you agree with clamping in general by the NCPS or APCOA?

Grolschevik

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

You argue purely for the sake of arguing.

Do you agree with clamping in general by the NCPS or APCOA?

And we're off again...

SilverBell

Grolschevik wrote: »

And we're off again...

"I came here for a good argument" ..:pac:

Sorry, back on topic!!:rolleyes:

Squ

Are there any other services people use without paying for? Or just parking?

If you dont have cash, dont use the service!

If the clampers had to listen to every sob story of no change and such, they'd never clamp anyone!




*Hmm disproving my own point there. Think i'll stop now.

MugMugs

Anan1 wrote: »

Do you think there might be some connection between my regularly throwing change into the ashtray and my never getting clamped?

Perhaps. Like I've said before though. I don't live my life on the principal of "what if"

Perhaps I should keep change in the ash tray, perhaps I shouldn't have bought at the height. Perhaps I should have taken that job in London. Retrospect is a great thing.

Maybe you don't park in clamping hot spots.

Anan1 wrote: »

Do you think that there was some sort of fairness in how the OP was clamped?

No, I don't. Whilst I agree with you in principal re regulation I think a clamp being put on after 20 minutes at the end of the business day (or as close as you can get) is taking the piss

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

You argue purely for the sake of arguing.

I disagree.

Anan1 is discussing a topic on a discussion forum. If he has a different opinion to you or I then so be it. That's what makes the world go around after all.

MugMugs

Gary ITR wrote: »

I think we should all discuss this over a few pints, first round is on the op

I can make Friday.

Dublin ?

I may also leave after the freebie :P

Anan1

MugMugs wrote: »

Perhaps. Like I've said before though. I don't live my life on the principal of "what if"

Perhaps I should keep change in the ash tray, perhaps I shouldn't have bought at the height. Perhaps I should have taken that job in London. Retrospect is a great thing.

Maybe you don't park in clamping hot spots.

Carrying change for parking isn't really a hindsight thing, anyone can start doing it and it'll start warding off clampers straight away.;)

MugMugs wrote: »

No, I don't. Whilst I agree with you in principal re regulation I think a clamp being put on after 20 minutes at the end of the business day (or as close as you can get) is taking the piss

Let's imagine that the car park owner had had big signs everywhere informing people that cars without a ticket would be clamped after 10 minutes, and that if they didn't like it not to park there, would it have been fair in your eyes to clamp the OP then?

fasttalkerchat

Anan1 wrote: »

Carrying change for parking isn't really a hindsight thing, anyone can start doing it and it'll start warding off clampers straight away.;)

And it weighs less than bolt cutters!

Shane732

Anan1 wrote: »

Carrying change for parking isn't really a hindsight thing, anyone can start doing it and it'll start warding off clampers straight away.;)

Let's imagine that the car park owner had had big signs everywhere informing people that cars without a ticket would be clamped after 10 minutes, and that if they didn't like it not to park there, would it have been fair in your eyes to clamp the OP then?

Sorry but I just can't take you seriously.

Would you mind confirming whether you have any conflict of interest in relation to this matter.

Shane732

Anan1 wrote: »

Let's imagine that the car park owner had had big signs everywhere informing people that cars without a ticket would be clamped after 10 minutes, and that if they didn't like it not to park there, would it have been fair in your eyes to clamp the OP then?

Why wouldn't the car park owner put up a barrier and also people to pay using debit/credit card?

MugMugs

Anan1 wrote: »

MugMugs wrote: »

Perhaps. Like I've said before though. I don't live my life on the principal of "what if"

Perhaps I should keep change in the ash tray, perhaps I shouldn't have bought at the height. Perhaps I should have taken that job in London. Retrospect is a great thing.

Maybe you don't park in clamping hot spots.

Carrying change for parking isn't really a hindsight thing, anyone can start doing it and it'll start warding off clampers straight away.;)

MugMugs wrote: »

No, I don't. Whilst I agree with you in principal re regulation I think a clamp being put on after 20 minutes at the end of the business day (or as close as you can get) is taking the piss

Let's imagine that the car park owner had had big signs everywhere informing people that cars without a ticket would be clamped after 10 minutes, and that if they didn't like it not to park there, would it have been fair in your eyes to clamp the OP then?

Well no. Statements of liability / disclaimers are useless. They're actually not worth the signs their printed on.

They're also generic and so overused that they're unconsciously disregarded. No matter what point you make here, I don't agree the OP was rightly clamped. It should be used as a final last resort not as a money spinner.

MugMugs

Shane732 wrote: »

Anan1 wrote: »

Carrying change for parking isn't really a hindsight thing, anyone can start doing it and it'll start warding off clampers straight away.;)

Let's imagine that the car park owner had had big signs everywhere informing people that cars without a ticket would be clamped after 10 minutes, and that if they didn't like it not to park there, would it have been fair in your eyes to clamp the OP then?

Sorry but I just can't take you seriously.

Would you mind confirming whether you have any conflict of interest in relation to this matter.

He has already answered a direct question on that.

Anan1

MugMugs wrote: »

Well no. Statements of liability / disclaimers are useless. They're actually not worth the signs their printed on.

They're also generic and so overused that they're unconsciously disregarded. No matter what point you make here, I don't agree the OP was rightly clamped. It should be used as a final last resort not as a money spinner.

Yeah well, at least we know exactly where we differ. Roll on regulation.

BUBBLE WRAP

Anan1 wrote: »

Yeah well, at least we know exactly where we differ. Roll on regulation.

HA!

MugMugs

BUBBLE WRAP wrote: »

Anan1 wrote: »

Yeah well, at least we know exactly where we differ. Roll on regulation.

HA!

Eh, constructive point there BW.

Jesus Shaves

Where is the off button

BUBBLE WRAP

MugMugs wrote: »

Eh, constructive point there BW.

Em ya..... His "roll on regulations" part of his post reminded me of the 14 and 15 year olds on facebook that say, "roll on friday, woop woop."

TestTransmission

Less of the personal comments towards specific users, there will be bans handed out

Stark

Anan1 wrote: »

Carrying change for parking isn't really a hindsight thing, anyone can start doing it and it'll start warding off clampers straight away.;)

Pretty expensive punishment for such a trivial mistake. Can you imagine the uproar if shops refused to allow people to leave without paying €120 if they forgot to bring change for their groceries? Oh yeah, the answer would be "don't shop anywhere and that won't happen to you" :rolleyes:

Stark

Stark wrote: »

Pretty expensive punishment for such a trivial mistake. Can you imagine the uproar if shops refused to allow people to leave without paying €120 if they forgot to bring change for their groceries? Oh yeah, the answer would be "don't shop anywhere and that won't happen to you" :rolleyes:

.... would the people have eaten the groceries? If not it's not remotely analogous to what happened here.

Stark

RoverJames wrote: »

.... would the people have eaten the groceries? If not it's not remotely analogous to what happened here.

I've seen people eating chocolate while standing in the queue for shopping. They get charged the price of the bar, not 120 times the price of the bar.

They get charged and they pay though
In your earlier post you mentioned them not having the change to pay. If they hadn't eaten the stuff and hadn't the cash to pay they'd just leave without it, quite simple really.

Marcusm

Shane732 wrote: »

Why wouldn't the car park owner put up a barrier and also people to pay using debit/credit card?

That's a much more significant investment in equipment and requirement to manage the car park. I'd imagine that the car park owner as fairly ow costs with clampers while people incur fines. Unless the gov't changes the law, the best way to get rd of them is to make it financially unviable by not incurring the fines!

Stark

Marcusm wrote: »

That's a much more significant investment in equipment and requirement to manage the car park. I'd imagine that the car park owner as fairly ow costs with clampers while people incur fines. Unless the gov't changes the law, the best way to get rd of them is to make it financially unviable by not incurring the fines!

Experience has shown they become more aggressive when their revenue streams start to dry up. There's a large financial incentive on their part to catch as many people out as possible and no regulation or comebacks. That's the issue.

Stark

RoverJames wrote: »

They get charged and they pay though
In your earlier post you mentioned them not having the change to pay. If they hadn't eaten the stuff and hadn't the cash to pay they'd just leave without it, quite simple really.

Your point? People should pay their debts. People shouldn't be subject to extortion based on someone's whim.

Shane732

Marcusm wrote: »

That's a much more significant investment in equipment and requirement to manage the car park. I'd imagine that the car park owner as fairly ow costs with clampers while people incur fines. Unless the gov't changes the law, the best way to get rd of them is to make it financially unviable by not incurring the fines!

Or taking the clamp off yourself.

Stark

Stark wrote: »

Your point?

Your grocery shopping example has no relevance whatsoever to this thread.

Head into your local Tesco tomorrow, munch a few bars and head up to the counter with the wrappers, when you get there tell the person at the till you've eaten them and have no change to pay, see what happens.

Stark

They'd probably tell me to walk over to the in store ATM or ask me to pay with a laser card or notes.

MugMugs

RoverJames wrote: »

Your grocery shopping example has no relevance whatsoever to this thread.

Head into your local Tesco tomorrow, munch a few bars and head up to the counter with the wrappers, when you get there tell the person at the till you've eaten them and have no change to pay, see what happens.

I believe that in a scenario such as this, it was the intention of the OP to surrender payment before leaving the store. Tesco being a competent company would clearly facilitate their customer in more ways than merely archaic systems where coins are the only accepted tender. I do not believe it fair to think that the OP was considering stealing from the owner of the parking area.

Stark

Stark wrote: »

They'd probably tell me to walk over to the in store ATM or ask me to pay with a laser card or notes.

So you actually would have the money on you to pay?

It's even less relevant than I initially thought.

Stark

RoverJames wrote: »

So you actually would have the money on you to pay?

It's even less relevant than I initially thought.

The OP had money too, just didn't have the change that was required so he had to get it. The intent was there to pay, but unlike a decent business owner such as Tesco who would have provided him with options to pay before going nuclear and calling the Guards or whatever, the owners of the particular car park went straight for the greedy option.

Went nuclear?

I thought the clampers clamped his car after it had been there 20 mins? Which isn't surprising as there is a clamping policy in operation.

The Gardai were notified as it was thought that the clamp was being damaged.

No clamping in operation and people take the p1ss, that's why it's in operation.

Stark

RoverJames wrote: »

No clamping in operation and people take the p1ss, that's why it's in operation.

There are options available such as car park barriers that don't mean people who didn't intend on taking the piss getting stung for the equivalent of a week's rent or 100 times the value of the "stolen" parking. It's just lazy business owners would prefer to go down the thuggery route for the sake of their own convenience.

Andy-Pandy

great thread, i read the first 33 pages and then skipped to the end, I presume the other 30 odd pages where more of the same and i didnt miss anything else.

Well done to all involved.

Stark

Stark wrote: »

There are options available such as car park barriers that don't mean people who didn't intend on taking the piss getting stung for the equivalent of a week's rent or 100 times the value of the "stolen" parking. It's just lazy business owners would prefer to go down the thuggery route for the sake of their own convenience.

Car park barriers aren't an option everywhere. There's a late night pharmacy near me, they have 4 to 6 spaces, there's a Chinese next door to them, a barrier wouldn't work at all. Parking is free for customers, signs up that non customers will get clamped. Whenever I visit that pharmacy I always get a space, great system.

No clamping signs up and the spaces would be full of p1sstakers me thinks.

Shane732

RoverJames wrote: »

Went nuclear?

I thought the clampers clamped his car after it had been there 20 mins? Which isn't surprising as there is a clamping policy in operation.

The Gardai were notified as it was thought that the clamp was being damaged.

No clamping in operation and people take the p1ss, that's why it's in operation.

Rover are you pro or anti clamping?

MugMugs

RoverJames wrote: »

Stark wrote: »

There are options available such as car park barriers that don't mean people who didn't intend on taking the piss getting stung for the equivalent of a week's rent or 100 times the value of the "stolen" parking. It's just lazy business owners would prefer to go down the thuggery route for the sake of their own convenience.

Car park barriers aren't an option everywhere. There's a late night pharmacy near me, they have 4 to 6 spaces, there's a Chinese next door to them, a barrier wouldn't work at all. Parking is free for customers, signs up that non customers will get clamped. Whenever I visit that pharmacy I always get a space, great system.

No clamping signs up and the spaces would be full of p1sstakers me thinks.

How do the clampers derive whom is a customer and who is not? Do the shops call it in?

Stark

There's a Chinese, a Londis, an Indian take away and a few other businesses down the road from me and no clamping and they manage fine. I'm sure people have parked in the spots in front on occasion and not bought anything but I'm not one to be bitter. There's no clamping in the Aldi or the pharmacy near by either and barring the occasional person I've seen park there and not buy anything, they don't have any problems.

MugMugs wrote:

How do the clampers derive whom is a customer and who is not? Do the shops call it in?

Presumably so. Which is probably somewhat better than the approach usually taken of giving the clampers the keys and saying "feast for yourselves lads" in that a customer who was clamped by mistake could ask the shop owner to release the clamp. I very rarely see people clamped when that system is in operation, usually because they're only looking out for people taking the mickey, rather than the clampers hanging around like vultures.

MugMugs

MugMugs wrote: »

How do the clampers derive whom is a customer and who is not? Do the shops call it in?

Not a clue. I only get Lemsips and what not in there

Damie

Shane732 wrote: »

Rover are you pro or anti clamping?

Pro argument tbf

dgt

Wow... Just wow. This is still going on

Edit: after 1000 posts! :eek:

hondasam

God Father wrote: »

NO I DIDN'T. Stop posting crap about me. I came back with change and bought a ticket.

hondasam wrote: »

Did you still buy the ticket even when you seen you were clamped?
How much is the car park?

Did you pay for the ticket ?