Cutting off a Clamp

Guy:Incognito

end of the road wrote: »

all opinion, i do believe the clamping companies get a percentage of the revenue but maybe they get a flat fea instead? either way its money going to a private firm when it doesn't need to

Some things are cheaper to run by having sub contractors, otherwise sub contracting wouldn't exist. The fact that the people doing the clamping don't get their payslips from the council is irrelevant.

Banjo String

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So the owners of the car parks should heed those signs on the cars of people breaking the rules they set out?

I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be 'the owners of the carparks' pondering whether or not it is worth risking the price of a clamp on a vehicle they really have no lawful right to interfere with.

If I owned a clamping firm, and I know a clamp, chain and padlock cost X amount. Then if I spotted a car where the ticket had lapsed by 10 mind etc, and if the owner of that car basically warned me that he reserved the right to forcibly remove, and couldn't guarantee that he wouldn't damage in doing so, my immobilising equipment, I would seriously question if it was worth my while. Especially as the whole legality of interfering with a privately owned vehicle is a grey area in the first place.

Like I said laws work both ways.

Guy:Incognito

Banjo String wrote: »

I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be 'the owners of the carparks' pondering whether or not it is worth risking the price of a clamp on a vehicle they really have no lawful right to interfere with.

If I owned a clamping firm, and I know a clamp, chain and padlock cost X amount. Then if I spotted a car where the ticket had lapsed by 10 mind etc, and if the owner of that car basically warned me that he reserved the right to forcibly remove, and couldn't guarantee that he wouldn't damage in doing so, my immobilising equipment, I would seriously question if it was worth my while. Especially as the whole legality of interfering with a privately owned vehicle is a grey area in the first place.

Like I said laws work both ways.

That's not the law working both ways, that's people being able to do what they like while using someone elses land (the car park) and the owner not being able to do anything to stop them. How is it fair when all the power is in the hands of someone else on your property?

end of the road

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Your making it prohibitively expensive meaning the owners will have effectively no power to stop people stealing his service he's providing if he has to chase 50 people a day through the courts for a tenner each.

no the state will be the only ones able to do the clamping

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

If it doesn't cost them extra it means they have staff sitting around doing nothing so can cut costs by getting rid so. Everything costs money.

no, they could have very few staff but could still do such a job

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Which is why its should be regulated and fines issued for people that do it.

or the council could be the clamper instead, outsourcing to private firms when theirs no need to means money going out of the council pot, they could then bring in fines which would go to the council only.

Guy:Incognito

donegal__road wrote: »

here is the issue I have with the clampers.

"the clampers" being all clampers? Dublin Clampers? This guy in particular?

Nothing stopping you setting up a company and tendering for the contract when it comes up.

end of the road

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Some things are cheaper to run by having sub contractors, otherwise sub contracting wouldn't exist.

it would exist, as their are services which require expertese that the state won't have, yes sometimes things will be cheeper to subcontract out but usually those are things the state want to get done on the cheep, and their are firms who will provide such services because its a few quid for them to which i don't blame them for taking the money

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

The fact that the people doing the clamping don't get their payslips from the council is irrelevant.

it is relevant as its money that could go into the council to create jobs. the council providing these services itself could also be cheeper then outsourcing if the council wanted, outsourcing money to private firms means money going out of the pot when theirs no need to

Guy:Incognito

end of the road wrote: »

no the state will be the only ones able to do the clamping

no, they could have very few staff but could still do such a job

or the council could be the clamper instead, outsourcing to private firms when theirs no need to means money going out of the council pot, they could then bring in fines which would go to the council only.

I thought "no more Quangos" was what people want.
Why do you think the state, who everyone bemoans and have a history of wasting huge sums of money would be better equipped to run it?

Are private parking fees even a matter of law or would it be a civil issue?

If the council thought they could make more money doing it themselves would they not already be doing so?

Banjo String

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

That's not the law working both ways, that's people being able to do what they like while using someone elses land (the car park) and the owner not being able to do anything to stop them. How is it fair when all the power is in the hands of someone else on your property?

People being able to do what they like? You mean like people placing equipment on your vehicle to prevent your freedom of movement, despite it being 'legally questionable'?

These people that place these clamps on cars then charge you a release fee of €95+ (irrelevant if you've stayed over 10mins/10 hrs or not paid at all). They also operate a system where the only method of paying them is by card, bbut paying by card adds an extra fiver to the bill?????

Gimme a break ffs.

Guy:Incognito

end of the road wrote: »

the council doing itself could also be cheeper then outsourcing if the council wanted, outsourcing money to private firms means money going out of the pot when theirs no need to

How do you know that? have you a detailed cost analysis done? The council obviously don't feel they can or they would. Why does sub contracting exist? Or are the council and clamping a special case?

Guy:Incognito

Banjo String wrote: »

People being able to do what they like? You mean like people placing equipment on your vehicle to prevent your freedom of movement, despite it being 'legally questionable'?

These people that place these clamps on cars then charge you a release fee of €95+ (irrelevant if you've stayed over 10mins/10 hrs or not paid at all. They also operate a system where the only method of paying them is by card, bbut paying by card adds an extra fiver to the bill.

Gimme a break ffs.

No one is forcing people to use their private land and break their rules. If the clampers were roaming the street and clamping you in your driveway youd have a point.

Whats the difference between the security gard in Tesco preventing my freedom of movement if I steal €20 of shopping and them clamping me for not paying for a service they have provided me? Other than the fact the Gards will turn up and arrest me if they ring about the goods but probably tell them to cop on about the parking. Why is it ok to steal a service?

end of the road wrote: »

it is relevant as its money that could go into the council to create jobs.

So people would lose their jobs with the clampers and get hired by the council. Whats the difference? Its not going to result in more jobs, just the same people being paid by a different company.

pablo128

Birroc wrote: »

Honest opinion? You're a prize prick. I got clamped once ever and I was seething. It took me an hour but I got it off with the help of a friend (long story). I threw the clamp in the boot, drove off and never heard a thing about it.

An hour to get it off, you say? Ok then, put yourself in the OPs position. Your at home, watching telly maybe, or reading the Evening Herald. Suddenly you hear a metal object outside your window getting hammered to fcuk. You look out, and it's some tosser outside taking off a clamp. You would normally go out and have a word, but there's a couple of them and they're well built. Now from experience you know it will take an hour of beating to get it off.
So, what's your next move?

Banjo String

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

No one is forcing people to use their private land and break their rules.

Privately owned land v privately owned property.

I can set rules regarding my vehicle and anything placed on it.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

If the clampers were roaming the street and clamping you in your driveway youd have a point.

My driveway/Tesco car park. Same difference. Warn them you'll not tolerate a clamp on your vehicle and it might make them think twice.

Guy:Incognito

Banjo String wrote: »

Privately owned land v privately owned property.

I can set rules regarding my vehicle and anything placed on it.


My driveway/Tesco car park. Same difference. Warn them you'll not tolerate a clamp on your vehicle and it might make them think twice.

Its not the same thing. You've taken you property and dumped it on theirs. You've denied them the use of their property (the car space). Why do you feel you can deny them but they cant deny you?

If Tesco dumped their delivery van in your driveway and headed off for a couple of hours for lunch, would that be ok?

Wilfork

Banjo String wrote: »

Privately owned land v privately owned property.

I can set rules regarding my vehicle and anything placed on it.


My driveway/Tesco car park. Same difference. Warn them you'll not tolerate a clamp on your vehicle and it might make them think twice.

I'm sorry but this is rubbish. If you are in a tesco carpark you are a licensee of tesco. If you don't act in accordance with the licence granted to you (eg park in the proper place) then you become a trespasser in law

Banjo String

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Its not the same thing. You've taken you property and dumped it on theirs. You've denied them the use of their property (the car space). Why do you feel you can deny them but they cant deny you?

a lapsed parking ticket doesn't amount to dumping on someone's property. If they want carparks to pay for themselves, operate a system like the square in tallaght. Ticket going in, place ticket in machine going out. Pay for the time spent rather than hoping to catch someone out by asking them to pay for the length of time they think they'll be gone for. Unforseen circumstances can and do happen. NCPS prey like blood suckers on these sort.

Lose a ticket? Pay a flat fee of a days parking (20€ or something)

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

If Tesco dumped their delivery van in your driveway and headed off for a couple of hours for lunch, would that be ok?

My driveway wasn't built for the purpose of members of the public to park in so this is a moot point.

dxhound2005

Banjo String wrote: »

a lapsed parking ticket doesn't amount to dumping on someone's property. If they want carparks to pay for themselves, operate a system like the square in tallaght. Ticket going in, place ticket in machine going out. Pay for the time spent rather than hoping to catch someone out by asking them to pay for the length of time they think they'll be gone for. Unforseen circumstances can and do happen. NCPS prey like blood suckers on these sort.

Lose a ticket? Pay a flat fee of a days parking (20€ or something)




My driveway wasn't built for the purpose of members of the public to park in so this is a moot point.

But you better put a notice up advising people what you will do to their car if they park there. Otherwise how will they know not to do it?

donegal__road

donegal__road wrote: »

here is the issue I have with the clampers.

Duck Turpin springs to mind.

Banjo String

dxhound2005 wrote: »

But you better put a notice up advising people what you will do to their car if they park there. Otherwise how will they know not to do it?

I wouldn't do anything to a car illegally parked in my driveway except call the guards to remove it. Because I know I'm not legally permitted to interfere/damage that vehicle. On my property or not

dxhound2005

Banjo String wrote: »

I wouldn't do anything to a car illegally parked in my driveway except call the guards to remove it. Because I know I'm not legally permitted to interfere/damage that vehicle. On my property or not

Why do you think it would be illegal for someone to park there?

Wilfork

Banjo String wrote: »

I wouldn't do anything to a car illegally parked in my driveway except call the guards to remove it. Because I know I'm not legally permitted to interfere/damage that vehicle. On my property or not

Actually you are allowed to use reasonable force to remove a trespasser from you property

Banjo String

Wilfork wrote: »

Actually you are allowed to use reasonable force to remove a trespasser from you property

Placing a clamp, impeding someone's freedom of movement is the exact opposite of this.

Banjo String

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Why do you think it would be illegal for someone to park there?

'Illegal' in the same sense that clamping companies think they can clamp you for being 'illegal parked'.

dxhound2005

Banjo String wrote: »

'Illegal' in the same sense that clamping companies think they can clamp you for being 'illegal parked'.

Do you think the Gardai would have the power to force the person using your driveway to move then? Would it not be a civil matter?

Wilfork

Banjo String wrote: »

Placing a clamp, impeding someone's freedom of movement is the exact opposite of this.

You claimed that you are not 'legally' allowed to interfere with their car at all, even if it was on your property. My point was that that isn't true

Guy:Incognito

Banjo String wrote: »

I wouldn't do anything to a car illegally parked in my driveway except call the guards to remove it. Because I know I'm not legally permitted to interfere/damage that vehicle. On my property or not

Do you reckon the guards will come out to to tesco if they ring and say someone overstayed their parking or didn't pay it? Unfortunately they don't have the same protection you do

Banjo String

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Do you think the Gardai would have the power to force the person using your driveway to move then? Would it not be a civil matter?

I don't know tbh. But I'd hazard a guess that they'd point me in the right direction.

This is a stupid comparison anyway , as anyone silly enough to mistake my driveway with a carpark deserves to be taken off the roads anyway.

SparkySpitfire

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

It probably means he is able to park on his own street rather than pushing his parking on to another street (which knocks on to the next and the next etc) because of hundreds of people ditching their cars and getting buses or walking to wok from his street.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

If I go to Tesco and steal my shopping is that using initiative too?

Do you have some sort of problem with me?

When did the guy who parked steal an item? He didn't "steal" anything, he didn't inconvenience anyone except busybodies whose study was so "disrupted" by the noise of the removal that they were already looking out the window to SEE the clamp being put ON. It doesn't add up.

The guy who parked, I have no opinion on. If he got away with it - yeah whatever. I don't see it as a reason to try it myself. If he didn't get away with it, I wouldn't feel sorry for him cos he'd have been asking for it.

The issue I have is with the nosey parker whose apparent problem with it was the NOISE yet now they have revealed their true gripe which is that they've to pay for a parking privilege that someone else took free advantage of.

At the end of the day, it's not their problem. If anything the problem was exacerbated by the effort to "right this wrong" and then coming to post about it on boards. Before the noise of the clamp being removed even began, they were able to look out the window and see the clamp being put on. That does not sound like a person who was so set upon doing their work that a short noise disruption would upset their working. They're only annoyed that the clampee was taking advantage. What I say, is why bother yourself over something that doesn't involve you? Why annoy yourself and put yourself through such a pointless exercise? If they were parked in his spot absolutely fair enough but in this situation just let it go.

Banjo String

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Do you reckon the guards will come out to to tesco if they ring and say someone overstayed their parking or didn't pay it? Unfortunately they don't have the same protection you do

No I stated in thread earlier that the clamper would have no more sway calling the guards for me removing his clamp, than I would calling them due to one being placed on the car to begin with.

Are you acknowledging that the clampers might be on dodgy ground placing a clamp on a car to begin with?

Wilfork

SparkySpitfire wrote: »

Do you have some sort of problem with me?

When did the guy who parked steal an item? He didn't "steal" anything, he didn't inconvenience anyone except busybodies whose study was so "disrupted" by the noise of the removal that they were already looking out the window to SEE the clamp being put ON. It doesn't add up.

The guy who parked, I have no opinion on. If he got away with it - yeah whatever. I don't see it as a reason to try it myself. If he didn't get away with it, I wouldn't feel sorry for him cos he'd have been asking for it.

The issue I have is with the nosey parker whose apparent problem with it was the NOISE yet now they have revealed their true gripe which is that they've to pay for a parking privilege that someone else took free advantage of.

At the end of the day, it's not their problem. If anything the problem was exacerbated by the effort to "right this wrong" and then coming to post about it on boards. Before the noise of the clamp being removed even began, they were able to look out the window and see the clamp being put on. That does not sound like a person who was so set upon doing their work that a short noise disruption would upset their working. They're only annoyed that the clampee was taking advantage. What I say, is why bother yourself over something that doesn't involve you? Why annoy yourself and put yourself through such a pointless exercise? If they were parked in his spot absolutely fair enough but in this situation just let it go.

I didn't say my sole reason for complaining was the noise and then later on reveal my "true gripe". In my very first post I said the apparent attitude of the car owner was an issue for me

SparkySpitfire

Wilfork wrote: »

I didn't say my sole reason for complaining was the noise and then later on reveal my "true gripe". In my very first post I said the apparent attitude of the car owner was an issue for me

So you did, apologies.