B&Q Airside Clamping Their Customers Now

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122538144#Comment_122538144

They were a customer of Premier Inn, avoiding Premier Inn's pay car parking, when they were clamped.

Hence why them moaning at and blaming B&Q is absolutely ridiculous

Oscar_Madison

I know of a supermarket car park in the middle of a town with the same signs- parking space is limited hence the condition that you don’t leave the car park to go shopping elsewhere-otherwise no one would be able to shop at the supermarket - while I haven’t seen anyone clamped simply because it takes an age to queue to get into this car park at peak times the risk is always there that you will, if you leave on foot.

This example feels a bit like shooting fish in a barrel- probably loads of spaces available for customers- but still it’s their rules- only thing I’d say is parking companies really should plaster the place with signs saying don’t leave on foot or you’ll be clamped - the signs alone would likely be enough to deter most people - I hate this fcking sneaky small print sho1te many companies go on with -there would be a lot more compliance if they played fair - they’d still get their fees from the retail outlets

Sleeper12

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122538144#Comment_122538144

OP. Spent time in B&Q but then left the shopping area, crossed a public road and spent time in other businesses that provide their own carpark for their own customers. I can't stress this enough, there is a public road separating these two shopping areas. When all of these businesses close for Christmas day the road doesn't close because it's a public road. It's not a road belonging to the car park. These are two distinct shopping areas. Parking rules are clearly posted. In fact by law they can't clamp if the conditions aren't clearly posted. Clamping sign vanished one night outside the Watermill pub in Raheny Village. Absolutely no clamping was allowed until they replaced the sign a few days later. It vanished again a few days later😂

By parking in the B&Q car park OP agreed to the car park t&cs. Op Broke these t&cs. It's not B&Qs car park and they don't make the rules. Much as I don't like B&Q it is extremely unfair to mention them in the thread title.

While I feel sorry for op getting caught out, it was their own fault. Op I say this with total respect to you

carfinder

OP, you should make a data subject access request to Apcoa, B&Q and whoever runs the carpark. It will be interesting to note what cctv footage they have kept of you. Be sure to indentify yourself by reference to your car registration.

This could be a very interesting GDPR case study indeed!

Sleeper12

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122539258#Comment_122539258

I don't see how it's a GDPR issue. GDPR covers how your personal, private data, that identifies you, is stored & used. What personal information that identifies the OP would they hold on cameras? Reg plate isn't personal, private data. It's already in the public domain.

carfinder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122540585#Comment_122540585

It appears you don't know much about GDPR. Cctv footage of a person is personal data and is covered by GDPR.

The only reliable way for the car park operator to enforce their rule, is to record all vehicles parking and the movement of the vehicle driver once he or she exits the parked vehicle. Any person seen leaving the carpark will have to be identified as a vehicle driver (passengers can presumably go wherever they wish without worrying about the car being clamped) and the vehicle must be identified in order for the correct vehicle to be clamped so the enforcement personnel would need to have access to cctv footage to trace the movements of persons seen leaving the carpark.

Very Orwellian in its design and operation. The OP should be making data subject access requests as soon as possible

The Hill Billy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122540585#Comment_122540585

I think that the OP's claim that this is B&Q's issue is completely misguided, however, it is interesting from a GDPR perspective.

Specifically, how was the OP personally identified as having left the retail park, and by what means was the OP associated to the vehicle registration?

Sleeper12

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122541122#Comment_122541122

CCTV is used in stores to identify shoplifters. It can be used to follow shoplifters to their car.

CCTV in carparks can be used in the same way. They can be used to monitor people misuse of the car park or carpark rules. I still don't see the issue.

This is an extremely busy car park. There is often a tail back onto the public road. It would take several people to monitor the car park and follow 100s of drivers around all the different stores. It's not just B&Q. There are many large stores here as you would expect in a retail park. Don't you think it is much more likely that op possibly was seen putting goods into the car by the clamping companies and watched walking out of the car park.

Sleeper12

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122541195#Comment_122541195

Every parking space has its own ID number in most car parks. This doesn't mean it is visible but from car park control they all have ID. There would be no need to use Reg plates. Reg plates would be harder to read. "green saloon parked in C79" over the radio is all that's required. Having said that I'd think it more likely that clampers saw op get out of his car and immediately leave the car park to get coffee

elperello

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122541197#Comment_122541197

In this case the op didn't go into B&Q and make a purchase before leaving the car park.

If he he had he would be a customer and probably not have been clamped.

I have seen clampers in the UK parking their van out of sight and then lurking about watching for anyone parking and using pedestrian exits to other premises.

It's a bit of a cat and mouse game.

You either have your wits about you or avoid these places altogether.

Sleeper12

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122541417#Comment_122541417

I agree

I reread the thread. OP parked in the car park and immediately left, crossed the road and had coffee for 30 minutes in a totally different shopping area. I believe he said he was clamped by the time he returned & before he made a B&Q purchase

T-Maxx

So OP how's the appeal coming along?

elperello

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122541442#Comment_122541442

He should have done as another poster recommended and return the paint for refund.

The simple act of crossing the road apparently overrode his right as a customer to park there.

All legal but still hard to take.

A cautionary tale.

The Hill Billy

Thanks. My bad. I forgot that the OP was clamped and was thinking of an enforcement letter going to their home by post. Doh!

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122541442#Comment_122541442

Not sure it is particularly relevant whether the OP was clamped before or after they went to B&Q - it's reasonably trivial to spot someone parking up and leaving the site, but much harder to spot them returning to the retail park. Would be some burden to monitor the entire place to see if the OP returned to do shopping.

I hope the appeal works, given that the OP can seemingly produce evidence of a significant purchase at the time of the clamping, FWIW, even if I don't share the common dislike of the concept of clamping.

And also FWIW I hate that car park, mainly because of the design which seems almost to deliberately cause congestion.

Squatman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122480123#Comment_122480123

why would you think that?