B&Q Airside Clamping Their Customers Now

In B&Q defence, they probably have nothing to do with the parking, just renting the unit from whoever owns the actual park.

I also DESPISE clampers, unless they are clamping non blue badge holders in disabled parking, or arseholes who need to take 2 spaces or park like a dick 😁.

Not defending Apcoa in any way, but it's not just outside B&Q you can get clamped, it's in the whole car park, (the sign you attached is closer to Woodies than it is B&Q) so if you parked up at Smyths you'd likely have had the same outcome, so you can't really blame B&Q. Likely a hangover of when The Wright Venue was there and people parking in the car park overnight.

had friends clamped using the car park after 6pm but not during the day…

The carpark of the hotel its in.

Going to more than one place at Airside is a nightmare due to multiple different carparks and different rules

You don't understand GDPR. And there's only a tiny chance you were even seen via a camera - most likely seen leaving by a clamper actually on the ground.

Small Claims registrar would not take the case.

That's not going to be possible.

Clamping was explicitly legalised by Shane Ross (unfortunately) and this is a clear cut case under it. Terms are posted clearly.

You would have gone bankrupt with all the costs against you by that stage (and the Court of Appeal is between those, and can and would refuse the case entirely, anyway)

An appeal isn't worth it in a clear cut case like this - they left the car park, for a reasonable time (business meeting) at that.

If there was any realistic appeal I'd be saying to do it, I particularly dislike APCOA out of the various clampers; but there isn't any. And they're barking up the wrong tree with annoying B&Q and going on about GDPR anyway.

You can appeal to Apcoa and when they deny your appeal escalate to the NTA.

Not sure you'll have much luck given that you've admitted to leaving the car park.

I never said the clamp would be justified without a purchase but what I meant was that they have a receipt from a purchase to prove that they parked for the purposes of making a purchase. The fact that the purchase was significant also would help to avoid any suggestion that they returned to the car, found it clamped so popped in and spent €5 on a small item to claim a legitimate purpose for parking there. Freely admitting to leaving to get a coffee is perhaps giving the car park operator an easy way to legitimise strict application of the T&Cs though.

Thats shocking. I accept that cars using the car park to go to city centre or airport should be clamped, but if you have a receipt showing you were a paying customer, I would fight it all the way. Even if it is just to inconvenience apcoa

Nonsense. Its a sharp practice for which Apcoa are well known. Their business model is almost built around people not fighting them and I have a lot of experience dealing with them in a previous job. I'd be shocked if the OP lost any proper appeal.

Its not even B&Qs carpark. They have no control over it whatsoever.

The shopping centre clamped you as you were not their customer, for a considerable period of time.

I would be astounded if you get anywhere with the appeal, as you don't even have your own basic facts right.

So basic as to be dangerously wrong, in convincing you it had any relevance here.

Your "expert" is also laughably wrong - suggesting that you take a supposed GDPR breach to Small Claims shows they know worse than nothing. Please don't consult them again, for your own sake.

You came here asking for help; and the multitudinous reasons you had no case for appeal were pointed out to you - its your problem if you don't like that.

Let's not get this wrong, Clampers are devils in society and somehow like ninjas in their effectiveness.

However you admit yourself that you left the car park to another premises (no Airside retail park) for a business meeting. They were well within their rights to clamp you as you did not follow the T&C's of parking in the retail park. It makes no difference how big the sign is, do you read every word of the the 50 pages of T&C's when you download an app on your phone, no course not, no one does. Is it a moral practice? No, but they have provided their conditions for parking in the car park which you broke so they are entitled to punish you for it.

As other's have said absolutely nothing to do with B&Q, they don't own the car park, your grievance is with the owners of the retail park.

return your paint to pay the fine. never shop there again. support local

They weren't a customer when they were clamped, they admitted they were in a meeting in a different location when they were clamped. They should of used that places car park but they chanced their arm and parked illegally in a different companies car park and got caught.

And when clamped, the OP wasn't even a customer of theirs!

Totally agree 100% Sleeper.

OP have you checked that the signage locations and number are to the correct standard?

No, the OP is the confused one.

Airside itself, as in from Smyths to B&Q, is one retail park and you can park anywhere in it.

If you walk out across to Hogs & Heifers, or Premier Inn, or on to the Swords Express, you'll be clamped

Confusion is pretty understandable when the address of Hogs and Heifer & Premier Inn is listed as Airside Retail Park.

It's an absurd situation.

Posters are saying they 'left' the retail park. They didn't.

You said: "Airside itself, as in from Smyths to B&Q, is one retail park and you can park anywhere in it."

These properties are in Airside retail park, so you can't park anywhere in it can you?

Yes, people need to watch out for the signs, to avoid falling foul of it, but it is an absurd situation.

It is in the retail park, as per its address. Therefore, they did not leave the retail park, they didn't go somewhere else, they were still in Airside Retail Park. It is factually false to state that they left the retail park.

The retail park has absurd parking rules and is split in two, and the OP fell foul of that absurd situation. But they did not leave the retail park.

Normally it would though.

Nothing "extremely pedantic" about pointing that out.

They are in "Airside Retail Park" but not "actually in the retail park" - read that back to yourself.

That is not normal. That is absurd.